Fooled you again
Posted on
January 24, 2017 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
Supreme Court ruling just in: “LOL SUCKERS!”
And here’s the short version.
We look forward to Scotland’s lily-livered columnists explaining to us how “federalism” is still a viable alternative to independence, any minute now.
@Tam Jardine
I seem to remember Richard Lochhead wrote an article last year which highlighted Scotlands drinks exports including gin. I can’t find it right now but the paper below has some interesting figures
link to scotlandfoodanddrink.org
link to scotland.org
Type What does Scotland export into google for more articles.
Kenny MacAskil says
Theresa May’s government of Brexit “buffoons” pushing voters towards Scottish independence
link to archive.is
Thinking further about my comment about the Court of Session…
If the Sewel Convention has been exposed as a sham which isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, then why didn’t the Scottish Governments legal advisors tipple to the fact when it was introduced?
What is the problem with our legal eagles? A wee bit short sighted? A tad too complacent, or a wee bit too comfy in their vintage Chesterfield armchairs?
BBC GMS at 8:15 cut off Mike Russell as soon as he mentioned EFTA and Scotland. He was in their Edinburgh studio too, so totally under their control.
@ Breeks (8:42am) – “If the Sewel Convention has been exposed as a sham which isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, then why didn’t the Scottish Governments legal advisors tipple to the fact when it was introduced?”
Perhaps the entire point of using it in the case was to completely expose Sewel as a sham?
I hope you all listened to Nigel Lawson’s interview on this mornings GMS at around 08 40
It was comedy platinum!
This was a Tory peer talking about Brexit and supporting Teresa May, being interviewed from his home in FRANCE!
During the interview he gaffed by stating that Scotland voted to remain in the EU, then when reminded by Hayley Miller that it was about Brexit, corrected himself saying he meant the United Kingdom
He waffled on about Scotland in the UK and at one stage Im sure he stated that Scotland joined the UK 300 years ago (will have to listen again)
He did stay that Scotland exports mostly to England and not so much to the EU
@ Tam Jardine, funny how exporting £20 billion worth of oil turned into just £60 million of revenue for the Scots Gers figures. I also wonder how much of that crude oil which is tankered straight to places like Rotterdam comes back to us as refined oil etc.
The Sewell (Lord Sewell the bra wearing coke addict – Berdero chambles) Convention was introduced and supported by Labour/Unionists. The SNP did condemn it when it was bring introdced. One of the reasons they were against was it’s limited powers. Re Devolution convention. There was no Scottish Gov legal experts. The Scottish Gov didn’t exist. Introduced by members of the Westminster Gov. Blair. To limit powers of a Scottish administration. Give as little meaningless powers as possible to keep any Scottish administration under Westminster control.
Might help to google a few facts or read a few books before regurgitation nonsense.
@ Jim Morris, Northern Ireland is not a province it is a bit of a province. I believe that according to the Irish Agreement N.I (not Ulster notice!) can have a referendum when it wants one, with a number of years stipulated until the next one!
Holyrood Brexit Minister Mike Russell To Give Statement To MSPs today.
Doesn’t say when the statement will be made.
link to archive.is
link to scottishparliament.tv
Sewell Convention 1st session 1999 to 2003 – Labour/Unionist control – Blair. A Unionist institution. Introduced and supported by Unionists. Rejected by the SNP.
Heil Trump
link to archive.is
NI is six counties of Ihe Irish mass. Ulster. The Partition of Ireland 1922. An illegal settlement forced on Ireland by unelected Westminster Unionists under the control of an armed occupation. Against the majorities wishes and the public interest. Opposed by the majority in Ireland. Imposed by Lloyd George a minority elected Liberal. One of the worst political decision ever made in the world.
NI a Law unto itself for bigotry. Doesn’t conform to UK Law. About the Law. Illegally screws the Westminster Parliament in favour of the Tories.
@Breeks
There is a pdf file if you search – Smith commission Sewel.
The SG did try and get the LCM put on a statutory footing. If you remember there was a cross party Holyrood committee that tabled a very detailed response to Smith, which was largely ignored where it mattered of course.
Below is extract.
———————————-
because they weaken the intention of the Smith recommendation.
The Scottish Government agrees with the Committee’s analysis. The current clause fails to implement the Smith recommendation in three respects: ? The Sewel Convention, as set out in Devolution Guidance Note 10 (DGN 10), also requires the consent of the Scottish Parliament to Westminster legislation which alters the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers. The draft clause does not refer to either of these categories. This is a significant omission. ?
The draft clause puts the Sewel Convention into legislation as a convention, rather than putting the convention on a statutory footing. This is very different from precedents where the UK has placed other conventions on a statutory footing, such as the Ponsonby Convention relating to treaty ratification. ?
As has been widely noted, and set out in DGN 10, the effective operation of the Sewel Convention depends on consultation between the Scottish and UK Governments; the draft clause fails to include any consultation requirements.
“Scottish Secretary David Mundell dismissed the First Minister’s comments, saying ”Scotland’s voice is being heard clearly throughout the whole process”.”
They might hear us, but are ignoring everything we say!
What is the problem with our legal eagles? A wee bit short sighted? A tad too complacent, or a wee bit too comfy in their vintage Chesterfield armchairs?
The Law is not an entity on its own, its there for a purpose. Its like if you speed on the motorway, you dont get knicked for it, but the Law does not come after you, eg
“What’s the truth about Gina Miller? A loss-making company. False claims about a law degree. And critics who say she’s a shameless self-publicist…”
Says the Heil. It took one voter to do go to Law over Brexit, Commons vote, tory democrat override/farce etc… but where were the massed ranks of opposition MP’s along the road from the SC, in their £10bn renovated Palace Of Westminster?
Mind how SLab raged at SNP “low” EU campaign spends?
The reality of our situation is this, if we do not escape from this damaging union soon, Theresa May will lock the door preventing EU protection, turn around and then kick the shit out of Scotland.
Sad, but true.
@ Tam Jardine. In last 3 years England exported £50 billion of Mineral Fuel.
link to uktradeinfo.com
Bateman had a message yesterdayfor No voters and tells it like it is; both barrels.
link to derekbateman.scot
Where are those good old …. values, on which we now know arent worth the paper etc.
link to anonhq.com
Also very lordly mad, Lord Prosy shagger discusses politics, post or pre coital style
” Sewel was recorded during his session with the two £200-a-night prostitutes (around US $312) at his Dolphin Square flat in Westminster, branding David Cameron as “the most facile, superficial prime minister there’s ever been” and that “He just shoots from the hip. He is false. He makes one-off commitments and cannot deliver.”
According to footage obtained by The Sun, Sewel also branded the MP behind the Scottish independence referendum, Alex Salmond, as a “silly, pompous prat”.
The Sun also reported Sewel mentioning that the Labour leaders were “in a fucking mess”.
Its a funny olde union.
One_Scot @ 9.45
Totally agree with what you said.
I think that’s now Westminster’s best and probably only chance of holding on to us.
Delay Indyref2 for “whatever” reason till European oversight is removed.
Then Claim it as an internal matter.
Redraw or reword legislation to make either a vote impossible or a yes majority unachievable, with a caveat that even holding a vote locked us in to new terms and conditions for the Union.
They are practically telling us that the Supreme Court will be unchallenged after Brexit,and,the Supreme Court has also just told us/reminded us that they are subject to enforcing whatever Westminster write into Law.
They also now tell us that this procedure IS the UK Constution!
After Brexit if that Treaty is still in force there is nowhere else to go, mainly because not enough people at home or internationally understand that it is and has always only ever been a TREATY between two Countries.
Yesindyref2@3.00am
I agree – the UKSC focused on the triggering of Article 50. That was, for them, the most crucial decision to maintain Parliamentary sovereignty.
The Constitutional issues are political and the judges have explicitly and consistently said it is not the role of the judiciary to make political decisions.Therefore having underlined Parliamentary sovereignty it is simpler then to hand the Constitutional matters back to the politicians especially when the wording is ‘unusual’/(ambiguous?) and gives them the ‘get out’ clause.
Para 149 they agree Sewel is definitely only a convention but they offer the guidance that in their view it does establish Holyrood’s permanence and clearly the spirit of the convention is that the nations should be consulted.
They have not judged that ‘the Nations must not be consulted’ saying instead that
‘there is no need to consult the nations… ( on this occasion – because as said before, Parliament has to sort this out). Leastways, that’s how I read it.
They didn’t go anywhere near Sovereignty because they didn’t need to and because the weak wording of the Sewel Convention might have resulted in them seeming to have a political preference in favour of WM or Devolution and, however imperfect, that is clearly the remit of the UK Parliament which they have just endorsed.
Neat!
PS:
Does the existence of the Supreme Court breach the Union as it challenges the superiority of Scots Law in perpetuity?
Is it just me or is there a typo in the clause 9.53 shown above? “There was need to consult…”
One_Scot says:
25 January, 2017 at 9:45 am
The reality of our situation is this, if we do not escape from this damaging union soon, Theresa May will lock the door preventing EU protection, turn around and then kick the shit out of Scotland.
Sad, but true…
I agree, but we are running out of provocative thresholds upon which to make a stand. Once Theresa May consults parliament, then I am unclear whether Westminster can or will delay triggering Article 50, and once triggered, with all Theresa May’s rhetoric, I don’t place much faith in Brexit taking two years to happen.
We could very easily see May going for a hard and dirty Brexit, sweeping away all constitutional niceties of devolution, and seeing Scotland confounded by not having either the time or recognized constitutional legitimacy to hold a pedestrian 12 to 18 month referendum campaign to prevent our unceremonious ejection from the EU.
People say the Unionists are running scared. I see no such thing. They are not troubled by our quest for Independence, they have utter contempt for us. I quote professed Nick Boyle (?) again; England sees Scotland, Ireland and Wales as comic lesser parts of the UK. They’re not scared of us, they’re not scared of our contempt, they’re not scared by our anger. The will cheat us in a heartbeat and feel no guilt or remorse about doing it.
Suppose that scenario came true, and Scotland faced the prospect of exiting Europe in the Summer? Because right now, to me that looks like a distinct possibility.
And once out of Europe, that other Unionist assertion becomes a reality too. Scotland once out of the EU needs to negotiate it’s way back in, where a veto can block our membership. And that assumes too we have “negotiated” our exit from the UK.
Heed the warning SNP, the Westminster government sees devolved administrations as non-sovereign entities who are subject to Westminster’s sovereignty. Unless you want that on your epitaph, then you and the Lord Advocate need to get your heads together and blow the dust off Scotland’s popular civic sovereignty; the sovereignty which Westminster cannot touch.
Rock and Robert,
You have both made claims about what the Supreme court judgement meant, and having read the judgement in full it is clear you are both incorrect.
The relevant section is 44
“In Scotland, the Claim of Right 1689 was to the same effect, providing that “all Proclamationes asserting ane absolute power to Cass [ie to quash] annull and Dissable lawes … are Contrair to Law”. And article 18 of the Acts of Union of 1706 and 1707 provided that (with certain irrelevant exceptions) “all … laws” in Scotland should “remain in the same force as before … but alterable by the Parliament of Great Britain”.
So in relation to the case and the use of the governments use of the “Divine right of kings”, that is the absolute power of the nation (or sovereignty) held in one person is similar, but not the same, in Scotland as in England, and that is as far as the Judges went.
But what is important is that yet again the claim of right as the Legal position was cited as fact, but the claim goes on, and establishes this absolute power, residing in the Scottish Nation when it states
“Therefore the estates of the kingdom of Scotland find and declare that (the) King,,, did assume the regal power and acted as king without ever taking the oath required by law and has,,,, invaded the fundamental constitution of the kingdom and altered it from a legal limited monarchy to an arbitrary despotic power, ,,, and the violation of the laws and liberties of the kingdom, inverting all the ends of government, whereby he has forfeited the right to the crown and the throne is become vacant.
Proof from prior to the act of union a statement limiting the Scottish Kingdom to a “legal limited monarchy”, this has is antecedence in the declaration of Arbroath,
” Yet if he should give up what he has begun, seeking to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own right and ours and common law,”
And that Rock, is a people asserting in 1320 that “we the people”, are sovereign as America did finally in 1791.
And what is sovereignty, nothing more than,,,
“Sovereignty is more than anything else a matter of legitimacy […that] requires reciprocal recognition. Sovereignty is a hypothetical trade, in which two potentially conflicting sides, respecting de facto realities of power, exchange such recognition as their least costly strategy.”
So in both your posts Rock And Robert you are both incorrect as all the SC did was state the obvious, Holyrood is a vassal of Westminster.
Therefore the statement made at the opening of Holyrood, “The Scots Parliament suspended 1n 1707 is reconvened”, is unlawful.
To reconvene the Scots Parliament you need the Scottish MP’s the majority will suffice, to sit at Holyrood (better at Parliament House, with the Scottish Judiciary in attendance) and declare the parliament in session, and this can be done as the parliament was never extinguished.
But That is not going to happen as Westminster will allow for another Independence referendum whenever Scotland asks for it.
Was it an ‘arranged marriage’ at the ‘Elvis Chapel’ in LA,perhaps ? or was it just another everyday business transaction ? in modern day terms,an online purchase,by the action of a single,solitary,click of a mouse ?….was one country simply bought (into obedience) by a richer much larger,country (gift wrapped in a big tartan ribbon)….Really ? (stop it,with all the questions…I mean come on,it happens all the time,it’s no biggy…move along now,there is nothing to see here,all perfectly legal you know and look we have a well creased,coffee stained, photo copy of a receipt as evidence).
Truth be told,I don’t really care too much,nor fully understand,the technicalities of the ‘arrangement’ that said,the procedural outcome was boringly predictable,though,rather disappointingly the judges didn’t don their black caps….to me,that signified a ceremonial,lack of respect for the ‘non-union’ they had just condemned.
The whole court thing,served it’s box ticking,purpose though,braw (huge nod to,Mr Peffers and others,for what it’s worth,I enjoy and have learned more from your posts,on WoS,than anywhere).
As an aside,I have been concerned about the reaction of the yoon,to independence that is, (yoon:the twisted,unloved,highly volatile,bastard offspring,of a corrupted union).
How could I let this happen ? Could I have done more ? Maybe spent more time with yoon ?,Hugged yoon a little bit more and a little more often,early intervention and all that ?.
Worry not,the blame lies totally with the ‘other parent’ at Westminster,in their actions,their repeated failures.to behave like responsible grown up adults,yoon had the worst role models,never being set any good behavioural examples to follow,pick up any newspaper and read the headlines or watch ‘their version’ of events,on say,the BBC news (look at the state of the world today,we all ‘get it’ right).
However,if the unloved yoon is to be portrayed as the victim here,that sits okay with me (a small price to pay) we will have,deliberately,set a good example of peaceful democracy in action,some might even call it a kind of ‘tough love’ (but wrapped in a big soft baby box blanket).
True personal development,usually comes with some sort of price tag,it cannot be bought by money alone,it takes time,effort,sometimes there will be sweat,sometimes tantrums,sometimes tears and though yoon might not appreciate all of this,at this moment in time,somwhere in the future,they will….it is all for the best…the best future,not only for us but also for yoon.
#PeaceAlways
Heedtracker @ 10.01
I’m getting access denied on your link.
Might be my tablet but just letting you know!
Liz g (11:44am)
Not you Liz, i’m getting the same.
________
yesindyref2 wrote on 24 January, 2017 at 6:25 pm:
“It’s up to 48% for a second Indy Ref from 47%, but still over 600 votes needed. It would be a GIRFUY to have the Telegraph of all rags, having a poll which showed a majority in favour of IR2!”
(Unionist clickbait trap link removed)
Absolute bullshit! The only people you’re giving a ‘GIRFUY’ to are independence supporters by helping to trick them into funding that rag via clicking on their direct links to a meaningless and doctored poll.
@Breeks
The Scotland Bill went through various stages, and a lot of amendments were tabled, some not called, most voted down, including all SNP ones.
There WAS an attempt to strengthen the Sewel Convention (2105-2 resulting in 1998-28(8)), but without bothering chasing it through, it clearly failed.
link to publications.parliament.uk
search for Sewel, and e.g. “Clause 2, page 2, line 2, leave out “not normally” and insert “never””
There may well be others, I only quickly checked 3 papers of:
link to services.parliament.uk
56 SNP MPs (plus at times Carmichael and even Murray) against a hostile House of Commons. Who’d have thunk it? Scotland lost.
Typo – 2016 not 2105!
potter
Amazing- so Scotland exported £10.6bn mineral fuels in 2014 and England exported £117.7bn.Did they just find it, aye?
They are some shower- fiddle their stats to tell us we are poor. The brass neck of it all is quite something
potter
Amazing- so Scotland exported £10.6bn mineral fuels in 2014 and England exported £17.7bn.Did they just find it, aye?
They are some shower- fiddle their stats to tell us we are poor. The brass neck of it all is quite something
2nd comment is the corrected one. Even WM can’t pull £117.7bn out of thin air!
link to renderer.qmerce.com
No need to ‘click through’ James Westland, CH puts this link up last night, get off the telegraph site and just click yes or no.
@Andrew McLean
“Therefore the statement made at the opening of Holyrood, “The Scots Parliament suspended 1n 1707 is reconvened”, is unlawful.
To reconvene the Scots Parliament you need the Scottish MP’s the majority will suffice, to sit at Holyrood (better at Parliament House, with the Scottish Judiciary in attendance) and declare the parliament in session, and this can be done as the parliament was never extinguished. ”
Very interesting, I’m gonnae huv to think about that one! You may well be right.
However, if so, they could presumably also legally proclaim the current Parliament in Holyrood as the successor of the 1707 Parliament – and should indeed do so this Westminster term, at some stage.
Seems to me that process would not only legalise Holyrood, it could annul the Scotland Act 1998 – and successors, though there would be a question of them having voted for them, how would that work out.
————————
UK Supreme Court – Alex Salmond didn’t recognise it, and he knows his history.
Is it possible a lot of Telegraph Tory voters are also voting YES to the question should there be another referendum as they want ‘rid’ of us?
‘Cos just now it’s sitting on 59%!!!
K1 on 25 January, 2017 at 1:39 pm:
After wading back through all the verbal sparring on the thread and seeing your alternative link i’ve been dying to ask how you done that but i’m not going to just in case it’s a secret. 🙂
Whatever you did you can bet as soon as they suss-it-out they’ll put a stop to it.
@Stoker
Oh Stoker, you do know it’s a free world right, you don’t own this website, and people are entitled to have a different opinion to yours?
Firstly it’s quite a critical time for Indy, there are btl unionist posters all over the MSM saying there’s no support for Indy Ref 2, and it’s dropping (yeah, work that out). Well, us vile cybernats have owned the Telegraph, and the poll is now at 59% to yes, there should be another referendum – with 24,513 votes in total.
Personally I think that would be worth a few pounds in the DT’s coffers but here’s where the different opinion comes in again – it just ain’t as simple as that. All visitors have to do is not buy anything from the advertisers on the page, and the nett result is not just zero, it could even after some google analytics by the advertiser, be negative. Because they ain’t getting the return for their advertising spend. A mischievous person would suggest a team of 100 clicking the links after clearing caches, 1,000 times each, but hey, I didn’t say that.
I’ve had websites since the late 90s, and have been an affiliate of a few different schemes, including the ubiquitous Amazon, commission junction and others, and earned a few pennies. My best and current is actually a referral signup for a great and cheap supplier I use myself, and because of the referrals (I’m at the max), it costs me way less than half in a year what it would do for an important business supply.
But basically there are 3 methods of earning money from a busy website. 1, is the direct commission / referral signup, 2nd is clickthrus, and 3rd impressions – when you visit a page. Advertisers analyse sales very thoroughly using tools to see whether their advertising campaign is worth it – or not.
I’m not up to date with recent methods as it always was just a sideline to help pay for my dedicated server (and the domains), but one thing won’t have changed. Advertiser spends money, wants return.
Yes Indy ref 2
“However, if so, they could presumably also legally proclaim the current Parliament in Holyrood as the successor of the 1707 Parliament – and should indeed do so this Westminster term, at some stage.”
IMHO no, they would be voting for their own disenfranchisement, and it could be argued the Holyrood Parliament as vassal of Westminster was in incompetent as it had no mandate from the electorate to make law on items that are at present within the powers retained at Westminster.
Rather as power devolved is power retained, then the obvious course hypothetically speaking is for the Scottish MP’S to either replace the MSP’s or become a revising body, either way, as The Scotland Act has been legally judged a political expediency and unable to be defended in law, MSP,s have no Sovereignty other than that given to them by the Palace of Westminster.
Andrew
I like the idea of our 59 MP’s returning to Scotland to become a Revising Chamber , nay, an Upper House with the continuing authority of the Ancient Parliament carried back through the WM interregnum..
Currently that would mean:
LibDem ………1
Labour………..1
Conservative..1
SNP…………..56
yesindyref2 on 25 January, 2017 at 3:49 pm:
And as i said, absolute bullshit! Your post is full of irrelevant waffle. Firstly, i don’t make any claim to be the owner of this site. Secondly, who said anything about different opinions? And for as long as there are people like you conning others to help keep the BUM rags alive then there’ll be people like me to remind and educate them to the reality of clickbait traps.
We ‘Wingers’ are supposed to be all about educating people and making them savvy, not conning them to aid the survival of BUM rags. If you, as is your want, like to play around on BUM threads then that is your choice to do so, just don’t think you’re going to come on here and fool others without someone such as me informing them of the reality.
Another pile of pish you’re fond of relaying is the belief that you’re actually “debating” with people who have votes in Scotland. The vast majority of those threads are run and dominated by English companies whose England based employees do the moderation of said threads. It’s a farce and it’s all geared towards generating clicks.
As the dead tree scrolls fall faster than a lead balloon online news sites are the future, we don’t need to be helping them to establish a stranglehold the way the BUM rags did. As i said, as long as people keep sending traffic to BUM sites i’ll retain a different opinion and approach to them.
You wrote:
“Well, us vile cybernats have owned the Telegraph,…. – with 24,513 votes in total.”
Aye! Sure enough! Look, there goes Santa! LMFAO!
You also wrote:
” All visitors have to do is not buy anything from the advertisers on the page,”
And how can you be sure that when you’re directing them to a BUM site that they’re not being taken in by the advertising or even converted by some rancid steaming article? The only truthful answer is you can’t, so why risk sending them there in the first place? Every time you do you run the risk of having the seed of doubt planted in their heads. So if you don’t mind i’ll stick to my own opinion and avoid sending clicks to your beloved rags.
One final point, if we can’t persuade folk to treat BUM sites with utter contempt then we can’t very well question why they fall for slack bribes such as The Vow, can we?
See all the ‘vigorous debates’ that have been taking place btl on WOS the past few days?
I am reminded of these characters…
link to youtube.com
Meg Merrilees @ 5.59
Isn’t that a delicious thought…. Fluffy to have to not be a minister anymore, to have to leave Westminster and sit with the other Scot’s MPs in Edinburgh.
Answerable to Holyrood and no possibility of a peerage.
Wonder how enthusiastically he would want to represent his constituents then???
I suspect that their would Not be that 1 conservative MP at all. LOL.
I remember Lord Hope getting pelters from A Salmond for joining the Supreme Court Gravy Train south!
1st post here.
Thanks for the education over the past day or so.
Couple of points tho’!
Snipin’ at each other (you know who you are) only benefits the opposition.
Smartarsey inspeak does not help the cause! If I have to pause and think to myself “who the f*** is being referenced here”…, please be clear. Ditto abbreviations, we’re not all up to speed; consider this when you try to convert a “no” 🙂
That said, good stuff!
The Claim of Right, the Act of Union, an equal, valued partner, leading the union, the right to participate meaningfully in a process of wholesale material change, even the right to be consulted on such change ; a convention enshrined in statute you say, a powerhouse parliament, the most devolved and powerful anywhere in the world…the 11 Justices looked and laughed at a’ that. Naw, lords Lang and Forsyth have more right than all of you and your elected government to be consulted. to vote. to be heard. to promote their preferred policy. Aye well, we’ll hae the last laugh. You did us a favour.
Wull at 10.50pm Tuesday.
Congratulations on a very good interpretive essay
Andrew McLean at 11.28am –
Extract –
“Therefore the statement made at the opening of Holyrood, “The Scots Parliament suspended 1n 1707 is reconvened”, is unlawful.
To reconvene the Scots Parliament you need the Scottish MP’s the majority will suffice, to sit at Holyrood (better at Parliament House, with the Scottish Judiciary in attendance) and declare the parliament in session, and this can be done as the parliament was never extinguished.
But That is not going to happen as Westminster will allow for another Independence referendum whenever Scotland asks for it.”
Andrew,
In the (unlikely) event Westminster might not allow another Referendum, would you consider that if the actions you describe in the preceding paragraph would suffice to re-convene the Scottish Parliament?
In so doing, where would that place us in regard to negating the Union and Scottish Independence ?
Breeks,
“So when do we get rid of the Court of Session then? If Scotland doesn’t technically exist, it’s a peculiar wee constitutional niche Scotland’s lawyers have carved for themselves.
Threaten to shut down that and see if the Lord Advocate suddenly comes up with any fresh opinions about Scotland’s sovereignty and constitutional predicament.”
The Scottish justice system is rotten to the core and the vast majority of lawyers, especially judges, are the lowest of the low.
As I had posted while the twats were in session:
Wolff’s loyalty is to the UK establishment, not to Scotland.
Andrew McLean,
“And that Rock, is a people asserting in 1320 that “we the people”, are sovereign as America did finally in 1791.”
When did the “plebs” of Scotland get the right to vote?
How can voteless people assert anything?
The alleged “sovereignty” of the “plebs” is not worth the paper it is written on.
They have never been “sovereign”. They have always been at the mercy of the ruling elite.
Rock
Every 5 years.
Ian,
And this is academic, and just my opinion, but yes, you can show that the elected representatives of the Scottish parliament in abeyance, are the elected members of the place of Westminster. That I believe is indisputable. Now what the government in Westminster at the time would do about it is another thing altogether.
They could ignore it, or pass an act of Parliament in Westminster making it an illegal assembly, and hold fresh elections in Scotland stating the MPs had given up their seats.
It is unlikely, in fact virtually impossible for them to use force to evict the MPs from where ever they were sitting.
Remember we are talking complete fantasy here, but to do such a thing as abandoning Westminster would create a democratic event unseen in Scotland since the 45 rebellion, it would allow hot heads to carry out mayhem in the name of their cause, so would necessitate a controlling action from the law enforcement agencies.
So in effect if you want to do the stupidest thing possible then do that, as I said Westminster will allow independence referendums whenever the majority can be shown to have that opinion, it can be shown with a simple majority in holyrood or even amongst Scottish MPs that this is the will of the electorate.
Westminster can never withdraw consent. It would be destructive to Westminster as much as to Scotland.
In any case all you have to do is get a majority, and in that we only have to persuade 5% more people than last time, and a swings go that’s pretty small.
Hi Rock.
From what you type, it is obvious that you either,
Do not read every comment,
or
Ignore comments that cause you to suffer from cognitive dissonance.
You keep banging on about “plebs”. Maybe you should re-read (or read for the first time) Wull’s post from 4th November, 2016. You can find it here:-
link to wingsoverscotland.com
Rock,
“When did the “plebs” of Scotland get the right to vote?”
Andrew Mclean,
“Rock
Every 5 years.”
Since AD 1320?
I see you’re still ignoring comments that don’t suit your narrative, Rock.
Game, set, match.
Andrew McLean @ 10.23
It’s always been my take that the Soverenty of Scotland rests with the Scottish Westminster MPs.
And I agree with you that they can’t (espically this lot who promised they wouldn’t) just leave Westminster and reform in Edinburgh.
This I agree would lead to conflict, conflict that’s unnecessary and I am mindful that Westminster are better at it than us.
But should a second referendum fail (for whatever reason) I can see no reason why the future candidates for the general election cannot stand on a manifesto commitment to end the Treaty of the Union
.
If Westminster and it’s Media are always going to interfere in our debate and wreck a proper examination of the decision,there is actually no point in continuing to have referendums.
But rather every General Election should also be an opportunity to deliver a verdict on continuing with the terms of the Treaty.
It is IMHO perfectly possible to return a majority of MPs with a mandate to end the Treaty.
@Stoker
That’s all very interesting. Here’s something more interesting:
There was an Old Man on a hill,
Who seldom, if ever, stood still;
He ran up and down,
In his Grandmother’s gown,
Which adorned that Old Man on a hill.
@Andrew McLean
Yes, you’re probably right.
At a tangent, but kind of relevant, Nana posted a link on the newer thread, and I read all the opinions – and agreed with them. But they’re different. And I remember what I put in one posting back in December about the UKSC – that if it really took the case seriously one of the questions it would have to ask, is about itself, and what the UK is, and what its jurisdiction actually is. Perhaps even if it has any at all.
link to judicialpowerproject.org.uk
Thinking about its ruling, it really did dodge the issue, and was completely lacking a Robert Peffers style of historical analysis and commentary.
The relevance to this is that whatever might be the right thing to do, isn’t neccessarily the way a court would look at it, and in fact a court might run away in cowardice from it because it’s “political” and courts shouldn’t interfere.
For me, there’s now already a constitutional crisis in the UK, even without our own added to it, and we might find less sympathy even if we did do things the “right” way.
I really hope we do get Indy Ref 2 soon, 2018 is fine, a solid YES vote which I’ve no doubt the UK Government would honour, and get the hell out. It’ll make life easier. But we do need another “constitutional convention”, after we get our Independence, and it should be a condition laid on the first Independent Government to get that started at least, though not with much of their time spent doing it themselves as they’d be busy launching our state on the world.
The UKSC appeal was win-win-win for Independence, but it leaves a lot of questions for Scotland.
yesindyref2 on 26 January, 2017 at 2:05 am:
Yes, i love you too Sweetcheeks, don’t be a stranger now!
@Stoker
I know 🙂
yesindyref2
😀 feck aff or you’ll be on the receiving end of a messy divorce 😀
@Stoker
Just so I get to keep the cat . . .
I think Schrodinger claimed the cat…
Rock
Are you a Member of the 77th brigade?