Benefit scrounger rejects job
Way back at the start of this year, we remarked on an odd comment by Michael Moore, the Secretary of State for Scotland, in which he said that the UK government would not mount a legal challenge if the Scottish Government pressed ahead with conducting an independence referendum on its own terms without a Section 30 order from Westminster. It’s an assertion Mr Moore has repeated today in the Sunday Mail:
“I am not interested in the UK Government challenging this. It wouldn’t be for the UK Government to do it, it would be for others.”
We’re going to repeat what we said in January – it would be absolutely extraordinary if the British Government stood idly by and watched an illegal attempt to break up the United Kingdom, so why is Moore saying they won’t? And what does that reveal about the UK administration’s true opinion on the legality of the referendum?
As we noted yesterday, Michael Moore has pretty much nothing to do all day. The Scottish Office has no significant responsibilities, but if there was one thing you’d think WAS within its field of authority it’d be if the Scottish Government acted outwith its competence with regard to the UK Government, which he tells us is exactly what it’d be doing if it conducted an “unauthorised” referendum.
You’d imagine, therefore, that Mr Moore – who is paid a whopping £134,565 a year (plus expenses) by the taxpayer, about £5,000 more than the First Minister – would be thrilled to have a genuine task to undertake in return for his vast salary. Yet here we see him once again openly abdicating the only real responsibility of his office, in the hope that a member of the general public will do it for him at their own expense.
We can’t be the only people who find that odd, surely?
A complete waste of money and resources, so the quicker we dump the Scottish office and Moore the better.
I can’t remember which court case it was but there was one, I think it was the AXA one, where the Supreme court in London, I think, told AXA basically to go away. In their view, the Supreme court, the Scots were sovereign and therefore the courts could not over rule them in the case brought against AXA.
If my memory is correct on this then perhaps some little birdie has had a word in moore’s shell like and whispered the fatal words…..”The Scots are sovereign. Yae cannae touch them wi a barge pole!”
Stu, sorry to go off topic but does anyone know how to get on to the labour hame site to make a comment, or have they restricted comments to labour supporters only because they are feart to be challeged.
One role of the Scottish Office is to ensure compliance with the Sewel Convention. It may be triggered if a Bill in the UK Parliament:
Legislates for a devolved purpose
Alters the functions of Scottish Ministers (increasing or decreasing)
Alters the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament (increasing or decreasing)
When provisions in UK Government Bills include one or more of these triggers, the Scottish Parliament’s consent is sought.
So there you have it. The Convention says quite clearly that the Secretary of State for Scotland must seek consent from the Scottish Parliament if an attempt is made to alter the legislative competence of said government.
So, Mr. Moore does have something to do after all.
It looks like you have to login with a WordPress account.
EDIT: Nope, looks like you need a LabourHame-approved WP account.
oops just posted about this on the previous thread .
Mickey moore is either trying a very bad bluff or the unionists have someone or some group primed to try and prevent our democratic referendum .
One can only assume that if anyone is daft enough to try taking this to court that it will be some rich tory,s in the south of england who are frightened off what will happen to their lifestyle when Scotland becomes Independent .
After all it is the rich tory,s in the south of england who are funding the bitter together campaign .
Mickey moore could stop all this uncertainty tomorrow by issuing us the section 30 and explaining what the jam tomorrow means .
Sorry I’;m O/T here but thought this was an interesting insight into where Westminster MIGHT be going in their thinking (Sorry I know Westminster don’t do joined up thinking but bear with me) with regards to their never ending problem about Maria, sorry Heathrow!
link to huffingtonpost.co.uk
I wonder how many years, sorry DECADES, it will be before this project sees the light of day, if at all!
I get the impression that Michael Moore is basically uncomfortable with his role as Colonial General for Scotland. Either that or he’s a Green Shield stamp short of a pop-up toaster. (showing my age).
If we consider the number of occassions that he has contradicted himself. To me, he gives the impression of someone who’s just going through the motions, as opposed to Alexander, who is a full flown member of the anti-Scotland LibDem Coalition brigade, with the economic ability of a sardine.
link to newsnetscotland.com
Not forgetting that the UK blocked a FOI request into the cabinet meetings prior to the setting up of devolution. Why?
Possibly because they knew/suspected that if the truth was in the public domain Independence would be guaranteed as they were reinstating a Scottish Government as prior to the treaty 1707.
There have been some interesting posts on the issue of legality etc on Newsnet Scotland, as well as more generally on t’interweb. (MadjockmcMad on Newsnet Scotland has an interesting take on the legal/constitutional issues).
My understanding from some of the discussions was that it is at least arguable that the SG doesn’t even need an S30 order, as the referendum is only advisory (I’m sure someone more knowledgeable than I can correct this if it is obviously wrong?!). Even if it were legally held that this IS necessary (or simply deemed preferable to avoid legal wrangling), the Unionists are on a hiding to nothing trying to attach preconditions rather than simply granting such an order. It isn’t easy to sketch out how that could blow up in their faces; after all… what have they to be afraid of?
More generally however, I understood the logic of both the Axa 2010 case, and the earlier pronouncements of Lord Cooper in McCormack vs the Lord Advocate 1953 case, is that
“The UK Supreme Court has no right to alter any Act, Bill or Statue of the Scottish Parliament which reflects the considered will of the Scottish people.:” to quote MadJock post on NNS.
That being so, the recent huffing and puffing from the likes of Messers Moore (who rumour has it will lose his job in the upcoming cabinet re-shuffle anyway due to his lacklustre performance), Davidson, the SAC etc simply looks like so much posturing.
Which court would proceedings be brought in? What would they actually try and argue? If the SG went ahead with a referendum, and it is held on a fair basis which resulted in a YES vote, it would be politically unthinkable for the courts to overturn such a result.
The SG should simply call the bluff of the Unionists, basing that stance on the clear mandate it enjoys. No ifs, no buts, and certainly no westminster imposed pre-conditions. If there is a challenge in the courts, then bring it on… all that will serve is to add grist to the pro-independence lobby. Even if the outcome of the 2014 vote is (heaven forfend!) “No”, then it will become quickly apparent that the forces of Unionism have nothing to offer in the way of increased devolution.
They are hopelessly divided, have no coherent plan, and not a ghost of a chance of forcing any significant increase in devolution through westminster, no matter who wins the GE in 2015.
C.H. could your question “Not forgetting that the UK blocked a FOI request into the cabinet meetings prior to the setting up of devolution. Why?” be a similar situation to the McCrone Report of the 1970’s perhaps? We’ll find out in 30 or so years time.
G10, here’s a thought. The Westminster crowd go to the High court in an attempt to block OUR referendum and then the Scottish government goes to the SUPREME court.
Sorry Rev, but I’m going O/T AGAIN!
link to newsnetscotland.com
Could this be considered yet ANOTHER benefit of the Bitter together scenario?
While posts from Mad Jock McMad and Arbroath make the legal situation very clear does anyone here really think that the unionists will play by the rules when they find they are losing .
You only have to look at the corruption in westminster and the british establishment to know that judges can be bought .
The establishment are fighting to protect their inheritance and to keep themselves in the lifestyle that they have become accustomed to .
You only have to read the utterances of lord wallace of tankerness to know what the outcome would be if people like him were allowed to sit on judgement on the referendum .
Those of us who have watched the documentary doimhair have seen how low the establishment will stoop to stop Scotland from gaining her Independence .
While it has never been proved that the establishment had a hand in the deaths off Willie McRae , Dr Kelly and Hilda Murrell a lot of questions remain unanswered over their deaths .
If the establishment were involved in these deaths ? then how far would they go to protect their interests in Scotland .
I have just been on LabourHame and from what I see there has been no change in the format for entering a comment… although no comments have been entered for the last 4/5 blogs.
Sounds like Mr Moore knows his case is weak. What better sequel to a YES vote than a Scottish court confirming the sovereignty of the Scottish people? The judge’s verdict would read like a second Declaration of Arbroath, and get us started on exactly the right note.
I don’t know why so many people seem to think that any legal challenge will come after the referendum is held. That would truly be a case of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted! The obvious scenario is that someone will raise a legal challenge before the vote, thus tying up and delaying the whole process, which will be suspended by the courts pending the outcome of the case.
OK, “prequel” then
While you are quite correct HB, in that ANY challenge will most likely come BEFORE the referendum, however I still feel, before or after, the Westminster crowd will probably go to the High Courts leaving the Scottish Government free to go to the Supreme court.
In relation to your “closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.” Is this not the normal modus operandi of Westminster.
I agree with H.B and Arbroath that any legal challenge will come before the referendum but it will not come from any of the main unionist camps .
It would be suicidal for any of the unionists to openly interfere before the referendum takes place as all it would do is chase Scot,s into the yes camp .
Any challenge if it comes , has to come from a Scot or a Scottish organisation or some organisation from out with england so it does not look as if westminster is interfering .
The funding for any challenge will certainly come from the rich tory,s in the south of england as they are the ones funding the bitter together campaign .
The unionists have had their chance to destroy the yes campaign and it has not worked , all they have left in their armoury are lies , smears and dirty tricks .
From next year due the corruption in the banking system and the new austerity measures start to bite we should see opinion polls moving in our direction .
Even the m.s.m while opposing independence , are having to admit that due to budget cuts things will only get worse next year , which can only be good for the yes camp .
@HB
People aren’t assuming that necessarily: even if someone does challenge the thing over the next 24 months, the courts (whether Scots, English or supreme) would be under huge pressure to decide quickly, and those held responsible for trying to stop the process would surely reap the whirlwind of electoral disapproval in the end.
Even if a court could be prevailed upon to decide in favour of some blocking tactic, it would be more likely to blow up in their faces than be seen as a principled stand to stop the wicked SG doing something illegal.
The mandate the Scottish people gave the SG for holding a referendum in the 2nd half of the parliament is quite clear; the Unionists establishment will have to tread warily if it doesn’t want to bring about the very outcome they purport to be so implacably against.
Here is a wee question for readers.
The Scottish Office, which is run by Westminster has is budget funded out of Scotlands block grant. How much does the Scottish Office cost to run?
a.) £1.9 Million
b.) £2.7 Million
c.) £3.5 Million
link to snp.org
If you answered a.) 1.9 Million you would be wrong – this is only the wage bill from 2007. If you answered b.) 2.7 Million you would be wrong – this is the wage bill now. If you answered c.) 3.5 Million you would again be wrong, the actual amount is an eye watering £8 Million this year!
That quiz is a bit rigged.
all they have left in their armory are lies , smears and dirty tricks
Does this remind folks of anything?
1706/107 ring any bells?
That quiz is a bit rigged.
Adrian is following the excellent example set out by the Bitter campaign Stu..
No “a bit rigged” about it. All options were certainly wrong, but that was the point I was making. How much would you expect the Scottish Office to cost to run on a yearly basis?
A friend and I agreed earlier today that £3.5 Million sounded about right (hence that became option ‘c’ as it seemed about right). We were both rather annoyed to say the least that it was as high as £8 Million, given that it doesn’t really do anything noticeable to spend this amount of money.
Does anyone else think that this is good value for money? I will ask again just how much would you have thought it would cost to run the Scottish Office?
Re comments on Labour Hame.
A comment I can across on “Is the settled will too settled?”, an article by Keiza Dugdale MSP (06/06/11) on Labour Hame.
admin says:
June 13, 2011 at 8:01 am
Elaine – thanks for persevering amidst the bonkers ranting of the cybernats. We’re taking a much stricter approach to moderation now, so that LabourHame becomes a nicer place for normal people who just want to debate the issues, not just sneer and bully their compatriots for daring to disagree with them
Arbroath 1320
When we get their backs to the wall and they are forced to use the last roll of the dice on dirty tricks then we know we are winning .
The problem will be ! how do we know they have used their dirty tricks ?
The one thing we do have on our side is the internet as we can use it to combat anything they come up with .
It,s a pity we did not have the internet in the 70s .
“We’re taking a much stricter approach to moderation now, so that LabourHame becomes a nicer place for normal people who just want to debate the issues, not just sneer and bully their compatriots for daring to disagree with them “
LOL. It’s funny how Labour’s approach to “debate”, whether on Twitter, Facebook, blogs or anywhere else, is to silence all dissent.
# Rev. Stuart Campbell
They have now reverted back to just a captcha as it must of been awful lonely for the poor dears
O/T
Tom harris has an article on labourhame that some of the more articulate amongst you might want to respond to .
I think LabourShame has a “naughty step” filter which disables comments by anyone who has criticised the Politburo before. As Tom Harris says in his recent article – “Democracy is a pain in the arse.”
Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 provides the power to amend Schedule 5 of the act which covers reserved powers.
Schedule 5, 1(b) reserves “the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England”. NOT, you will notice, the Union of the Parliaments or governance of the two kingdoms.
Sch 5, 1(c) reserves “the Parliament of the United Kingdom” to the UK Government. That makes sense – it would be daft for a devolved Scottish Parliament to interfere in the UK Parliament’s affairs. Note that the Union of the parliaments is not reserved.
There is no need for a Section 30 order to allow a referendum on Scottish Independence to take place before the event as parliamentary union is not specifically reserved in Schedule 5. In effect, what the Scottish people will be voting for is the total repeal of the Scotland Act and its replacement by a new treaty between two independent nations.
Sorry, couldn’t edit in time to add this link to Schedule 5 –
link to legislation.gov.uk
Elaine – thanks for persevering amidst the bonkers ranting of the cybernats. We’re taking a much stricter approach to moderation now, so that LabourHame becomes a nicer place for normal people who just want to debate the issues, not just sneer and bully their compatriots for daring to disagree with them
A nicer place for NORMAL people eh? Whose definition of normal are we working on here, Labour’s, or the Oxford English Dictionary’s?
That would be NORMAL LABOUR people I take it?
Normal as in those who can’t speak only SHOUT eh?
I love the bit about bully their compatriots. I wonder if ANY of the Labour Hame gang have ever looked in the mirror recently?
With regards to the Schedule 30 tooing and froing I reckon Alex Salmond knows EXACTLY what the schedule entails. I am sure that he is aware as Barney has so kindly pointed out that a schedule 30 is in fact NOT required. This is, it appears, just ANOTHER scare story from “Dave the Glorious” and his gang of whipper snappers!
After some deliberation, I voted for Ian Smart in the poll. Having just read his latest contribution to his blog, I’m even more convinced that this was the right vote.
I posted a perfectly ‘normal’ comment on Labourhame noting that it was not just 2014 that needed to be considered, but 2015, 2016 and so on, with the consistutional question remaining until an arrangment that satisfied the Scottish electorate’s desires for increased autonomy was achieved.
I also noted that the Tories are the most likely party to negotiate a new ‘sovereign’ devo max excelled/independent Scotland with a new relationship with the UK union to help secure a victory for them in the rUK 2015 election (Labour loses 40 MPs and Dave has a golden bridge to retreat over, selling Scottish sovereignty as a ‘new modern partnership of nations on the British isles).
Funnily enough, it didn’t make it past the mods.
Scottish Skier,
My post on that thread is ‘in moderation’. I think my record for being ‘in moderation’ on there was about four months or so. After that I gave up the will to live.
Following on from what KOF posted, the admin of Labour Hames Admin comments, I guess mo one here is a NORMAL person!
Remember the days when the Lib Dems said the Scotland Office was a waste of money and they wanted to abolish it?
Of course, they said a lot of things at that time which later proved to be absolute bullshit.
Ah that would THE Scotland Office whose annual costs, removed from Scotland’s “pocket money naturally, have RISEN from £1.9 Million to OVER £8 Million we’re talking about here then.
This is the same Westminster department that I seem to remember reading about quite some time back that dealt with a WHOPPING 30, THIRTY, or so letters, e-mails and phone calls A WEEK!
I wonder, now that we are being charged £8Million a year for the “benefit” of having such a Westminsterial department what we actually GET for our money. That is of course APART from the PRO Westminster advertising department! Oh and don’t forget the VERY EXPENSIVE departmental chauffeur driven oops I mean motor bike!
News suggesting Mr Moore’s maybe for the chop.
So, the man that advocated abolishing his own position before he was offered it is now to be fired from that very position? That’s really quite something for the CV.
Heard Menzies Campbell touted as a replacement. Would he fall on his own sword too for the cause? SNP shot up 16% in NE Fife with the Libs down 14% in May 2011. Given that Moore’s seat in the borders has decent Tory support I’d say Menzies would be walking on even thinner ice than Moore is.
Ming Campbell is coming in as Scottish Secretary in order to shore up the Lib Dem vote in Scotland and take on Alex in the referendum; David Laws will be going to the Cabinet office but not into the cabinet. Vince is safe at Business but may have Universities moved out from under him and Willetts to the Secretary of State for (English pre University) Education, now that he’s been responsible for putting up student fees. Paddy Ashdown may get Defence! And if Cameroon is really clever, Ken Clarke and Teresa May may swap posts to annoy the civil servants in their depts.