28 June 2016 Last updated at 12:14 BST
A Scottish MEP has received a standing ovation in the European Parliament.
SNP MEP Alyn Smith had asked members to back Scotland's position in the EU.
The response was a standing ovation by many in the chamber.
What do we see here? In plain words we do see a standing ovation, a storm of applause to a separatist claim.
In favour of the supernational state-like structure which the EU is, Mr. Smith stands for a separation of a UK part from the United Kingdom, and the idea is warmly welcomed by the vast majority of the EP members.
Well, I can understand the intention of the EU to have at least a part of the UK as a member, somehow softening the Brexit shock.
I just would like to get a clear answer: does that mean there is a good and acceptable separatism that's worth a standing ovation?
How comes that Scotland coming to (or, for the matter, staying in) the EU is good and deserves a standing ovation of the EP members, and the Crimea and Donbass region coming to Russia is bad and deserves anti-Russian sanctions and Russophobic rhetorics in favour of an openly Banderite (=Nazi) regime of Kiev?
Such a hypocrisy surely can lead to some short-term benefit and profit. But strategically it cannot; and the problem of refugees is just one fair compensation Western Europe is getting for its political approach of the last 25 years, and quite a logical fruit thereof.
Looks like the big West desided to go to hell by all means.
The only problem is our Earth is too small, and if a part of it goes to hell, no other part survives.