In May 2014 I visited Floors castle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floors_Castle

The family are much obliged to the Duke of Roxburghe for providing employment to one of my great uncles who lost and hand and an eye in WW1. His close family are still upset with all who travelled to Australia and made new lives for themselves. William stayed in Scotland. He would not have received any pension in Australia and his future was glum. He ended up head forester at Floors.

So I am visiting Floors with the family. I’m also an art academic. Wandering through the halls I find a map of the land of Roxburghe estate. It listed several thousand bottom farms and the same number of hill farms.

To me it was like looking at Hans Haacke’s work hung along side various masters. (Shapolsky et al. Manhattan Real Estate Holdings, A Real Time Social System, as of May 1, 1971, Haacke took on the real-estate holdings of one of New York City’s biggest slum landlords. The work exposed, through meticulous documentation and photographs, the questionable transactions of Harry Shapolsky’s real-estate business between 1951 and 1971. Haacke’s solo show at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, which was to include this work and which made an issue of the business and personal connections of the museum’s trustees, was cancelled on the grounds of artistic impropriety by the museum’s director six weeks before the opening. (Shapolsky was not such a trustee, although some have misunderstood the affair by assuming that he was.) Curator Edward Fry was consequently fired for his support of the work.) Wiki

I am absolutely sure what I was feeling wasn’t what the rest of the people were feeling.

So the other day I was reading about eagles.
“After this morning’s news (here) that eight young satellite-tagged golden eagles have ‘disappeared’ on grouse moors in the Monadhliath Mountains over the last five years, we thought it was time for another update. This time it’s called: ’40 eagles, 10 years, 0 prosecutions’.

36 of these 40 eagles have either been found dead on, or have ‘disappeared’ on, Scottish grouse moors. (The other 4 have either died or have ‘disappeared’ in other habitat types).

Three of these 40 eagles have ‘disappeared’ in 2016. So much for the grouse-shooting industry claiming that they’ve cleaned up their act and that persecution is a thing of the past. The tactics of how to kill an eagle have clearly changed (see here) but the persecution continues.” more..https://raptorpersecutionscotland.wordpress.com/2016/08/11/40-eagles-10-years-0-prosecutions/

then I read..
“Bring out the violins. The land reform programme announced last week by the Scottish government is the end of civilised life on Earth, if you believe the corporate press. In a country where 432 people own half the private rural land, all change is Stalinism. The Telegraph has published a string of dire warnings – insisting, for example, that deer stalking and grouse shooting could come to an end if business rates are introduced for sporting estates. Moved to tears yet?

Yes, sporting estates – where the richest people in Britain, or oil sheikhs and oligarchs from elsewhere, shoot grouse and stags – are exempt from business rates, a present from John Major’s government in 1994. David Cameron has been just as generous with our money: as he cuts essential services for the poor, he has almost doubled the public subsidy for English grouse moors, and frozen the price of shotgun licences, at a public cost of £17m a year.” more https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/03/landowners-scotland-britain-feudal-highland-spring

And then.. The great property swindle: why do so few people in Britain own so much of our land? http://www.newstatesman.com/life-and-society/2011/03/million-acres-land-ownership
“From being virtually the sole payers of such tax as was levied in 1873 (at fourpence in the 240p pound), the owners of Britain’s agricultural plot are now the beneficiaries of an annual subsidy that may run as high as £23,000 each, totalling between £3.5bn and £5bn a year. Urban dwellers, on the other hand, pay about £35bn in land-related taxes. Rural landowners receive a handout of roughly £83 per acre, while urban dwellers pay about £18,000 for each acre they hold, an average of £1,800 per dwelling, the average dwelling standing on one-tenth of an acre.”

“However, according to Andy Wightman, author of The Poor Had No Lawyers: Who Owns Scotland (And How They Got It), quoting figures from the Scottish government: “During the ten years from 2000 to 2009, the top 50 recipients of agricultural subsidy received £168m – an average of over £3.3m per farmer. Among the top 50 are some of Scotland’s wealthiest landowners, including the Earl of Moray, Leon Litchfield, the Earl of Seafield, Lord Inchcape, the Earl of Southesk, the Duke of Buccleuch, the Earl of Rosebery and the Duke of Roxburghe.”

Britain urgently needs land reform, but there is a problem. The “tenants” of between 30 and 50 per cent of the Home Island land mass are unknown.

And.. Chancellor’s Brexit pledge ‘not enough for Scotland’, says Finance Secretary Derek Mackay https://www.sundaypost.com/news/political-news/chancellors-brexit-pledge-not-enough-scotland-says-finance-secretary-derek-mackay/

So having chewed through a few figures.. think I have worked out why I was so pissed at Floors. I didn’t see the things they wanted me to see. Instead I saw the racehorses. And the chart that showed me why the hill farmers didn’t fly the saltire. They couldn’t. It isn’t their farm.

And so I find although I do love Scotland..there are niggles. I am Australian enough to be pissed at the home ownership problems. And artist enough to read a map on who was owned as art.

> Britain urgently needs land reform, but there is a problem. The “tenants” of between 30 and 50 per cent of the Home Island land mass are unknown.

Um, what is a tenant in this case? An owner, renter, squatter?

One problem I noted when looking at historical land ownership in Jamaica was that between 30 and 50 per cent of the land was owned by dead people, deceased estates.

mollwollfumble said:

> Britain urgently needs land reform, but there is a problem. The “tenants” of between 30 and 50 per cent of the Home Island land mass are unknown.

Um, what is a tenant in this case? An owner, renter, squatter?

One problem I noted when looking at historical land ownership in Jamaica was that between 30 and 50 per cent of the land was owned by dead people, deceased estates.

Renter. Having a quick google it looks like in some cases it can be handed to children to carry on. It can be taken off you when you fail or when someone decides they could make more money out of it some other way. There seems to be new laws about farmers being compensated for maintenance.

What’s the SNP position on so much of Scotland not being owned by the Scottish people?

Bubblecar said:

What’s the SNP position on so much of Scotland not being owned by the Scottish people?

Down dog……….

Bubblecar said:

What’s the SNP position on so much of Scotland not being owned by the Scottish people?

I’m not sure they are into it.

Warning, devil’s advocate mode.
I have trouble with people talking about Scotland as if it actually existed.

mollwollfumble said:

Warning, devil’s advocate mode.
I have trouble with people talking about Scotland as if it actually existed.

I feel the same about New Zealand.

Peak Warming Man said:

mollwollfumble said:

Warning, devil’s advocate mode.
I have trouble with people talking about Scotland as if it actually existed.

I feel the same about New Zealand.

and quince

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

mollwollfumble said:

Warning, devil’s advocate mode.
I have trouble with people talking about Scotland as if it actually existed.

I feel the same about New Zealand.

and quince

i’ll bring you one when my tree has them on.

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I feel the same about New Zealand.

and quince

i’ll bring you one when my tree has them on.

In a beautiful pea green boat, no doubt

mollwollfumble said:

Warning, devil’s advocate mode.
I have trouble with people talking about Scotland as if it actually existed.

the brigadoon thing?

sarahs mum said:

mollwollfumble said:

Warning, devil’s advocate mode.
I have trouble with people talking about Scotland as if it actually existed.

the brigadoon thing?

Not really, three reasons. One is that the ethnicity is practically the same as England especially for southern Scotland. A second is that in the dim distant past when Scotland was a country, ie prior to 1707, its southern border used to fluctuate wildly in position. A third is, who cares about countries that haven’t existed for more than 300 years. ie countries that haven’t ever existed since the world political map looked like this.

Scotland has less right to recognition than, say, Schleswig-Holstein.

Oops, that world map was supposed to be 800*397 pixels, try again.

Scotland hasn’t existed since about the time of the above world political map.

mollwollfumble said:

sarahs mum said:

mollwollfumble said:

Warning, devil’s advocate mode.
I have trouble with people talking about Scotland as if it actually existed.

the brigadoon thing?

Not really, three reasons. One is that the ethnicity is practically the same as England especially for southern Scotland. A second is that in the dim distant past when Scotland was a country, ie prior to 1707, its southern border used to fluctuate wildly in position. A third is, who cares about countries that haven’t existed for more than 300 years. ie countries that haven’t ever existed since the world political map looked like this.

Scotland has less right to recognition than, say, Schleswig-Holstein.

I love that map.

There is that thing at Holyrood with elected people saying they represent Scotland.

Importantly. There is the Scotland of the mind. Although that is also a loopy thing because people who imagine Scotland, imagine the highlands. Yet while I was in Haddington and on my magical mystery of Cranston folk..I did begin to grok lowland identity.

magical mystery tour with Cranston folk..

…and a fair percentage of Scots are actually of Irish heritage; and that cannot be a good thing.

sibeen said:

…and a fair percentage of Scots are actually of Irish heritage; and that cannot be a good thing.

Goes the other way as well, the gallowglass were Scottish mercenaries hired by Irish kings.

sarahs mum said:

mollwollfumble said:

sarahs mum said:

the brigadoon thing?

Not really, three reasons. One is that the ethnicity is practically the same as England especially for southern Scotland. A second is that in the dim distant past when Scotland was a country, ie prior to 1707, its southern border used to fluctuate wildly in position. A third is, who cares about countries that haven’t existed for more than 300 years. ie countries that haven’t ever existed since the world political map looked like this.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/1700_CE_world_map.PNG

Scotland has less right to recognition than, say, Schleswig-Holstein.

I love that map.

There is that thing at Holyrood with elected people saying they represent Scotland.

Importantly. There is the Scotland of the mind. Although that is also a loopy thing because people who imagine Scotland, imagine the highlands. Yet while I was in Haddington and on my magical mystery of Cranston folk..I did begin to grok lowland identity.

Wow. Didn’t expect anyone to agree with me. Yes, the Scotland of the mind is the highlands and islands. Most Scottish, including my male line ancestors, are lowland stock. And as for borders changing, the Scottish town my ancestors came from is now on the English side of the border. (Berwick-upon-Tweed).

AwesomeO said:

sibeen said:

…and a fair percentage of Scots are actually of Irish heritage; and that cannot be a good thing.

Goes the other way as well, the gallowglass were Scottish mercenaries hired by Irish kings.

it isn’t far from Troon to Belfast.

Ive experienced this on M80 Western Ring Road and takes a good few minutes to get back to 100

Wow. Didn’t expect anyone to agree with me. Yes, the Scotland of the mind is the highlands and islands. Most Scottish, including my male line ancestors, are lowland stock. And as for borders changing, the Scottish town my ancestors came from is now on the English side of the border. (Berwick-upon-Tweed).

both of us agreeing with the anthropologists.

Newcastle on tyne murmur sometimes they would like to go with Scotland..so that part of the border is malleable in some brains.

My father’s father came from Barrhill/ Colmmonell area of Ayr. His mother’s folks from between Jedburgh and Musswelborough. After years of looking we finally traced one great great great grandmother to Aberdeen. So there is a tiny cut of highlander.

sarahs mum said:

After years of looking we finally traced one great great great grandmother to Aberdeen. So there is a tiny cut of highlander.

It was probably best not to know.

:)

sibeen said:

sarahs mum said:

After years of looking we finally traced one great great great grandmother to Aberdeen. So there is a tiny cut of highlander.

It was probably best not to know.

:)

I some ways you are right. But I appreciate knowing the real story even if it is Dickensian.

sarahs mum said:

Wow. Didn’t expect anyone to agree with me. Yes, the Scotland of the mind is the highlands and islands. Most Scottish, including my male line ancestors, are lowland stock. And as for borders changing, the Scottish town my ancestors came from is now on the English side of the border. (Berwick-upon-Tweed).

both of us agreeing with the anthropologists.

Newcastle on tyne murmur sometimes they would like to go with Scotland..so that part of the border is malleable in some brains.

My father’s father came from Barrhill/ Colmmonell area of Ayr. His mother’s folks from between Jedburgh and Musswelborough. After years of looking we finally traced one great great great grandmother to Aberdeen. So there is a tiny cut of highlander.

Essentially the same here, Berwick, Glasgow, Ferry port on Craig, Carnoustie, Dundee, Fifeshire, with just a touch of Inverness. For the Irish, throw in a Country Dublin and a County Derry.

mollwollfumble said:

sarahs mum said:

Wow. Didn’t expect anyone to agree with me. Yes, the Scotland of the mind is the highlands and islands. Most Scottish, including my male line ancestors, are lowland stock. And as for borders changing, the Scottish town my ancestors came from is now on the English side of the border. (Berwick-upon-Tweed).

both of us agreeing with the anthropologists.

Newcastle on tyne murmur sometimes they would like to go with Scotland..so that part of the border is malleable in some brains.

My father’s father came from Barrhill/ Colmmonell area of Ayr. His mother’s folks from between Jedburgh and Musswelborough. After years of looking we finally traced one great great great grandmother to Aberdeen. So there is a tiny cut of highlander.

Essentially the same here, Berwick, Glasgow, Ferry port on Craig, Carnoustie, Dundee, Fifeshire, with just a touch of Inverness. For the Irish, throw in a Country Dublin and a County Derry.

I have rellies living in Fife.

The Irish was on my mother’s side.I remember whenever I did something stupid Dad would mutter that that was the Riley coming out in me. I went to Ireland and tried to connect mentally and failed. I think it was smart to leave Ireland.(Mum’s folks entered Australia during the Victorian gold rush.)

sarahs mum said:

mollwollfumble said:

sarahs mum said:

Wow. Didn’t expect anyone to agree with me. Yes, the Scotland of the mind is the highlands and islands. Most Scottish, including my male line ancestors, are lowland stock. And as for borders changing, the Scottish town my ancestors came from is now on the English side of the border. (Berwick-upon-Tweed).

both of us agreeing with the anthropologists.

Newcastle on tyne murmur sometimes they would like to go with Scotland..so that part of the border is malleable in some brains.

My father’s father came from Barrhill/ Colmmonell area of Ayr. His mother’s folks from between Jedburgh and Musswelborough. After years of looking we finally traced one great great great grandmother to Aberdeen. So there is a tiny cut of highlander.

Essentially the same here, Berwick, Glasgow, Ferry port on Craig, Carnoustie, Dundee, Fifeshire, with just a touch of Inverness. For the Irish, throw in a Country Dublin and a County Derry.

I have rellies living in Fife.

The Irish was on my mother’s side.I remember whenever I did something stupid Dad would mutter that that was the Riley coming out in me. I went to Ireland and tried to connect mentally and failed. I think it was smart to leave Ireland.(Mum’s folks entered Australia during the Victorian gold rush.)

Victorian gold rush here, too.

I managed, surprisingly, to connect mentally with Wales. I don’t think it had anything to do with ancestry, more to do with growing up in New South Wales.

mollwollfumble said:

Scotland hasn’t existed since about the time of the above world political map.

Scotland is an existing country within the Uniting Kingdom, today.

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Scotland hasn’t existed since about the time of the above world political map.

Scotland is an existing country within the Uniting Kingdom, today.

I said that less eloquently.

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Scotland hasn’t existed since about the time of the above world political map.

Scotland is an existing country within the Uniting Kingdom, today.

I said that less eloquently.

UniTED Kingdom, fuck

dv said:

sarahs mum said:

dv said:

Scotland is an existing country within the Uniting Kingdom, today.

I said that less eloquently.

UniTED Kingdom, fuck

aaand sm wins the eloquence section

The sooner we get rid of countries the better. Then we can have World, Continent, State and Local governments, each doing what they do best.

None of that has anything to do with the historical and continuing culture of Scotland (or any other country), which will continue to thive and develop in its own unique way under the WCSL Government system.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The sooner we get rid of countries the better. Then we can have World, Continent, State and Local governments, each doing what they do best.

None of that has anything to do with the historical and continuing culture of Scotland (or any other country), which will continue to thive and develop in its own unique way under the WCSL Government system.

it would take decades just to figure out the legal system… no thanks

Arts said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The sooner we get rid of countries the better. Then we can have World, Continent, State and Local governments, each doing what they do best.

None of that has anything to do with the historical and continuing culture of Scotland (or any other country), which will continue to thive and develop in its own unique way under the WCSL Government system.

it would take decades just to figure out the legal system… no thanks

What’s the rush?

dv said:

Arts said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The sooner we get rid of countries the better. Then we can have World, Continent, State and Local governments, each doing what they do best.

None of that has anything to do with the historical and continuing culture of Scotland (or any other country), which will continue to thive and develop in its own unique way under the WCSL Government system.

it would take decades just to figure out the legal system… no thanks

What’s the rush?

I guess by figure out I mean fight it out… imagine the countries with systems based on ecclesiastical laws and how they will respond to divorce, gay marriage or even just a criminal law system that advocates presumption of innocence? Imagine the countries using a common law system as well as an adversarial system.. The countries with civil laws already allowed that may have to revoke those laws creating many ‘sudden criminals’…
International law as it stands is not a perfect system and has many limitations … with a ubiquitous system how do we prosecute? where do we prosecute? who are the judges? are they career judges or promotional? who forms the judicial system? where do we get those participants from?

Fwiw I think we are hundreds of years away from any possibility of world government. The philosophical and political culture differences are too great.

I’m glad we agree.

dv said:

Fwiw I think we are hundreds of years away from any possibility of world government. The philosophical and political culture differences are too great.

perhaps something that will only ever be achieved through conquest.

given that states of the same country cannot agree on the same laws, getting whole countries across the world to do so will be quite a feat.

Arts said:

given that states of the same country cannot agree on the same laws, getting whole countries across the world to do so will be quite a feat.

It would probably require very extreme circumstances combined with instantaneous global communications.

Arts said:

I guess by figure out I mean fight it out… imagine the countries with systems based on ecclesiastical laws and how they will respond to divorce, gay marriage or even just a criminal law system that advocates presumption of innocence? Imagine the countries using a common law system as well as an adversarial system.. The countries with civil laws already allowed that may have to revoke those laws creating many ‘sudden criminals’…
International law as it stands is not a perfect system and has many limitations … with a ubiquitous system how do we prosecute? where do we prosecute? who are the judges? are they career judges or promotional? who forms the judicial system? where do we get those participants from?

dv said:

Fwiw I think we are hundreds of years away from any possibility of world government. The philosophical and political culture differences are too great.

We already have a World Government. Its powers are extremely limited, but it does engage to some extent in the areas where world governance is appropriate, such as reduction of regional disputes, and reduction of poverty. No doubt it will be many years before we reach the stage where all military forces report directly to the UN (or whatever it is called in the future), but surely there can be no question that this is the direction we should be going.

As for the difficulty of coping with cultural differences under a world government, that is precisely why there would also be governments at continental, state and local levels.

To get this system to work properly will of course take many years, but it is the only way that the human race will be able to progress without periodic world-wide conflict, so it is a path that everyone should support, including support for such things as regional groups (such as the EU), and international trade agreements.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Arts said:

I guess by figure out I mean fight it out… imagine the countries with systems based on ecclesiastical laws and how they will respond to divorce, gay marriage or even just a criminal law system that advocates presumption of innocence? Imagine the countries using a common law system as well as an adversarial system.. The countries with civil laws already allowed that may have to revoke those laws creating many ‘sudden criminals’…
International law as it stands is not a perfect system and has many limitations … with a ubiquitous system how do we prosecute? where do we prosecute? who are the judges? are they career judges or promotional? who forms the judicial system? where do we get those participants from?

dv said:

Fwiw I think we are hundreds of years away from any possibility of world government. The philosophical and political culture differences are too great.

We already have a World Government. Its powers are extremely limited, but it does engage to some extent in the areas where world governance is appropriate, such as reduction of regional disputes, and reduction of poverty. No doubt it will be many years before we reach the stage where all military forces report directly to the UN (or whatever it is called in the future), but surely there can be no question that this is the direction we should be going.

As for the difficulty of coping with cultural differences under a world government, that is precisely why there would also be governments at continental, state and local levels.

To get this system to work properly will of course take many years, but it is the only way that the human race will be able to progress without periodic world-wide conflict, so it is a path that everyone should support, including support for such things as regional groups (such as the EU), and international trade agreements.

you are taking away choice.. that’s not progrssive

Arts said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Arts said:

I guess by figure out I mean fight it out… imagine the countries with systems based on ecclesiastical laws and how they will respond to divorce, gay marriage or even just a criminal law system that advocates presumption of innocence? Imagine the countries using a common law system as well as an adversarial system.. The countries with civil laws already allowed that may have to revoke those laws creating many ‘sudden criminals’…
International law as it stands is not a perfect system and has many limitations … with a ubiquitous system how do we prosecute? where do we prosecute? who are the judges? are they career judges or promotional? who forms the judicial system? where do we get those participants from?

dv said:

Fwiw I think we are hundreds of years away from any possibility of world government. The philosophical and political culture differences are too great.

We already have a World Government. Its powers are extremely limited, but it does engage to some extent in the areas where world governance is appropriate, such as reduction of regional disputes, and reduction of poverty. No doubt it will be many years before we reach the stage where all military forces report directly to the UN (or whatever it is called in the future), but surely there can be no question that this is the direction we should be going.

As for the difficulty of coping with cultural differences under a world government, that is precisely why there would also be governments at continental, state and local levels.

To get this system to work properly will of course take many years, but it is the only way that the human race will be able to progress without periodic world-wide conflict, so it is a path that everyone should support, including support for such things as regional groups (such as the EU), and international trade agreements.

you are taking away choice.. that’s not progrssive

Eh?

Taking away choice of local groups of people to go about killing each other is not progressive?

That’s the only choice I’m suggesting should be removed.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Arts said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

We already have a World Government. Its powers are extremely limited, but it does engage to some extent in the areas where world governance is appropriate, such as reduction of regional disputes, and reduction of poverty. No doubt it will be many years before we reach the stage where all military forces report directly to the UN (or whatever it is called in the future), but surely there can be no question that this is the direction we should be going.

As for the difficulty of coping with cultural differences under a world government, that is precisely why there would also be governments at continental, state and local levels.

To get this system to work properly will of course take many years, but it is the only way that the human race will be able to progress without periodic world-wide conflict, so it is a path that everyone should support, including support for such things as regional groups (such as the EU), and international trade agreements.

you are taking away choice.. that’s not progrssive

Eh?

Taking away choice of local groups of people to go about killing each other is not progressive?

That’s the only choice I’m suggesting should be removed.

genocide and ethnic cleansing are already crimes against humanity and dealt with by the already existing UN.. but the UN as a world governing body is powerless (no police, no courts, no judges etc). And to introduce a set of laws that cover the whole worlds population will cause great conflict and war like scenarios as each ‘system’ tries to include their ‘pertinent rules’.

then, once the people who are against the ‘one world policy’, are eliminated, a ubiquitous system might run.. but that’s… well, you get the idea
Aside from the individual choice of Joe Bloggs, who was born in Australia but would prefer to live in the middle east where drinking requires a permit, or Sally Jones who was born in Asia but would prefer to live in Colorado where she can get high all day.. etc.

also the local legal systems aren’t really a working ‘system’, getting it right on a small scale would be first.. then the insect overlords can take over the world

unless you mean one system of world governing for some rules, but local variations for others…

thinks briefly about Kant and perpetual peace
thinks about how boundaries are mostly imaginary ceptin’ where they are a geographical, like a big river or mountain range
thinks about how some boundaries are in stoopid places..like some of mine. no one was thinking about fencing my eastern border when they drew it on the map

goes back to thinking about thistles

Arts said:

unless you mean one system of world governing for some rules, but local variations for others…

Of course that’s what I mean, in fact that’s what I said. Why would you assume anything else?

It’s the system that already works at country level in almost every country in the World (other than vary small ones), and at federal level in countries such as the USA, Canada, and Australia, and to some extent Europe.

There should be no question that we should all be working to extend it to World level.

Arts said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Arts said:

I guess by figure out I mean fight it out… imagine the countries with systems based on ecclesiastical laws and how they will respond to divorce, gay marriage or even just a criminal law system that advocates presumption of innocence? Imagine the countries using a common law system as well as an adversarial system.. The countries with civil laws already allowed that may have to revoke those laws creating many ‘sudden criminals’…
International law as it stands is not a perfect system and has many limitations … with a ubiquitous system how do we prosecute? where do we prosecute? who are the judges? are they career judges or promotional? who forms the judicial system? where do we get those participants from?

dv said:

Fwiw I think we are hundreds of years away from any possibility of world government. The philosophical and political culture differences are too great.

We already have a World Government. Its powers are extremely limited, but it does engage to some extent in the areas where world governance is appropriate, such as reduction of regional disputes, and reduction of poverty. No doubt it will be many years before we reach the stage where all military forces report directly to the UN (or whatever it is called in the future), but surely there can be no question that this is the direction we should be going.

As for the difficulty of coping with cultural differences under a world government, that is precisely why there would also be governments at continental, state and local levels.

To get this system to work properly will of course take many years, but it is the only way that the human race will be able to progress without periodic world-wide conflict, so it is a path that everyone should support, including support for such things as regional groups (such as the EU), and international trade agreements.

you are taking away choice.. that’s not progrssive

If you had god like power and coercing the world population to behave more decently towards life didn’t work would you extend to it removal of certain choices that go against the long term survival of the planet.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Arts said:

unless you mean one system of world governing for some rules, but local variations for others…

Of course that’s what I mean, in fact that’s what I said. Why would you assume anything else?

It’s the system that already works at country level in almost every country in the World (other than vary small ones), and at federal level in countries such as the USA, Canada, and Australia, and to some extent Europe.

There should be no question that we should all be working to extend it to World level.

the system doesn’t work at a country level… really it’s one of the first things we have been taught in criminology… the system is not a working system as in the parts all work together for one single outcome… the ‘system’ consists of a number of departments all working or their own outcome with overlaps.

but anyway.. I must go

The Good Reverend talketh senth. Just give the UN some teethth.

….and now the benediction….

Arts said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Arts said:

unless you mean one system of world governing for some rules, but local variations for others…

Of course that’s what I mean, in fact that’s what I said. Why would you assume anything else?

It’s the system that already works at country level in almost every country in the World (other than vary small ones), and at federal level in countries such as the USA, Canada, and Australia, and to some extent Europe.

There should be no question that we should all be working to extend it to World level.

the system doesn’t work at a country level… really it’s one of the first things we have been taught in criminology… the system is not a working system as in the parts all work together for one single outcome… the ‘system’ consists of a number of departments all working or their own outcome with overlaps.

but anyway.. I must go

It’s not perfect, but it works pretty well in many places. A system of separate organisations working towards their own interests with overlaps is precisely what we need.

But anyway… ‘ave a good day.

Taswegian
Contents
1 English
1.1 Etymology
1.2 Noun
1.2.1 Synonyms
English
Etymology
Royal Australian Navy slang from about 1930. A blend of Tasmanian and Glaswegian.

Noun
Taswegian ‎(plural Taswegians)

(Australia, navy, slang) A Tasmanian seaman.
(Australia, humorous, sometimes pejorative) An inhabitant of Tasmania.  
Synonyms
(person from Tasmania): apple-eater, Apple Islander

In Scotland there are 4,446,000 (2011) of Scottish descent only)

whereas Canada has 4,719,850(Wiki)

Canada wins.

sarahs mum said:

In Scotland there are 4,446,000 (2011) of Scottish descent only)

whereas Canada has 4,719,850(Wiki)

Canada wins.

No. the USA wins. United States 6,006,955

I bet that about 300000000 Americans are of Scottish descent.

https://www.facebook.com/7citiesscotland/videos/1752038971732743/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED

bad acting. or complete lack of acting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FQiDNBv4d4&feature=youtu.be

sarahs mum said:

bad acting. or complete lack of acting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FQiDNBv4d4&feature=youtu.be

Lovely old footage. A lost world.

Lost Haddington
5 hrs · · Music
Ok, this post is for something new and not exactly Lost, but since it was entirely filmed in Haddington, I’m sure the followers from outside Haddington will appreciate a bit of home…

(John Hamilton, Admin)

https://youtu.be/pHLZavx4EtU

I have grand memories of the Corn exchange in Haddington. Some nice shots of the toon as well.