It's both paradoxical, and yet at the same time fits with a pattern. Scotland was historically oppressed by England, and the Scottish highly valued their own independence, including personal independence. The Scotts have a fiery temperament and don't like to be controlled. But countries and nations farther north tend to lean more to the Left. Why is this? Because farther north there is tendency for a larger share of the population to be more concentrated into cities. (Living in rural areas with no one else around and no other businesses or indoor spaces to go to becomes more difficult when the temperatures are not conducive to being outside for a long part of the year) When population is concentrated into cities, it develops a mentality that more individual freedoms need to be sacrificed for the common good, and people live with more rules. Areas that are more white and historically never had any significant levels of diversity tend to be less racist -- or you could say tend to be more "anti-racist". (except sometimes in the case where there is or recently was high levels of unemployment, as is the case in Eastern Europe) And countries that are more homogenous tend to lean more to the collectivist mindset (towards a more Socialistic view). another thread: Free Speech gone in Scotland
This started with "divesture" (divesture of political power), where the United Kingdom government in London decided to concede semi-autonomous powers to a new parliament of Scotland in 1998. But the England part of the United Kingdom is not too far away from this either. So some of what is happening in Scotland is part of a wider phenomena of the political-social situation in Britain.
In astronomy, you can see into the past if you look at stars that are far away in a telescope. Similarly, in politics, if you want to see into the future, you can look at far away countries.
The article by Gordon Rayner posted above is click bait rubbish. Interestingly he says ‘imagine’ this or ‘imagine’ that, because it takes a bit of imagination to write such balderdash.
If a new law is going to be passed, and it could easily allow, or will be likely to allow something to happen, isn't that news? That would be like if you were in Nazi Germany living under Hitler and a new law was about to pass allowing the government to round up the Jews, and you claimed it was "fake news", based on that same logic. In my opinion, based on experience that has already happened in the U.K. over the last 10 years, I think it's a near guarantee this new law is going to open the door wide open to abuse, and over a few years time those law enforcement practices are going to become normalized and seen as just part of the law. And when that happens, there will be plenty of those on the Left who are not going to be complaining, but will be approving of what is happening.
Would you care to give one example from the new law, and say how it might be broken, in what circumstances, how it will be detected, how it will be proven, and what the maximum and minimum penalties might be? Oh, and how much it would cost to enforce.
I'm sorry, but isn't that totally obvious? Are you familiar at all with "hate speech" laws, and the endless stories of how they have been abused?
Well you can enlighten me if the new situation in Scotland is so 'obvious'. Stories from the past are all very well, but the topic is the new stuff coming in, so tell me the obvious bits about it.
I see the "boil the frog slowly" enablers are pretending this sort of erosion of freedom isn't happening
Technically it is certainly against the law to have a bicycle, a scooter, a skateboard, roller skates and pushchairs used on the pavement. That law is virtually unenforceable and unenforced.
The claim is people living outside of Scotland could be charged with a crime because anything that can be read in Scotland (including online) is considered to be published in Scotland:
