Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Scottish independence

1…6263656768…117

Comments

  • #1922
    dogbert27
    Registered Users Posts: 4,881 ✭✭✭dogbert27


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    The Tories will ignore the mandate whilst undermining devolution

    https://twitter.com/KevinJPringle/status/1381671903631409158

    Scotland should be flagging this internationally in full on Helen Lovejoy mode, "wont somebody think of the children!"

    I mean how could this not be seen as anything other than a blatant put me down to a country within a union.

    For Westminister to fight for Brexit on the basis of sovereignty and then tell the Scottish government they are over stepping the mark for introducing a bill to incorporate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child should be flagged for the hypocrisy and own goal that it is


  • #1923
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    dogbert27 wrote: »
    Scotland should be flagging this internationally in full on Helen Lovejoy mode, "wont somebody think of the children!"

    I mean how could this not be seen as anything other than a blatant put me down to a country within a union.

    For Westminister to fight for Brexit on the basis of sovereignty and then tell the Scottish government they are over stepping the mark for introducing a bill to incorporate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child should be flagged for the hypocrisy and own goal that it is

    It isn’t the content of the bill that is the issue, it is the manner in which it is being implemented.

    The UK government told the SNP this but they carried on anyway.

    It’s almost as if the SNP did this deliberately


  • #1924
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 16,965 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Aegir wrote: »

    The UK government told the SNP this but they carried on anyway.

    It’s almost as if the SNP did this deliberately

    The UK govt told the Scottish Parliament but the parties in the Scottish Parliament carried on

    The bills were passed with the full support of the SNP, Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems and Scottish Greens. Not one MSP opposed the bills


  • #1925
    dogbert27
    Registered Users Posts: 4,881 ✭✭✭dogbert27


    Aegir wrote: »
    It isn’t the content of the bill that is the issue, it is the manner in which it is being implemented.

    The UK government told the SNP this but they carried on anyway.

    It’s almost as if the SNP did this deliberately
    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    The UK govt told the Scottish Parliament but the parties in the Scottish Parliament carried on

    The bills were passed with the full support of the SNP, Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems and Scottish Greens. Not one MSP opposed the bills

    As proved wrong. It wasn't an SNP vs UK government, it's the Tory government showing Scottish parliament who's really in charge


  • #1926
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    The UK govt told the Scottish Parliament but the parties in the Scottish Parliament carried on

    The bills were passed with the full support of the SNP, Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems and Scottish Greens. Not one MSP opposed the bills

    And how exactly was anyone expected to vote against this? It would have been an absolute gift to the SNP.


  • Advertisement
  • #1927
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    dogbert27 wrote: »
    As proved wrong. It wasn't an SNP vs UK government, it's the Tory government showing Scottish parliament who's really in charge

    No, it’s the Westminster parliament ensuring that the constitution is upheld correctly.

    If the Scottish parliament has enacted legislation that binds Westminster to something, then it is against the constitution of the UK.


  • #1928
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 16,965 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Aegir wrote: »
    And how exactly was anyone expected to vote against this? It would have been an absolute gift to the SNP.

    Something the Tories are doing just now


  • #1929
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,018 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Aegir wrote: »
    And how exactly was anyone expected to vote against this? It would have been an absolute gift to the SNP.
    As is the Westminster government's decision to challenge the legislation in the courts, you would presumably agree?


  • #1930
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 16,965 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Aegir wrote: »
    No, it’s the Westminster parliament ensuring that the constitution is upheld correctly.

    If the Scottish parliament has enacted legislation that binds Westminster to something, then it is against the constitution of the UK.

    The Tories have previously amended the Scotland Act to retrospectively get rid of laws that the Scottish Parliament has competence but the Tories do not like


  • #1931
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,018 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Aegir wrote: »
    No, it’s the Westminster parliament ensuring that the constitution is upheld correctly.

    If the Scottish parliament has enacted legislation that binds Westminster to something, then it is against the constitution of the UK.
    Nitpick: It's not the Westminster parliament; it's the Westminster government. SFAIK the executive has not consulted Parliament on this issue.

    More substantially, the current shower of Westminster Tories are not really well-positioned to pose as high-minded defenders of the UK Constitution with much credibility, in light of Recent Events Which I Hardly Need To Remind Anyone Of. If they offer this as their justification for taking these proceedings, not many people — not even their own supporters — will take them seriously.

    (Which, for the record, is probably part of the reason why, as far as I know, they are not offering this as their justification.)


  • Advertisement
  • #1932
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Nitpick: It's not the Westminster parliament; it's the Westminster government. SFAIK the executive has not consulted Parliament on this issue.

    More substantially, the current shower of Westminster Tories are not really well-positioned to pose as high-minded defenders of the UK Constitution with much credibility, in light of Recent Events Which I Hardly Need To Remind Anyone Of. If they offer this as their justification for taking these proceedings, not many people — not even their own supporters — will take them seriously.

    (Which, for the record, is probably part of the reason why, as far as I know, they are not offering this as their justification.)

    The law society of Scotland twice proposed amendments to the bill, raising concerns about its legality. Alister Jack wrote to John Swinney and made him aware of the issues. The Scottish government ignored both and so it gets referred to the Surpreme Court.

    It would be very easy to think that this situation is more by design than by accident.


  • #1933
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 16,965 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Aegir wrote: »
    The law society of Scotland twice proposed amendments to the bill, raising concerns about its legality


    Do you have a link to the law society proposed amendments?


  • #1934
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,711 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Aegir wrote: »
    No, it’s the Westminster parliament ensuring that the constitution is upheld correctly.

    If the Scottish parliament has enacted legislation that binds Westminster to something, then it is against the constitution of the UK.

    What constitution?

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • #1935
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    Do you have a link to the law society proposed amendments?

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/25/uk-government-set-to-go-to-supreme-court-over-holyrood-bill

    https://www.lawscot.org.uk/research-and-policy/influencing-the-law-and-policy/our-input-to-parliamentary-bills/bills-202021/united-nations-convention-on-the-rights-of-the-child-incorporation-scotland-bill/
    Section 19(1) provides that legislation which would be in the competence of the Scottish
    Parliament to make must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the UNCRC
    requirements.
    Legislation is defined in subsection (2)(a)(i) as an Act of the Scottish Parliament and in subsection
    (2)(a)(ii) as an Act of Parliament.
    There is no issue with the application of section 19(1) to Acts of the Scottish Parliament. There is a
    similar provision in section 101(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 which states that any provision of an
    Act of the Scottish Parliament “is to be read as narrowly as required for it to be within competence”.
    However, some may argue that there could be a challenge as to whether it is competent for the
    Scottish Parliament to apply this interpretative rule in section 19(1) to provisions in Acts of
    Parliament even if those provisions would be within devolved competence. This is because Acts of
    Parliament are interpreted in accordance with the Interpretation Act 1978.
    Furthermore, the reference to an Act of Parliament in subsection (2)(a)(ii) would apply to future as
    well as to past Acts of Parliament. Questions may be raised (in the future) as to whether
    subsection (2)(a)(ii) may be inconsistent with section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998 which
    provides that the UK Parliament has the power to make laws for Scotland and the UK Parliament
    might have intended that a future Act of Parliament should be incompatible with the UNCRC.
    This probing amendment is intended to provide an opportunity for the Scottish Government to set
    out why they consider that this provision is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.


  • #1936
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Brian? wrote: »
    What constitution?

    The constitution of the United Kingdom, the over riding principle of which, is that Parliament is Sovereign.


  • #1937
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 16,965 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Aegir wrote: »
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/25/uk-government-set-to-go-to-supreme-court-over-holyrood-bill

    https://www.lawscot.org.uk/research-and-policy/influencing-the-law-and-policy/our-input-to-parliamentary-bills/bills-202021/united-nations-convention-on-the-rights-of-the-child-incorporation-scotland-bill/

    Here is a link to the parliamentary debate

    https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/united-nations-convention-on-the-rights-of-the-child-incorporation-scotland-bill

    Extract
    John Swinney
    Amendments 49, 50 and 52 to 54 would significantly undermine the protection for children’s rights in Scotland that the bill seeks to put in place and are at odds with the Scottish Government’s ambition that the bill should provide for the highest level of protection possible for children’s rights within the powers of the Scottish Parliament. It is of fundamental importance that any incompatibilities in legislation that would be within the power of the Parliament to make can be remedied.

    The amendments proposed by Mr Stewart would remove from the protections offered by sections 19 and 20 of the bill all acts of the United Kingdom Parliament that fall within the competence of the Scottish Parliament—for example, that would include all pre-devolution legislation over which competence has been transferred.

    To help members to understand the significance and scope of the proposal, it would put out of the scope of the Scottish Parliament acts such as the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, the Scottish parts of the Police Act 1997, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, the Education (Scotland) Act 1996, the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985, the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965, the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992.

    The amendments are very wide reaching and would significantly undermine the protection for children’s rights that the bill seeks to put in place.
    I was somewhat perplexed when I heard Mr Stewart talking about his amendments as “probing amendments”, given that I received a letter on 4 March from the Secretary of State for Scotland in which he requested
    “that the Scottish Government table an amendment that makes it clear that Westminster legislation is removed from the scope of sections 19-21.”
    Members will not be surprised to hear that, in my reply of 9 March, I told the Secretary of State for Scotland that we would do no such thing. I am therefore surprised that such an approach has been marshalled as “probing amendments”, when there was nothing probing about the secretary of state’s letter of 4 March—in fact, I would describe it as menacing.

    The Secretary of State for Scotland thinks that he can write menacing letters to the Deputy First Minister of Scotland to seek to exempt key pieces of legislation that are integral to this Parliament’s legislative competence. We have had a little display of how he then sends in his functionaries to do his bidding for him later. That demonstrates that a very orchestrated and sustained assault is under way on the Parliament’s powers. I am not surprised that that is being cooked up in the secretary of state’s office in—


  • #1938
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    Here is a link to the parliamentary debate

    https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/united-nations-convention-on-the-rights-of-the-child-incorporation-scotland-bill

    Extract

    So the Scottish government thinks the bill is perfectly within their powers, yet the Law Society of Scotland doesn't?

    Sounds like like a supreme court decision to me.


  • #1939
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 16,965 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Aegir wrote: »
    So the Scottish government thinks the bill is perfectly within their powers, yet the Law Society of Scotland doesn't?

    Sounds like like a supreme court decision to me.

    The law society does not state that: They say 'However, some may argue that there could be a challenge as to whether it is competent for the Scottish Parliament'. It was classed as a probing amendment to generate debate in the Scottish Parliament and was not voted on


  • #1940
    bob mcbob
    Registered Users Posts: 971 ✭✭✭bob mcbob


    Aegir wrote: »
    The constitution of the United Kingdom, the over riding principle of which, is that Parliament is Sovereign.

    Ok and Parliament makes the laws. So any past, present or future law that Parliament does not like whether national or international these can simply be bypassed by writing a new law.


  • #1941
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    The law society does not state that: They say 'However, some may argue that there could be a challenge as to whether it is competent for the Scottish Parliament'. It was classed as a probing amendment to generate debate in the Scottish Parliament and was not voted on

    So surely the best way to prevent any debate is for the Supreme court to make a ruling? It means there is no ambiguity over what the Scottish and Uk Parliaments can and can't do.

    Just like the ECJ ruling on the SNP bill to introduce minimum alcohol pricing, although oddly that didn't get people up in arms about the sovereignty of the Scottish Parliament for some reason.


  • Advertisement
  • #1942
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    bob mcbob wrote: »
    Ok and Parliament makes the laws. So any past, present or future law that Parliament does not like whether national or international these can simply be bypassed by writing a new law.

    yes, providing it doesn't infringe the constitution. That is the whole point of having a sovereign parliament.


  • #1943
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 16,965 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Aegir wrote: »
    So surely the best way to prevent any debate is for the Supreme court to make a ruling? It means there is no ambiguity over what the Scottish and Uk Parliaments can and can't do.

    Just like the ECJ ruling on the SNP bill to introduce minimum alcohol pricing, although oddly that didn't get people up in arms about the sovereignty of the Scottish Parliament for some reason.


    The ECJ did not rule that the Scottish govt bill was incompatible, it said that alternatives like taxation should be looked at first. Given the limited taxation powers open to the Scottish govt, minimum pricing was appropriate

    https://www.alcohol-focus-scotland.org.uk/news/minimum-pricing-european-court-ruling/


  • #1944
    bob mcbob
    Registered Users Posts: 971 ✭✭✭bob mcbob


    Aegir wrote: »
    yes, providing it doesn't infringe the constitution. That is the whole point of having a sovereign parliament.

    But you said that the constitution is that parliament is sovereign, so how would parliament writing a new law to bypass a law it did not like, infringe the constitution that parliament is sovereign?


  • #1945
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    The ECJ did not rule that the Scottish govt bill was incompatible, it said that alternatives like taxation should be looked at first. Given the limited taxation powers open to the Scottish govt, minimum pricing was appropriate

    https://www.alcohol-focus-scotland.org.uk/news/minimum-pricing-european-court-ruling/

    yet no one complained the ECJ was taking away their sovereignty and was a power grab, why was that?


  • #1946
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    bob mcbob wrote: »
    But you said that the constitution is that parliament is sovereign, so how would parliament writing a new law to bypass a law it did not like, infringe the constitution that parliament is sovereign?

    there is a lot more to the constitution than Parliament is Sovereign, it is just the main point along with the rule of law and the rule of democracy.


  • #1947
    bob mcbob
    Registered Users Posts: 971 ✭✭✭bob mcbob


    Aegir wrote: »
    there is a lot more to the constitution than Parliament is Sovereign, it is just the main point along with the rule of law and the rule of democracy.

    Ok now I am interested - lets just say parliament wanted to pass a law which said that Scots must wear a kilt when in England. There are a large number of laws that need to be passed / changed in order to make this happen but parliament are in a position to change each and every one of these laws to make it happen.

    What could stop them?


  • #1948
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 16,965 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Aegir wrote: »
    yet no one complained the ECJ was taking away their sovereignty and was a power grab, why was that?

    because it was not a power grab


  • #1949
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    bob mcbob wrote: »
    Ok now I am interested - lets just say parliament wanted to pass a law which said that Scots must wear a kilt when in England. There are a large number of laws that need to be passed / changed in order to make this happen but parliament are in a position to change each and every one of these laws to make it happen.

    What could stop them?

    to be fair, Scots do seem to have a penchant for wearing the kilt when they visit England, so there isn't really a need for that law.

    However, should Parliament decide that they do want to pass a bill saying that, then it is highly likely it would be considered a human rights issue and the bill challenged in the Supreme court or even the ECHR.

    If the Supreme court decides that the law is contrary to human rights legislation, then they can make a declaration of such, which then causes a **** storm while Parliament works out what to do about it.


  • #1950
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    because it was not a power grab

    so similar to the decision to refer the two bills to the Supreme court then


  • Advertisement
  • #1951
    bob mcbob
    Registered Users Posts: 971 ✭✭✭bob mcbob


    Aegir wrote: »
    to be fair, Scots do seem to have a penchant for wearing the kilt when they visit England, so there isn't really a need for that law.

    However, should Parliament decide that they do want to pass a bill saying that, then it is highly likely it would be considered a human rights issue and the bill challenged in the Supreme court or even the ECHR.

    If the Supreme court decides that the law is contrary to human rights legislation, then they can make a declaration of such, which then causes a **** storm while Parliament works out what to do about it.

    Both the Human rights act and it's link to ECHR are laws that can be modified and if fact as part of Brexit the government has actually not given any confirmation that they will not be modified -

    In its response to a letter from the House of Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee, the Government has failed to give assurances that it will not repeal or replace the Human Rights Act – a stark contrast to its proclaimed commitment to ‘shared values of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms'.

    https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/media-centre/house-of-lords-media-notices/2019/january-2019/human-rights-act-is-not-safe-after-brexit/

    What the point I making here is this -

    Let's say parliament was essentially controlled by a populist, right-wing, English nationalist party led by a chancer with few scruples who only wanted power for power's sake (I am talking hypothetically here) then in order to retain control they could stoke anger against an external party. Then when they have what they want, they could revoke any law which did not suite them because as you state Parliament is sovereign. (This is of course very much a hypothetical scenario)


Advertisement