The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


The Stoned Roses

Posted on December 08, 2018 by

Print Friendly

    577 to “The Stoned Roses”

    1. Breeks says:


      Luigi says:
      10 December, 2018 at 8:22 am
      Toodle the Noo not sounding so smug on BBC this morning. Sounded like he was labouring to spit out the news.

      I so want to call him Poodleoo the Noo…

    2. Gerry says:

      Key part of the ECJ ruling is that any revocation must follow “a democratic process”.
      Essentially puts a use by date stamp of “end of March” on the option (in my opinion). This will get very interesting now re EU offers to extend….

    3. yesindyref2 says:

      From Andy Wightman:

      “Welcome decision by CJEU. Thank you to everyone who supported us – especially legal team led by Aidan O’Neil QC & instructed by @elainemotion97 and, vitally, @JolyonMaugham and the @GoodLawProject. Full Ruling published soon.”

      Aidan O’Neil is good at this constitutional stuff. Specially if it’s a bit out of the ordinary. A good lad!

    4. yesindyref2 says:

      @Breeks
      Well, Keen did pack in being Chairman of the Scottish Conservatives to take the job. From one lost cause to another!

    5. Nana says:

      Morning Macart, I’m holding on.

      Someone else will have to do the honours on Thursday re the Supreme ct ruling as I will be in hospital.

      I’m thinking Ghillie and yesinref2 as they are quick on the draw 🙂

    6. yesindyref2 says:

      This ruling had I think a lot of groundwork done already with the UKSC Miller appeal intervention by the ScotGov and Wolffe, and the EU Continuity Bill, currently in the UKSC. And perhaps this too can be a building block in case the UKSC finds against that Bill – I daresay an appeal to the ECJ would be considered. Sturgeon after all was in Law.

      Totally random and not connected events of course 🙂 🙂 🙂

    7. Fairliered says:

      Any comments from Prof Tompkins yet?

    8. Luigi says:

      Ah well, the BBC knew weeks in advance the EU Article 50 ruling would be today, so no excuses for not covering this in detail today.

      So I look forward to an exciting debate on the subject on Call UKay this morning.

      About as much chance of that happening as David Mundell resigning. 🙂

    9. Macart says:

      @Nana

      The international man of mystery that is yesindyref2 is fairly swift. 😉

      You just take care on the day Nana. You know how folks worry. Just saying for a friend. (cough!)

    10. yesindyref2 says:

      @Nana
      Normally I’m in my bed by now, but been up nights doing this server move. Went to bed at 5pm yesterday having been up all night and after. Mostly just testing. 🙂

    11. Abulhaq says:

      Cultural appropriation on Today prog. AGAIN.
      Mary Queen of Scots film discussion. Scotland not mentioned once. Not so England/English and British. Scotland’s cultural and political marginalisation continues apace, and seemingly unopposed.
      Far from being ‘assertive’ Scottish nationalism often appears toothless.
      [However, on same prog. A Scottish voice referred to ECJ appeal as Scottish intitiative, twice.
      For most Brit media users that information would be a total surprise.]

    12. Frank Gillougley says:

      Dear Santa,

      All we want for Christmas is a big, bold announcement from Nicola that will set in motion the first constitutional steps to this country reclaiming and attaining its rightful place among the family of nations of the world.

      We have been very good.

    13. yesindyref2 says:

      Oh, from that:

      “v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union,

      interveners:
      Chris Leslie,
      Tom Brake,”

      both of whom (Labour) are delighted (though with their own take on it):

      https://twitter.com/ChrisLeslieMP/status/1072040332643176448

      https://twitter.com/thomasbrake/status/1072047544090443777

      Sorry Nana, stealing your thunder 🙂

    14. Nana says:

      @Macart “international man of mystery” 🙂

      @yesindyref2 Steal away. I’m thinking as wingers are so good with links now, pretty soon I can step away from the keyboard 🙂

    15. Nana says:

      Joint statement ?@joannaccherry? and I on the huge win in the ECJ. The UK *can*, *unilaterally* revoke Article 50. The Scottish Case has delivered

      SNP welcomes ECJ Judgment: UK can revoke Article 50

      https://www.alynsmith.eu/uk_can_revoke_article_50

    16. Breeks says:


      yesindyref2 says:
      10 December, 2018 at 8:39 am
      This ruling had I think a lot of groundwork done already with the UKSC Miller appeal intervention by the ScotGov and Wolffe, and the EU Continuity Bill, currently in the UKSC…..

      I’m waiting to see… This is very good news, but let us not dwell on it for too long.

      It might just be that this case is all about revocation of Article 50, and aspirations we have about a more important Constitutional showdown are misplaced and ill founded.

      I certainly hope not, but make me happy and show me any advice from any formal (or indeed informal) SNP source which alludes to blowing this ECJ judgement up into a Constitutional standoff over sovereignty. If the SNP blows cold on the Constitutional aspects of this, and actually now agitates for a No Brexit as their optimum result rather than the pursuit of sovereign recognition and legal personality for Scotland, then I won’t be a happy bunny and I’m going to be digging out my SNPbad baseball cap again.

      We are running out of time, and already desperately short of opportunities. I believe missing out on the sovereign aspect to Scotland’s Remain vote was a grave strategic error in 2016. This benchmark ruling has its potency in law, but the 2016 Remain vote had its own potency in democracy. We must not let this opportunity slip through our fingers again.

      Please SNP, extract every ounce of Constitutional Sovereignty from this ECJ ruling, have it written on parchment, and have it nailed to the door of No 10 with a 14th Century Scottish dirk.

    17. yesindyref2 says:

      Mmm, very intersting.

      1). “64 It must also be noted that, since citizenship of the Union is intended to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States (see, to that effect, judgments of 20 September 2001, Grzelczyk, C?184/99, EU:C:2001:458, paragraph 31; of 19 October 2004, Zhu and Chen, C?200/02, EU:C:2004:639, paragraph 25; and of 2 March 2010, Rottmann, C?135/08, EU:C:2010:104, paragraph 43), any withdrawal of a Member State from the European Union is liable to have a considerable impact on the rights of all Union citizens, including, inter alia, their right to free movement, as regards both nationals of the Member State concerned and nationals of other Member States.

      2). The ECJ considers A65 (disadvantage) AND 67 of the Vienna as both to be reasons for A68, without discussing them further (as their decision is “corroborated by the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which was taken into account in the preparatory work for the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.“.

      I personally think paragraph 2 of A68 is the applicable one, and perhaps A65 and para 1 of A68 not, but A65 is more interesting from the point of view of “disadvantaged” by a Treaty.

      Both of these are – very interesting for us!

      I don’t think this is the last we’ll be talking about Courts.

    18. Dr Jim says:

      Labour’s position on Brexit becoming more clear this morning as senior Labour figures insist their plan is for a second referendum on the question of *they don’t know* and *wait and see* or possibly *It’ll be alright on the night* but whatever it ends up being it will be more betterer but the same as now with jobs and stuff we promise

      The ECJ ruling is not relevant to that process though

      So in more technical terms Labour are saying *Just gonnae vote us in please gonnae, nothing will change except we’ll be in charge of the same thing but ….jobs*

    19. yesindyref2 says:

      “The international man of mystery”

      Mmm, I like that 🙂

      Nana, problem is I’m quite narrow in what I look at, whereas you cast your net far and wide 🙂

    20. Kangaroo says:

      At the risk of boring you all. I post my opinion again.

      RE: The Scottish Continuity Bill (SCB) court case. Decision on Thursday 13th Dec 18

      What is likely to happen? I profer my humble opinion.

      The UK Supreme Court (SC) has been asked what, on the surface, looks like a very straightforward question; Is the Scottish Continuity Bill competent? You would think a simple Yes No would be in order here; but you’d be wrong. For to answer this question the SC must first grapple with the sticky question of Sovereignty. Specifically whom or what holds the Sovereign power in the UK.

      When our Scottish Parliamentarians signed the Treaty Of Union in 1707, the Kingdom of England (KoE) assumed they had signed over their Sovereignty and have acted accordingly ever since, indeed all Scots Unionists aver this truth. However as the Kingdom of Scotland’s (KoS) Sovereignty rests with its people as asserted in the Declaration of Arbroath and subsequent restatements in the various Claim of Right Acts over the years, this was not true. The KoE Sovereignty has always rested with the the Monarch, sometimes it is asserted that it has been delegated to Parliament and whether or not this is still the case given the dissolution of the English parliament in 1707, it makes no difference to the essence of the case. So we have a situation where there are in fact two Sovereign powers in the UK. So how is this resolved? Quite easily actually. At Westminster there are 59 Scots MPs representing KoS Sovereignty (SS) and the balance of MPs represent KoE Sovereignty (ES) so when votes are taken it needs to consider this fact. Acts of Westminster are only lawful when both Sovereignties align. If there is disagreement then either one or other compromises or the Act fails. If ES overrides SS then that is a descision which could and would #DissolveTheUnion, no Ifs no buts. The only exceptions to this would be the Powers held by Holyrood and the procedural trickery of EVEL which prima facie allow the exercise of separate Sovereignty for issues directly pertaining to the domestic agendas of the respective Kingdoms. Even here, there is an issue, as reductions in budgets in purely KoE expenditure have been used to justify reductions in the KoS Block Grant.

      Let’s apply this logic to the SCB case.
      The Scotland Act 1998 delegated powers to the Scottish Parliament and it did so with the approval of both ES and SS at Westminster.
      The Scottish Parliament passed its SCB but prior to achieving Royal assent it was challenged by Westminster at the SC. Westminster subsequently passed its UK EU Withdrawal Bill (EUWB) which became an Act having received Royal assent.
      There are now two conflicting statutes, what does the SC do?
      Well if you follow the logic in regards to Sovereignty the answer is straight forward.
      If the EUWB obtained approval of both SS and ES then the SCB is unlawful, as the powers that were legally delegated are legally removed, otherwise the SCB is lawful. In this regard then Westminster holds the supreme power.
      With respect to this case there is no need to answer the question of the legitimacy or status of Holyrood. However the elegance of the solution puts on notice that both Kingdoms hold an effective veto over any Act which affects the whole of the UK as opposed to one which affects only one of its singular parts.

      This is a massive blow to the cushy Westminster cabal where the bobsy twins of Tory and Labour take muggins turns at power in a faustian pact to deceive the people into believing they have a choice. Now with SS correctly established in Westminster it is possible for the Scottish MPs to completely disrupt proceedings and prevent any and all business being done.

      In the event that either party is unhappy with the solution, they can always appeal to the ECJ.

    21. Kangaroo says:

      As you can see from my above comment the Continuity Bill has far more extensive ramifications than the A50 Bill. Roll on Thursday, if I am correct then Westminster will be in melt down on Thursday after thus decision.

    22. Fireproofjim says:

      Congratulations to Joanna Cherry, (My MP by the way) for cutting the Gordian knot, together with her colleagues, and finding a clear and very simple way out of this crazy Brexit mess that the Tories have created.
      Not that they will take the lifeline thrown by the ECJ. It was a Scottish/SNP initiative and is therefore, by definition, BAD.
      Better go over the cliff edge, dragging everybody with them, than admit they were wrong.

    23. call me dave says:

      Toodle-oo-the-noo …confirmation of the legal advice…yawn!

      That took about 10 secs from Auntie with a kilt’s main man.

      Anyhoo! Nice start to the day. 🙂

    24. Nana says:

      “Human rights law exists not to support the powerful, but to strengthen the powerless.”
      video here
      https://twitter.com/scotgov/status/1072038209415196672

      https://www.gov.scot/news/enhancing-human-rights/

      Sometimes I really do need a comfort blanket!
      https://gaslightinggilligan.com/2018/12/09/brexit-all-roads-lead-to-rome-militarisation/

      Hope this doesn’t give you nightmares
      https://www.facebook.com/WeWantsIt/videos/338850266702681/

      That’s all for now

    25. galamcennalath says:

      The problem with the power to revoke A50 is that no one who might exercise that power is planning to do so before March 29th. Then this ruling becomes irrelevant.

      Some media commentary that it empowers a ‘people’s vote’. A Leave win in an EURef2 won’t revoke A50 – MPs have to vote to do that.

      On the positive side, the ruling destroys the rhetoric that MPs have just two choices, May’s deal or no deal.

      How we might from where we are to a position where a majority of MPs will actually revoke A50, isn’t obvious.

    26. Golfnut says:

      @Kangaroo.

      A majority of Scottish MP’s voted against the the Withdrawal Bill, the withdrawal bill therefore did not have SS approval. On that basis, and the refusal of the Scottish Parliament to approve the withdrawal bill and of course the remain vote by the People of Scotland clearly dictates that the Crown should have refused Royal assent. They are certainly in a pickle over this.

    27. Footsoldier says:

      Radio 4 programme on Mozart in London is on right now and talking about James 1 & 2 and the English throne.

      Furtheroo respect!

    28. yesindyref2 says:

      I have to post this, from Jo Maugham:

      To get here I’ve put my family’s security on the line, faced down a Govt wasting huge sums keeping MPs in the dark, stayed aloft of ugly smears by some in the Remain establishment and allegations of financial self-interest from Leave. This is what it costs to do the right thing.

      https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1072043757305032705

      A problem faced by others in the legal trade – and others.

      It’s a reason some (many) pro-indy people stay anonymouse, we can’t afford to lose business or customers. And it was the Unionists complaining businesses were afraid to speak out in Indy Ref 1, remember? I sympathise (emphasise) with them.

    29. Footsoldier says:

      My post at 9.59 Handel not Mozart.

    30. Les Wilson says:

      Kangaroo says:
      Very good postings, fingers crossed we can use it to the full.

    31. yesindyref2 says:

      @Nana
      Interesting that the SG is going for human rights law at the moment – that would keep us in step with the EU, and OUT of step with the rUK. Oh dear, what a calamity. But it’s something most of the Holyrood parliamentarians would go along with, and emphaises the difference between all Scots bar the Tory MSPs, and the rUK.

    32. yesindyref2 says:

      @Kangaroo
      I don’t comment on your postings, probably because I mostly agree with them.

    33. Macart says:

      @Kangaroo

      😉

      Snackage ordered for Thursday.

    34. Kangaroo says:

      @golfnut
      Yes my take too, the UK Withdrawal Bill is not competent in so far as it affects any devolved competence, including all 111 EU powers. We shall see in due course if I am correct.

      @less Wilson @indyref2 Thanks.

    35. Kangaroo says:

      @macart

      Better get some beer in too.

    36. jfngw says:

      Now I want to see a case brought to ECJ that A50 is not valid as one of the two countries signatory to the United Kingdom has not approved to the submission of this process. Scotland has voted clearly against leaving the EU, it needs tested in court.

      It might be a pipe dream but we really need to see what the real view of Scotland is by the EU. Are we a country that is part of the EU in a nation state or do they see us as just a subregion of England?

    37. Dr Jim says:

      The truth may work in Scotland but not down here in England where we have mealy mouthed politicians says Adam Boulton to Joanna Cherry

      Ooops! Adam Boulton won’t get a biscuit with his tea for that slip

    38. Ken500 says:

      Aidan O’Neil was totally against the Indy Ref and said it would and should never take place.

    39. Chick McGregor says:

      w.d. Andy Wightman and the others.

      If Brexit is revoked, would there be a question of recompense for the costs incurred for Brexit preparations by various agencies? Probably legally justifiable but I suspect drowned by the wave of relief all round.

    40. Macart says:

      Just to be clear on what I’m thinking? The ECJ case is a massive result for those involved and seismic in what it sets as precedent, but I’d very much doubt it will alter HMGs determination to bring about ‘a’ Brexit. Remember, it’s about what they choose to offer the UK’s populations. They chose bad deal or no deal.

      The real impact of this ruling should be felt in how it affects the perception of the UK government in the eyes of our respective populations. The REAL question is – Why didn’t the government of the UK want the population to know there was ALWAYS another viable and achievable option available? Why didn’t they pursue this line of inquiry over the past two and a half years? Why didn’t the media?

      When it became clear that the UK was in no way prepared for Brexit, why did those we pay to act as our administrators, advisers, carers, not do their jobs, pursue and provide the population with all the options available?

      Answers on a postcard care of etc, etc.

      I can, however, think of one administration on these islands which kept all options open. Just sayin’. 🙂

    41. Breeks

      You write;

      I believe missing out on the sovereign aspect to Scotland’s Remain vote was a grave strategic error in 2016. This benchmark ruling has its potency in law, but the 2016 Remain vote had its own potency in democracy.

      It may have been a strategic error, but I actually think that it has taken these two years to legally put things in place to build our solid case and begin to get WM to understand the true Constitutional situation. This is where our democracy becomes potent.

      We have our Remain vote, crucial,
      we have all the legal challenges to Brexit and the Good Friday Agreement – when the Scottish Gov did not take the WM gov to court but listened to the arguments and waited -and remember then, the Law Lords thought that the Scottish Courts might have something to say at a later date.
      Then there was the statement in WM that Scotland is no longer an equal partner in the UK but simply a part of the UK,
      the Scottish gov’s paper Scotland’s Place in Europe,
      WM’s proposed power grab and our Continuity Bill
      and then finally the ECJ ruling today which was necessary because the WM government has taken the Scottish Government to Court to force us to follow their plan.

      Just think about that for a minute. That is a bit like France taking Luxembourg to Court because it will not do something that France wants but which will be bad for Luxembourg.
      I’m not sure that even Donald Trump would try that one although he has tried to force Mexico to foot the bill for the Wall. But England and Scotland are supposed to be a partnership of equals and how much has WM spent trying to stop us having a say???

      The Scottish gov has taken it one step at a time, one brick at a time to build the foundation of their legal argument and now this cannot be refuted without consequences.

      I’ve always thought that the Scottish lawyers who drew up the Treaty of Union knew exactly who and what they were dealing with and created a document worded in such a way that this very scenario could never work against Scotland and I still believe that.

      The SC ruling will be pivotal – either Scotland must be listened to and the Tories and Brexit are holed below the water or WM is declared superior and the Treaty of Union is broken.

      only three sleeps to go..

    42. Ian Blackford`s amendment to Withdrawal Act,

      today in UK parliament,

      SECTION 13(1)(B) OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (WITHDRAWAL) ACT 2018:

      Line 1, leave out from “House” to end and insert “declines to approve the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship in line with the views of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly that they would be damaging for Scotland, Wales and the nations and regions of the UK as a whole; notes the legal opinion of the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice that the United Kingdom has the right to unilateral revocation of the notification of the intention to withdraw from the EU, until such time as the Withdrawal Agreement is formally concluded; therefore calls on the UK Government to request an extension to the period of negotiation under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union so that the UK does not leave the EU without a withdrawal agreement or on the basis of the negotiated agreement laid before the House on Monday 26 November 2018; and calls on the UK Government to respect the will of the Scottish Parliament in its vote on 5 December 2018 and the Welsh Assembly in its vote on 4 December 2018, which both rejected the withdrawal agreement as it now stands.”

    43. Breeks says:


      galamcennalath says:
      10 December, 2018 at 9:54 am

      How we might from where we are to a position where a majority of MPs will actually revoke A50, isn’t obvious.

      The Westminster game has changed from Theresa’s Deal or No Deal, to a third way of No Brexit.

      I believe that puts the SNP at a crossroads. Do they lobby for Theresa’s Deal to be rejected on the presumption that a No Brexit can be shoehorned into proceedings before March 29th, presumably through Article 50 being revoked? That would see Brexit set right back to square one before the referendum. The UK thus dodges a rather nasty bullet, but a large proportion of the UK electorate is unlikely to be very grateful about it.

      To get that option through Westminster might be as long a shot as Theresa getting her deal approved. Perhaps more likely is that the ECJ ruling simply turns a binary option which must currently fall one way or the other, into a three option game which is doomed to the stalemate of a Mexican shootout, and yet more paralysis. Might be a giggle, I can’t deny it, but we DO want out of this mess don’t we???

      Of the three options, No Brexit, No Deal Brexit, and Theresa’s Deal, I suspect Theresa’s Deal is in the most trouble, and Brexit from now until March is about to evolve into a straight shoot out between No Deal Brexit and No Brexit at all.

      As an Indy seeking Scot, frankly I think Scotland’s Interests in that UK squabble would be periforal and sidelined just as they always have been.

      Personally, I would much rather see Scotland ring fencing its own Constitutionally sovereign prerogative to unilaterally revoke Article 50 wherein it pertains to Scotland.

      But, the EU might in such circumstances insist the revocation of Article 50 is indivisible, and only the UK can withdraw it, but that scenario opens up a can of worms for the EU to be the party subjugating the Constitutional rights of a “potentially” sovereign entity. I feel sure we could talk them out of doing that.

      Article 50 is a sovereign prerogative as now decreed by the ECJ, and take that together with Scotland’s established Claim of Right, it would seem we need a further hurried ECJ deliberation on whether Scotland indeed has sovereign legitimacy to act unilaterally and revoke its own Article 50.

      Logically, I think we would win that argument, but we before we win anything, surely we must exercise some initiative and first ask the question.

      Having said that, if Nicola wanted to really set the cat amongst the pigeons, she could now take Scotland’s Sovereign credentials as read, and write to the EU unilaterally revoking Article 50 as it relates to Scotland. She could go further too, declaring Brexit itself unsound and intrinsically unconstitutional since even though it is a UK initiative, it is contrary to the will of the sovereign Scottish people.

      If that happens, don’t order more popcorn folks, because we”ll be standing back to roast marshmallows and chestnuts on that little hog roast.

    44. Colin Alexander says:

      If Brexit is ended or postponed, the FM will claim success. Though, in reality, the Brexit debate has always been something England and England’s UK parliament will decide for Scotland.

      Anything less than continued full EU membership for Scotland or indyref2 being held would see the 2016 SNP manifesto pledges sink like the Titanic. The FM assert’s it’s because she’s serving ALL Scotland’s interests that the manifesto commitment to full EU membership or indyref2 has had to be compromised.

      But, the SNP relies on pro-independence voters for their power. If pro-indy voters see those pledges compromised / broken to save “England’s Union” from ruin, would they continue to back the SNP under Ms Sturgeon’s leadership? I wouldn’t but, as regular readers know, I’m already critical of the SNP Scot Govt and FM.

      I would prefer Brexit is cancelled. But, I think No Deal Brexit is favourite to win, followed by May’s Deal Brexit. If it’s May’s Brexit Deal, I expect that vote to be followed by a vote of no confidence in May’s Govt that triggers a G.E. on the issue.

      However, it may suit the UK and EU Unionists, who oppose / do not support Scotland’s independence, to simply postpone matters, dragging it out by agreeing an extension to the Brexit process, running down time, whether by People’s Vote or further negotiations, in the expectation that there will be no indyref mandate after 2021 based on the SNP’s poorer electoral results under Nicola Sturgeon.

      This may also suit the FM, as she has been unwilling to call indyref2, despite having the mandate to do so since the Scottish Parliament backed indyref2 in March 2017. The FM could then claim success by continued EU membership ( even if it doesn’t last), in the hope the SNP would again win the right to administer UK devolution after 2021.

    45. Breeks:

      I agree. As I understand it part of the reason for them upholding the right to revoke article 50 is that it forcibly removes EU citizenship from people who wish to retain that Human Right.

      Possibly the reason Holyrood is now discussing a Scottish Human Right’s Bill?

      PS: BBC still reporting it as ‘a group of British Politicians’ has won a ruling from the ECJ …

    46. geeo says:

      A UK Government spokesperson said: “We note the judgment from the CJEU but this does not change the government’s firm policy that we will not revoke Article 50. The British people gave a clear instruction to leave, and we are delivering on that instruction.”
      ………

      If this is official government line, they either do not understand the ruling or eare deliberately misleading the electorate.

      If PARLIAMENT take control of the process after treeza’s deal is laughed out of WM, using the Dominic Grieve amendment, then any decision to hold a revocation vote is not up to the GOVERNMENT.

      It may not be government policy to hold a revocation vote, but if one is wanted, by parliament, then there absolutely will be one.

      Of course, the big problem is, as ever, what will Labour do ?

      Will anyone bring an emergency motion to revocate A50, and if they do, will labour back it or shaft it ?

      Ah well, next stop tomorrow, then roll on Thursday’s main event.

    47. Maolbeatha says:

      The ECJ ruling highlights the status of the UK. That the two “partners” are “equal” in law but not in effect.
      Westminster oversteps the mark frequently but most don’t notice, are ignorant of the set up or just apathetic.

      Brexit highlights the whole set up. In law.

      If the SC overrules Holyrood then is that not another demonstration of Westminster riding roughshod again? The difference this time is the unchallenged acceptance of the sovereignty of the people of Scotland.

      We cannot be sovereign and be dragged out of something we voted for against our will can we?
      So which is it?

      The difference this time is that it causes Westminster a headache that the press are covering, people are seeing it.

      Maybe, just maybe the people of Scotland so afraid of their own countries possibilities might develop some self belief and confidence.
      Maybe.

      I feel that that the ECJ may yet turn out to be one of our biggest weapons in all this.
      The time for Nicola to make the call may be very close now.
      Although the shitstorm of Brexit Chaos may be needed to persuade some to go for it.

      I read a while back that “the reason Scotland did not vote for independence was that the people had not suffered enough”
      Brexit looks to be the source of much suffering.

    48. Gerry says:

      @macart

      My own take on the ECJ ruling is that in specifying that any revocation can only follow a “democratic process”, WM is now left painted into an even smaller corner.

      The tories, and to a lesser extent labour cannot be seen to take a revocation decision that goes against their much lauded “will of the people” as they would be seen as overiding the EU ref outcome.

      On the other hand, they have very little time to organise a “people’s vote” in order to legitimise that same decision in the eyes of hard brexiteers in the tory party.

      If they extend beyond Mar 29th, they will look weak and indecisive.

      There’s not much that they can do other than sing “la la la we’re not listening” in response to the ECJ ruling. This leaves them in a position where the SNP, on a cross party basis, are seen to have tried every option open to them in order to provide a 3rd option, and legitimises the call for an indy referendum in eyes beyond just SNP voters.

      WM can do little else than be seen to dig itself into a position of further intransigence, and can justifiably be accused of prioritising their brexit ahead of their “precious union”. They cannot have their cake and eat it, and are forcing Holyrood into a position where not calling indyref2 would be to ignore the very sovereign will that WM has no practical choice but to ignore.

      As the UK electorate generally drifts towards a position favouring remain, the finger of blame for potentially breaking the “precious union” will then be pointed at WM and not Holyrood.

    49. Breeks says:


      geeo says:
      10 December, 2018 at 11:00 am
      A UK Government spokesperson said: “We note the judgment from the CJEU but this does not change the government’s firm policy that we will not revoke Article 50. The British people gave a clear instruction to leave, and we are delivering on that instruction.”………

      Perfect occasion / provocation for Scotland to revoke Article 50 unilaterally?

      Gets my vote.

      Come on Nicola… you know you want to….

    50. geeo says:

      Seems the right time to remind everyone of SNP policy on Indyref2.

      “AFTER the deal is known but BEFORE actual brexit day on March 29th 2019”.

      WM have delayed the first part, desperate for Scotsgov to make a fatal tactical error, and been met with a canny opponent, sticking to the plan.

      The plan which on timing, has NEVER wavered nor been changed.

      If anyone thinks it has, show us the proof ?

    51. Kangaroo says:

      @Breeks

      You mean something like this.

      Friday 14th December 2018

      Dear Mr Tusk,

      As you are aware the Kingdom of Scotland is in a Union with the Kingdom of England and the nations voted differently in the 2016 UK EU Referendum. We are therefore taking this opportunity to advise you that the Kingdom of Scotland desires to be treated as the Continuing Member State in the event that our partner in Union, the Kingdom of England, proceeds with its prior determination to withdraw from the European Union. We can assure you that we have taken the necessary steps to ensure that we continue to comply with the EU acquis in all regards.

      Further, should the Kingdom of England decide to remain a member of the EU as a result of their constitutional process, we would expect that as the UK Government has already acknowledged the Scottish people’s Sovereignty, and to choose their own form of government in the recent Claim of Right motion agreed unanimously in the UK Parliament, it follows that the EU should also recognise the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England as separate Sovereign member states.

      Looking forward to a positive response.

      Kind Regards

      The People of
      The Kingdom of Scotland

    52. Ghillie says:

      Yesindyref2 arrg sorry.

      I don’t think I have ever been first with breaking news before and you and Nana did it all tidy and proper with the blue links thing. I just blurted it out so I think you win 🙂

      Nana, what an honour that would be but today was a lucky fluke!! Hey, hope hospital goes well. Will be thinking of you =) Haste ye back! We need you xxx

    53. geeo says:

      Breeks@11.07am

      “It is inconsistent with the EU treaties’ purpose of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe to force the withdrawal of a member state” against its wishes”.
      ……….

      Scotsgov could argue that this applies to Sovereign Scots People as well.

    54. Macart says:

      @Gerry

      Pretty much.

      The Westminster parties over invested in their respective narratives. As you say, they painted themselves into a corner. The Scottish government simply and clearly stated that they would keep their options open and pursue the rule of law and precedent.

      How that pair in Westminster explain the current omnishambles to their respective memberships and voter bases should be entertaining enough. How they explain the next bit (that being the outcome of the SC case) should be high drama. 😉

    55. Graf Midgehunter says:

      Before everyone gets too eu4ric with the EU-ECJ verdict this morning there’s still the matter of winning independence for Scotland and not just helping to lead May and the English back from the brink of Hell.

      So here’s another shout for one of Nanas famous links from this morning:

      https://theorkneynews.scot/2018/12/09/farming-matters-how-we-will-win/

      Alec Ross has some very good advice for us all about our way forward and how to optimise our behaviour and arguments.

      Thanks once again to NANA..!

    56. yesindyref2 says:

      @Ken500: “Aidan O’Neil was totally against the Indy Ref and said it would and should never take place.

      Not as far as I know, got any links that support that?

      What he did say back in 2012 was that if Holyrood attempted to hold a Ref without Westminster “consent” it would probably be struck down in the Courts. He didn’t say he was for or against an Indy ref as such, and he certainly didn’t say it should never take place.

      That’s one opinion Ken, QCs have opinions of their own sometimes as well as representing clients, and it prompted this different opinion, co-signed by 7 or so in the Scottish legal establishment, the summary below:

      The risk to the authority of the courts – a risk which, it should be noted, would not be avoided by taking refuge in a literal interpretation of the Scotland Act – therefore suggests that the UK and Scottish Governments would indeed be wiser to agree on an express transfer of powers. Nevertheless, because of the fundamental nature of the issues at stake, and the inherent contestability of constitutional law questions of this kind, it is important that any such agreement should be not taken as an unequivocal endorsement of the view that Westminster alone is entitled to authorise a referendum on the constitutional future of any part of the UK.

      https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2012/01/31/gavin-anderson-et-al-the-independence-referendum-legality-and-the-contested-constitution-widening-the-debate/

      Co-signed by: Gavin Anderson, Senior Lecturer, University of Glasgow
      Christine Bell, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Edinburgh
      Sarah Craig, Lecturer, University of Glasgow
      Aileen McHarg, Senior Lecturer in Public Law, University of Glasgow
      Tom Mullen, Professor of Law, University of Glasgow
      Stephen Tierney, Professor of Constitutional Theory, University of Edinburgh
      Neil Walker, Regius Professor of Public Law and the Law of Nature and Nations, University of Edinburgh

    57. Breeks says:

      One quibble Kangaroo, and that’s Scotland being THE Continuer State. That would mean we continue the UK’s responsibilities and obligations. Might cost us £38 billion….

      The UK would not divide into asymmetrical Continuer and Seceding States, but symmetrical Constitutional “equals”.

      We would undertake to honour Scotland’s unilateral obligations in the manner of a Continuing State subject to those parameters being properly apportioned, then formally agreed in principle at first, and in detail thereafter. -Ha Ha. To stay in the EU we wanna go Dutch. Lol

    58. Ken500 says:

      The Hedge Funds are making £Billions out of Brexit. Gambling on the economy falling. What it is all about. Moving their business to EU sites.

      The YES support will rise 2/3% a year. According to demographics.

      50,000 keel over a year. The young ones,who support Independence, come on board.

      Not long now. Look how far Scotland has come in 18 years, since Devolution.

    59. Legerwood says:

      Gerry says:
      10 December, 2018 at 11:05 am
      @macart

      “”My own take on the ECJ ruling is that in specifying that any revocation can only follow a “democratic process”, WM is now left painted into an even smaller corner.””

      A majority vote in the House of Commons by our elected representatives in favour of revoking Article 50 would be ‘a democratic process’.

      It does not necessarily mean a referendum and nothing but a referendum to be a ‘democratic process’.

      All it needs is for the House of Commons to show some backbone and take the decision that is in the best interests of the UK – stay in EU. Unfortunately that place has as much backbone as a blancmange

    60. Ken500 says:

      Aidan O’Neil was totally agin IndyRef. Just google it. He said there would not and should not be an Indy Ref, Totally against it. Until Brexit came along. He makes his money out of EU legal issues.

    61. yesindyref2 says:

      @Ken500
      Aidan O’Neil was totally agin IndyRef. Just google it. He said there would not and should not be an Indy Ref, Totally against it. Until Brexit came along. He makes his money out of EU legal issues.

      No he wasn’t. and unless you can provide a link to support your argument, then you’re wrong, simple as.

      The Independent and Scotsman do not count, only his own actual words.

    62. Les Wilson says:

      Kangaroo says

      Hard to see how the ECJ, would look badly on that.
      We are in a Union, we are proven to be sovereign, confirmed by tha UK parliament.We know it historically to be true.

      The ECJ would be in a pickle going against the rights of a sovereign nation, and I believe they would not do that, as it would be visibly undemocratic.However by also acknowledging our sovereignty, they would be opening a real can of worms as Scotland asserts that with now legal backing.

      We need to start making a list, of things Westminster has ran rough shod over Scotland’s wishes and installed their own to English benefit.Independence is a step closer now.
      Interesting days indeed.

    63. galamcennalath says:

      Bloomberg saying May has cancelled her vote!

      If true, what next!?

    64. Macart says:

      From an article that won’t archive properly.

      Scottish first minister and SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon has said the ruling this morning from the ECJ on Article 50 is an “important judgement”.

      “So an extension of Article 50 to allow time for another vote, followed by revocation of Article 50 if the outcome is Remain seems to be an option that is now open to the House of Commons.”

      The case was brought forward in February by a group of Scottish politicians – Labour MEPs Ms Stihler and David Martin, the SNP’s Joanna Cherry MP and Alyn Smith MEP, Green MSPs Andy Wightman and Ross Greer, and lawyer Jolyon Maugham QC, director of the Good Law Project.

      The European Court of Justice (ECJ) found that if the UK does decide to revoke Article 50 and stop the Brexit process, it would remain in the EU as a member state and the revocation must be decided following “democratic process”.

      Responding to the ruling, the constitutional relations secretary Michael Russell MSP added: “This is a hugely important decision that provides clarity at an essential point in the UK’s decision-making over its future relationship with the EU.

      “People in Scotland overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU and that continues to be the best option for Scotland and the UK as a whole.

      “This judgment exposes as false the idea that the only choice is between a bad deal negotiated by the UK Government or the disaster of no deal.

      “We now know, thanks to the efforts of Scotland’s parliamentarians, that remaining in the EU is still on the table.” (ends)

    65. Proud Cybernat says:

      “I’ve always thought that the Scottish lawyers who drew up the Treaty of Union knew exactly who and what they were dealing with and created a document worded in such a way that this very scenario could never work against Scotland and I still believe that.”

      Alas, the seem not to have foreseen just how much Unionist politicians would be in thrall to the WM trough and would simply go down there and allow WM to trample all over Scotland’s rights in terms of the Treaty of Union. Never once did these Unionist MPs we have sent there for 300+ years say, “Hawd oan a wee minute here. You cannae bloody well do that.” Not once.

      No. To a man and woman, the Unionist MPs simply trousered the very generous salaries, expenses and pensions (thank you very much), st on their hands like good little Scots Unionists, kept their mouths shut and did the cubed-root of hee-haw to actually improve the lives of their constituents.

      But now, with the political revolution underway in Scotland and the SNP taking charge, WM are awakening to the true reality that Scotland has rights within this blasted Union; rights that have been long forgotten and which are seeing the light of day for the first time in 300+ years.

      And WM doesn’t like it.

    66. Luigi says:

      Rumours flying around at the mo. If May backs down now and cancels tomorrow’s vote at the last minute, she is toast. The cowardice on show would be so obvious to everyone – everyone, not just the politcos – everyone.

      The UK is a big enough laughing stock as it is. Don’t make things worse, Mrs May. Just hold the vote and then resign – we will understand. 🙂

    67. galamcennalath says:

      ” Theresa May Calls Off Key Vote on Brexit Deal to Avoid Huge Defeat, Source Says “

      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-10/may-said-to-delay-key-vote-on-brexit-deal-to-avoid-huge-defeat

    68. Gerry says:

      @legerwood

      “It does not necessarily mean a referendum and nothing but a referendum to be a ‘democratic process’.”

      Read my comment again for context please. Nobody said that it meant exclusively a referendum.

    69. schrodingers cat says:

      if the vote goes ahead, it will be defeated, it will cease to exist as an option

      that will leave only no deal or no brexit as options for tory mps, neither of them will they want to back. ergo, tories will also want to send this back to the public.

      euref2 or a ge are the only options. tory mps in hard leave areas who dont want no deal, will prefer the euref2 option, tory mps who support no deal will want a ge

      which option has the most support in the hoc in total?

    70. orri says:

      Regarding Sovereignty.

      The thing about a Section 30 is the following, it works both ways. Westminster and Holyrood both need to approve it and only then can powers be given to or removed from Holyrood. In the case of an independence referendum a time limit is put but that’s not a necessity.

      At the moment Westminster is trying very hard to create international treaties involving non-reserved powers currently residing with out MEPs in order that they become reserved due to that.

      As a Section 30 is a requirement any “borrowing” of powers is outwith the scope of Westminster even if they can legislate for Holyrood. It’d simply make a nonsense of “consent” if it wasn’t.

    71. mike cassidy says:

      BBC also reporting likely vote delay.

      http://archive.is/IGFyG

    72. ronnie anderson says:

      Aye the ECJ ruling is irrelevant ( Hunt ), their rummaging the restaurant bins of Westminster to find wine corks to get ah back stop .

    73. Chick McGregor says:

      Brexit means taxi for May.

    74. Ghillie says:

      Folks see Galamcenalath @ 11.53 am

      Has May called off the vote today?

      What’s happening?

      Do we have to wait till she has spoken to Brussels again?

      A bit of tweeking? (I DID NOT SAY TWERKING! BEHAVE)

    75. hackalumpoff says:

      @ Ghillie
      Yes it appears to be off, statement in commons at 1530.
      See new Rev Stu post and
      https://twitter.com/Political_AlanS/status/1072111717998567424



    Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




    ↑ Top