Scotland the once brave..

Scot Dutchy · **#5081** by **Scot Dutchy** » Sep 27, 2014 5:01 pm

mrjonno wrote:We obviously defeating islamic pyschopaths is a hell of a lot more important than setting up an independent Scotland hence it costs a lot more

Thommo · **#5082** by **Thommo** » Sep 27, 2014 5:33 pm

ronmcd wrote:You're an M15 plant, aren't you? They're everywhere.

ED's relentless pro-government, pro-America stance is legendary. I would say just ask Galaxian, but SOMEONE had him purged.

ronmcd · **#5083** by **ronmcd** » Sep 27, 2014 9:33 pm

Labour in Scotland is dying. Does anybody care?

Jim Murphy’s “scary monsters” tour of 100 towns during the independence referendum campaign encapsulated many of the reasons why the Labour party is all but finished in Scotland. Murphy, a man who has pocketed a small fortune in legitimately claimed expenses from Westminster in his 15 years there, would have had us all believe that his Herculean task of completing the tour in 100 days was all about saving the union. And indeed his narrative, like that of Alistair Darling, was all about how small, vulnerable and cowering Scotland is and why a curfew must eternally be imposed upon it.

But let’s be honest with each other here. This wasn’t really about his new-found enthusiasm for the union. It was, instead, a three-month job interview for the post of leader of the Labour party in Scotland.

[...]

The most troubling question that may be asked about Murphy’s tour is this one: you’ve been a Labour MP for 15 years, Jim, so why didn’t you ever get up off your arse during that time to conduct a tour of 100 towns to highlight urban deprivation and social inequality? You waited far too long to show you cared about anything beyond your career and, when you finally did, you chose the wrong subject to get all passionate about: the British state.

[...]

Already I hear some of them claiming that the lost 37% will be back in due course to “kick the Tories out”. They are deluding themselves. This time around, disaffected Labour people aren’t simply registering a protest vote. They are actually joining the SNP in droves. Many of the 37% of their voters who voted yes were initially disowned by their own party, or their existence actually denied. Then they were hounded out of their constituencies and demonised as nationalist stooges. They will not forgive such treatment easily.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... nyone-care

You tell 'em Kevin!

ED209 · **#5084** by **ED209** » Sep 27, 2014 9:33 pm

What-ho, old bean! They insisted on bringing me in when I was at Oxford on account of my grandfather the major's successful campaigns :british:

Warren Dew · **#5085** by **Warren Dew** » Sep 28, 2014 12:41 am

mrjonno wrote:
Thommo wrote:That's just fucking moronic. Jesus.

No its a basic misunderstanding about what democracy is, war by more civilized means

Well, less violent means, anyway.

Byron · **#5086** by **Byron** » Sep 28, 2014 5:16 am

Panderos wrote:I need more explanation. I don't know how the appeal system and how cases move from court to court and so on. Come on I'm giving you the floor here and being reasonable.

In Scotland, the Court of Session's the highest civil court, the High Court of Justiciary its criminal equivalent. In a complex process tied into devolution and the Human Rights Act, some cases can be appealed to the Supreme Court in London. Cases usually start at the lowest level (Sheriff Court, or High Court), and move up through the hierarchy on appeal.

None of this is of much relevance to some hypothetical Holyrood abolition act from Westminster, as such a move would be unprecedented. A possible scenario is that the Scottish Parliament would refuse to recognize its own abolition, and pass a bill to that effect, which the Scottish courts would then uphold on judicial review. Or they could dismiss the Westminster act on their own initiative. It's all so speculative and unlikely there's not much to be said about it.

The underlying principle's much simpler: so long as people are willing to obey them, courts have whatever power they appoint themselves. This is how the U.S. Supreme Court got the power to strike down laws it didn't like. English courts once came close to granting themselves the same power, but it fell out of fashion.

Panderos · **#5087** by **Panderos** » Sep 28, 2014 1:11 pm

You missed my other question: When did they Scottish courts decide they are bound by referendum results?

Byron wrote:It's all so speculative and unlikely there's not much to be said about it.

Hey man, you started it:

Byron wrote:Westminster having the power to abolish Holyrood: regardless of theory, in real terms, not a chance. If it tried, Scottish courts would in all likelihood ignore it..

Not a chance you said. In all likelihood.

Here is what you appear to be saying: The Scottish Parliament would refuse to recognise an Act that concerns a matter it was never devolved powers on. The Court of Session of Scotland would then uphold this without any basis other than 'referendum', which means they'd have to right then decide that they were bound by referendum, when it would be transparently obvious they were opportunistically doing this only because of the consequences of their ruling. Westminister would presumably appeal to the Supreme Court at which point the Court of Session (the existence of which is a matter for Westminster, by the way) would say 'ahem, we are not going to wait for the SC judgement here, we are, coincidenally going to stop recognising its authority right now'. How would this not completely undermine the Scottish legal system?

The Scottish Parliament would then have to work out a way to survive in the mess its created for itself. Westminster money would dry up and it the SP would find its bank account frozen. It would presumably then have to declare independence (which I assume the courts would strike down based on their earlier precedent - no referendum) and then it would be just fucked. It'd be a suicide move.

Byron · **#5088** by **Byron** » Sep 28, 2014 9:38 pm

Panderos wrote:You missed my other question: When did they Scottish courts decide they are bound by referendum results?

They haven't, as it's never come up. They have said, in passing, that parliamentary supremacy doesn't apply in Scotland.

Here is what you appear to be saying: The Scottish Parliament would refuse to recognise an Act that concerns a matter it was never devolved powers on. The Court of Session of Scotland would then uphold this without any basis other than 'referendum', which means they'd have to right then decide that they were bound by referendum, when it would be transparently obvious they were opportunistically doing this only because of the consequences of their ruling. Westminister would presumably appeal to the Supreme Court at which point the Court of Session (the existence of which is a matter for Westminster, by the way) would say 'ahem, we are not going to wait for the SC judgement here, we are, coincidenally going to stop recognising its authority right now'. How would this not completely undermine the Scottish legal system?

The Scottish Parliament would then have to work out a way to survive in the mess its created for itself. Westminster money would dry up and it the SP would find its bank account frozen. It would presumably then have to declare independence (which I assume the courts would strike down based on their earlier precedent - no referendum) and then it would be just fucked. It'd be a suicide move.

Erm, nope, what I said was that, if Westminster did something as idiotic as deciding to abolish Holyrood without consulting the Scottish people, Scottish courts may well refuse to recognize the law. As it's so unlikely, there's little point speculating in detail. My purpose in raising the legal and practical difficulties was to illustrate why this isn't a factor in the independence debate.

Panderos · **#5089** by **Panderos** » Sep 29, 2014 5:00 pm

Byron wrote:Erm, nope, what I said was that, if Westminster did something as idiotic as deciding to abolish Holyrood without consulting the Scottish people, Scottish courts may well refuse to recognize the law.

Which could result in what I wrote above, which is why I don't think they'd dare. They'd need a basis for such a legal judgement, which they'd need to conjure up there and then. You say referendum, but since that is no precedent of referendum binding courts, they'd be transparently making such a judgement based on its consequences rather than impartially as courts should. They'd also need to there and then refuse to recognise the Supreme Court of the UK, in case their judgement would go against them. It'd be a transparently political move that would undermine them. And what happens next would be so unpredictable for Scotland that it would not be worth the risk.

Byron · **#5090** by **Byron** » Sep 30, 2014 5:21 am

Panderos wrote:
Byron wrote:Erm, nope, what I said was that, if Westminster did something as idiotic as deciding to abolish Holyrood without consulting the Scottish people, Scottish courts may well refuse to recognize the law.

Which could result in what I wrote above, which is why I don't think they'd dare. They'd need a basis for such a legal judgement, which they'd need to conjure up there and then. You say referendum, but since that is no precedent of referendum binding courts, they'd be transparently making such a judgement based on its consequences rather than impartially as courts should. They'd also need to there and then refuse to recognise the Supreme Court of the UK, in case their judgement would go against them. It'd be a transparently political move that would undermine them. And what happens next would be so unpredictable for Scotland that it would not be worth the risk.

Courts aren't oracles of truth; they're flawed human creations shaped and influenced by external pressures. Apolitical courts are as mythical as a benevolent dictator or kindly taxman.

In the 30s, the U.S. Supreme Court did an about-face to save its collective asses; in WW2, the British Law Lords inserted words into a statute to avoid going up against the government.

Near half of Scotland want to leave the UK. If Westminster tried to strip away their parliament, and the courts upheld the attempt, there'd be riots verging on civil war. The courts' legitimacy, and personal safety of their members, would rest with the people they live amongst, not abstract jurisprudence. (Although given Scotland's tradition of popular soverignty, backed by precedent, that'd be on their side too.) Scottish judges would be well aware of that fact, and would, I suspect, fast get creative.

It's one of the many reasons that the UK government would never be so idiotic.

Panderos · **#5091** by **Panderos** » Sep 30, 2014 7:47 pm

Byron wrote:It's one of the many reasons that the UK government would never be so idiotic.

Lets start with this since you keep saying it: I agree with you. But it wasn't me who started speculating on what would happen in such a What-if.

Byron wrote:Courts aren't oracles of truth; they're flawed human creations shaped and influenced by external pressures. Apolitical courts are as mythical as a benevolent dictator or kindly taxman.

In the 30s, the U.S. Supreme Court did an about-face to save its collective asses; in WW2, the British Law Lords inserted words into a statute to avoid going up against the government.

Well at least you agree this would be blatently political. But the consequences for Scotland would be rather more far-reaching and unpredictable than in the cases you cite and the self-interested motivations of the court even more conspicuous.

Byron wrote:Near half of Scotland want to leave the UK. If Westminster tried to strip away their parliament, and the courts upheld the attempt, there'd be riots verging on civil war. The courts' legitimacy, and personal safety of their members, would rest with the people they live amongst, not abstract jurisprudence. (Although given Scotland's tradition of popular soverignty, backed by precedent, that'd be on their side too.) Scottish judges would be well aware of that fact, and would, I suspect, fast get creative.

Whist Scots may well riot, I don't see them blaming Scottish courts for simply following the law. They'll blame the pre-existing bogeyman and the entity that would actually be responsible - Westminster, or at least the Westminster government. For a Scottish court to do as you say would be stepping through the looking Rubicon. That is a hell of a lot of responsibility for some until then pretty anonymous judge to take on.

UndercoverElephant · **#5092** by **UndercoverElephant** » Oct 01, 2014 8:20 pm

Byron wrote:
Panderos wrote:You missed my other question: When did they Scottish courts decide they are bound by referendum results?

They haven't, as it's never come up. They have said, in passing, that parliamentary supremacy doesn't apply in Scotland.
Here is what you appear to be saying: The Scottish Parliament would refuse to recognise an Act that concerns a matter it was never devolved powers on. The Court of Session of Scotland would then uphold this without any basis other than 'referendum', which means they'd have to right then decide that they were bound by referendum, when it would be transparently obvious they were opportunistically doing this only because of the consequences of their ruling. Westminister would presumably appeal to the Supreme Court at which point the Court of Session (the existence of which is a matter for Westminster, by the way) would say 'ahem, we are not going to wait for the SC judgement here, we are, coincidenally going to stop recognising its authority right now'. How would this not completely undermine the Scottish legal system?

The Scottish Parliament would then have to work out a way to survive in the mess its created for itself. Westminster money would dry up and it the SP would find its bank account frozen. It would presumably then have to declare independence (which I assume the courts would strike down based on their earlier precedent - no referendum) and then it would be just fucked. It'd be a suicide move.

Erm, nope, what I said was that, if Westminster did something as idiotic as deciding to abolish Holyrood without consulting the Scottish people, Scottish courts may well refuse to recognize the law.

I can't believe I'm reading this nonsense.

You lost the referendum. Scotland is not an independent nation. It is a region of the UK and it is subject absolutely to the will of the House of Commons in Westminster. No Scottish Court can unilaterally over-ride that authority. PERIOD. All powers that the Scottish parliament currently have, they have because they were granted by Westminster. Westminster can retract those powers at any time, and it makes not the slightest bit of difference what some tin-pot Scottish court thinks.

mrjonno · **#5093** by **mrjonno** » Oct 01, 2014 9:15 pm

You lost the referendum. Scotland is not an independent nation. It is a region of the UK and it is subject absolutely to the will of the House of Commons in Westminster. No Scottish Court can unilaterally over-ride that authority. PERIOD. All powers that the Scottish parliament currently have, they have because they were granted by Westminster. Westminster can retract those powers at any time, and it makes not the slightest bit of difference what some tin-pot Scottish court thinks.

Well they could launch a military coup, but that sort of relies on having a military (and actually have a support ofthe majority of people helps too)

ronmcd · **#5094** by **ronmcd** » Oct 01, 2014 10:22 pm

UndercoverElephant wrote:
You lost the referendum. Scotland is not an independent nation. It is a region of the UK and it is subject absolutely to the will of the House of Commons in Westminster. No Scottish Court can unilaterally over-ride that authority. PERIOD. All powers that the Scottish parliament currently have, they have because they were granted by Westminster. Westminster can retract those powers at any time, and it makes not the slightest bit of difference what some tin-pot Scottish court thinks.

UndercoverElephant wrote:
I can't believe I'm reading this nonsense.

You and me both :cheers:

Scot Dutchy · **#5095** by **Scot Dutchy** » Oct 02, 2014 7:57 am

ronmcd wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
You lost the referendum. Scotland is not an independent nation. It is a region of the UK and it is subject absolutely to the will of the House of Commons in Westminster. No Scottish Court can unilaterally over-ride that authority. PERIOD. All powers that the Scottish parliament currently have, they have because they were granted by Westminster. Westminster can retract those powers at any time, and it makes not the slightest bit of difference what some tin-pot Scottish court thinks.

UndercoverElephant wrote:
I can't believe I'm reading this nonsense.

You and me both

A nice bit of misquoting there.

UE is totally right and accept it. It is the way the cookie crumbles. You lost the referendum and London still has full control.

ronmcd · **#5096** by **ronmcd** » Oct 02, 2014 2:05 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:
ronmcd wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
You lost the referendum. Scotland is not an independent nation. It is a region of the UK and it is subject absolutely to the will of the House of Commons in Westminster. No Scottish Court can unilaterally over-ride that authority. PERIOD. All powers that the Scottish parliament currently have, they have because they were granted by Westminster. Westminster can retract those powers at any time, and it makes not the slightest bit of difference what some tin-pot Scottish court thinks.

UndercoverElephant wrote:
I can't believe I'm reading this nonsense.

You and me both

A nice bit of misquoting there.

UE is totally right and accept it. It is the way the cookie crumbles. You lost the referendum and London still has full control.

Fuck me, some people are just humour deficient.

UndercoverElephant · **#5097** by **UndercoverElephant** » Oct 02, 2014 3:36 pm

ronmcd wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:
ronmcd wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
You lost the referendum. Scotland is not an independent nation. It is a region of the UK and it is subject absolutely to the will of the House of Commons in Westminster. No Scottish Court can unilaterally over-ride that authority. PERIOD. All powers that the Scottish parliament currently have, they have because they were granted by Westminster. Westminster can retract those powers at any time, and it makes not the slightest bit of difference what some tin-pot Scottish court thinks.

UndercoverElephant wrote:
I can't believe I'm reading this nonsense.

You and me both

A nice bit of misquoting there.

UE is totally right and accept it. It is the way the cookie crumbles. You lost the referendum and London still has full control.

Fuck me, some people are just humour deficient.

Nope, some people are reality deficient.

If you'd demonstrated in this thread a good capacity for rational debate, instead of emotionally-driven, idealistic nonsense, then it might be obvious when you are making a joke. As things stand, it would appear very likely that you actually believe that the Scottish courts are a higher authority in this country than the House of Commons. Certainly that's what Byron believes, so why not you?

Byron · **#5098** by **Byron** » Oct 02, 2014 5:48 pm

UndercoverElephant wrote:I can't believe I'm reading this nonsense.

You lost the referendum. Scotland is not an independent nation. It is a region of the UK and it is subject absolutely to the will of the House of Commons in Westminster. No Scottish Court can unilaterally over-ride that authority. PERIOD. All powers that the Scottish parliament currently have, they have because they were granted by Westminster. Westminster can retract those powers at any time, and it makes not the slightest bit of difference what some tin-pot Scottish court thinks.

OK, d'you have a shred of evidence to back these claims?

Given that way back in the 50s, the British government accepted that parliamentary supremacy didn't exist in Scotland, and the most recent ruling on the issue observed that, "The settlement contained in the Scotland Act 1998 also point to a divided sovereignty," I doubt you'll have much luck, but by all means, feel free to try.

ronmcd · **#5099** by **ronmcd** » Oct 02, 2014 5:53 pm

UndercoverElephant wrote:
ronmcd wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:
ronmcd wrote:

You and me both

A nice bit of misquoting there.

UE is totally right and accept it. It is the way the cookie crumbles. You lost the referendum and London still has full control.

Fuck me, some people are just humour deficient.

Nope, some people are reality deficient.

If you'd demonstrated in this thread a good capacity for rational debate, instead of emotionally-driven, idealistic nonsense, then it might be obvious when you are making a joke. As things stand, it would appear very likely that you actually believe that the Scottish courts are a higher authority in this country than the House of Commons. Certainly that's what Byron believes, so why not you?

Mmmmm, that's a juicy baseless assertion right there, I haven't been involved in this discussion at all as far as I remember. Not sure you were either, you just jumped in with your usual apparent disgust at the very existence of the Country of Scotland, and the people who live here.

Lovely as always UE. I wonder, do you use spittle protectors on your monitor for when you discuss Scotland?

Just considering this for a moment, I suspect (without any evidence) that it would likely be the Supreme Court rather than the Scottish courts which would be called on by residents of Scotland to rule on the legality of a unilateral dissolution of the Holyrood Parliament, on human rights/democratic grounds perhaps.

I suspect the Supreme Court would be loathe to get involved, but if required would be more loathe to find in favour of the removal of the democratic rights of Scottish voters against their collective will. The accepted will of the populace would likely be upheld, assuming that will was clear.

But who knows. It will never happen.

ronmcd · **#5100** by **ronmcd** » Oct 02, 2014 5:55 pm

Byron wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:I can't believe I'm reading this nonsense.

You lost the referendum. Scotland is not an independent nation. It is a region of the UK and it is subject absolutely to the will of the House of Commons in Westminster. No Scottish Court can unilaterally over-ride that authority. PERIOD. All powers that the Scottish parliament currently have, they have because they were granted by Westminster. Westminster can retract those powers at any time, and it makes not the slightest bit of difference what some tin-pot Scottish court thinks.

OK, d'you have a shred of evidence to back these claims?

Given that way back in the 50s, the British government accepted that parliamentary supremacy didn't exist in Scotland, and the most recent ruling on the issue observed that, "The settlement contained in the Scotland Act 1998 also point to a divided sovereignty," I doubt you'll have much luck, but by all means, feel free to try.

Interesting, as that last case was the House of Lords, am I right then in thinking it would be the Supreme Court now? Still the same result I suspect.

Scotland the once brave..

Re: Scotland the once brave..

Re: Scotland the once brave..

Re: Scotland the once brave..

Re: Scotland the once brave..

Re: Scotland the once brave..

Re: Scotland the once brave..

Re: Scotland the once brave..

Re: Scotland the once brave..

Re: Scotland the once brave..

Re: Scotland the once brave..

Re: Scotland the once brave..

Re: Scotland the once brave..

Re: Scotland the once brave..

Re: Scotland the once brave..

Re: Scotland the once brave..

Re: Scotland the once brave..

Re: Scotland the once brave..

Re: Scotland the once brave..

Re: Scotland the once brave..

Re: Scotland the once brave..

Who is online