tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post2742890491481768676..comments2024-03-28T07:16:39.621+00:00Comments on Lallands Peat Worrier: Matt Qvortrup: Numpty....Lallands Peat Worrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18276270498204697708noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-22786144454374410952012-02-11T22:59:29.575+00:002012-02-11T22:59:29.575+00:00Bobelix, R. Louis,
A late response! I thoroughly ...<b>Bobelix, R. Louis,</b><br /><br />A late response! I thoroughly sympathise with the argument made by those academics - but note their conditionals:<br /><br /><i>"Contrary to the views of the UK Government and a number of influential commentators, on this blog and elsewhere, we believe that the legality of a referendum Bill passed under the Scotland Act as it currently stands <b>is a more open question than has been generally acknowledged.</b> In other words, we believe that a <b>plausible case can be made</b> that such a Bill would be lawful..."</i><br /><br />I'd entirely adopt this as an analysis of where we're at now, without a section 30 order. Even some of those who lean towards Jim Wallace's interpretation of the Scotland Act - such as law and scone blogger <a href="www.loveandgarbage.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">Love and Garbage</a> - would endorse this view of the "inherent contestability" of the domestic law as is on the scope of Holyrood's powers, to borrow another phrase from Gavin Anderson's et al's piece.Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-69244310958650256002012-02-10T11:44:10.578+00:002012-02-10T11:44:10.578+00:00Surely the question isn't 'Does Holyrood h...Surely the question isn't 'Does Holyrood have the legal authority to hold a referendum?' but rather 'Is there sufficient doubt about whether Holyrood has the legal authority to hold a referendum to allow an individual to mount a legal challenge thereby delaying any referendum by up to eighteen months?'Groundskeeper Willienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-79603886453935930652012-02-09T11:01:46.365+00:002012-02-09T11:01:46.365+00:00Indy, I think it's you that's behind the c...Indy, I think it's you that's behind the curve with this thread, if you care to read my earlier comments in context.<br /><br />"Because according to the court of public opinion - which I regretfully have to tell all the lawyers out there is the true supreme court as far as politicins are concerned - they had no choice."<br /><br />Oh yes, politicians are quite good at ignoring the law when it suits them. Which would be bad enough if they were following public opinion, but often they're following neither!<br /><br />And are you saying that the wants of politicians and public opinion usurps the legal rights of minorities, for example, Indy? I thought you were normally quite keen on the latter.<br /><br />Do as Indy says, not as Indy does?Stuart Wintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02772436419630464325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-33593532659688188532012-02-09T10:46:01.280+00:002012-02-09T10:46:01.280+00:00Yes Mr Worrier, what about the Claim of Right and ...Yes Mr Worrier, what about the Claim of Right and the Declaration of Arbroath. I have read the Claim of Right. It makes clear thst no catholics are to be monarchs FACT And it is asserting the importance of the people. FACT I do not care that some people say that the people that it means are everyone apart from women, working people, and Catholics. That is not what it means. FACT. And the Declaration of Arborath is the most important document in Scottish history. FACT It gives power to the people. FACT Some will say that it did not cover vassals, cottars, tenants, and others. But they are all wrong. FACT. Until you address the Declaration of Arbroath and the Claim of Right how can we take seriously your intemperate criticism of one of the most distinguished academics in the world - regularly referred to in the Scottish Parliament and the news, and in the papers all the time? Are you really suggesting that the Scottish papers are so bad that they publish articles by people who know nothing about the thing they write about? Only to pose the question shows how ridiculous you are being. All Scottish newspapers only ever get people who know a lot about the subject to write articles about them. FACT That is why The Scotsman and The Herald and The Courier and The Press and Journal and The Daily Record and The Scottish Sun and the Sunday Post are the best newspapers in the world. FACT You ask anyone in the world about them and they will tell you that.<br /><br />and as for Indy's point about the court of public opinion. How do you answer that? It is people who decide what will happen not courts. FACT When did you ever see the court do something the people didn't want? Never. That's when.Lieutenant Boruvkanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-74439044932563096602012-02-09T08:32:52.067+00:002012-02-09T08:32:52.067+00:00As a member of the public who likes to comment on ...As a member of the public who likes to comment on political blogs you ate as capable of reading the newspapers as anyone else.<br /><br />As such you are perfectly aware that the UK Government has indeed agreed that the Scottish Parliament can hold a referendum on independence and has agreed to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that it cannot be legally challenged.<br /><br />Why has the UK Govt agreed? Because according to the court of public opinion - which I regretfully have to tell all the lawyers out there is the true supreme court as far as politicins are concerned - they had no choice.Indyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04383904151475839441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-57085550038872142262012-02-09T07:20:18.508+00:002012-02-09T07:20:18.508+00:00Indy said:
"You too are several months behin...Indy said:<br /><br />"You too are several months behind the curve Stuart."<br /><br />Well as a member of the public and thus 'outside the loop' of collusive politicians of course I'm behind the curve Indy, but it's surely better that than inhabiting a different dimension entirely!!<br /><br />No one seems to be able to provide concrete information regarding how a referendum declared illegal would actually be run, or able to provide information on the international law jurisprudence on the precise circumstances under which Scotland could declare UDI, or whatever, least of all yourself by the looks of it.<br /><br />Thus it's surely reasonable to conclude that that stuff is all a bit pie in the sky and that Scotland is hardly in the position of 1920s Ireland or 1940s India as some seem to allude.<br /><br />Which is presumably why rather than telling interfering Westminster to go forth and preparing Scotland for an unauthorised referendum and UDI under international law, Alex Salmond is instead negotiating a deal for an indisputably legal vote under UK constitutional law.Stuart Wintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02772436419630464325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-14483318010142409362012-02-09T02:05:56.745+00:002012-02-09T02:05:56.745+00:00And I am appalled at the degeneration into name ca...And I am appalled at the degeneration into name calling and disrespect in this. Is this your usual reaction to someone disagreeing with you? In which case, you have a serious problem.<br /><br />In case you missed your own blog, Dr. does INDEED have academic qualifications. Dr. Qvortrup studied politics and history at Brasenose College, University of Oxford. He was awarded his doctorate Constitutional Implications of the Use of the Referendum (A study of Constitutional law) from Oxford in 1999. Dr Qvortrup has taught at The London School of Economics, the Robert Gordon University, and Aberdeen.<br /><br />I think you would have rather a difficult time even beginning to compare with those. Now you have every right to disagree and post your disagreement, but you went way, WAY over any reasonable line in the the way your referred to him. To me you totally blew your OWN case out of the water.J. R. Tomlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01109874615059334200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-18762470603249256392012-02-09T01:51:02.299+00:002012-02-09T01:51:02.299+00:00So disagreeing with you makes someone a numpty. An...So disagreeing with you makes someone a numpty. An excellent analysis there. He is an acknowledged expert and (Amazing! Gasp!) thinks international law and international practice has something to do with a the fact that no people have to have another people's PERMISSION to demand self-determination. A lot of people are aware that you are convinced that Scotland (but only Scotland) needs permission for self-determination. This is a very questionable position to take.J. R. Tomlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01109874615059334200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-50143709529624897742012-02-08T16:45:39.094+00:002012-02-08T16:45:39.094+00:00You too are several months behind the curve Stuart...You too are several months behind the curve Stuart.Indyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04383904151475839441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-91245232670738140022012-02-08T14:11:47.538+00:002012-02-08T14:11:47.538+00:00So how is this illegal referendum to be conducted,...So how is this illegal referendum to be conducted, or is Brian Souter being lined up to bankroll a private one?<br /><br />If a Scottish Government referendum was declared illegal by the courts then what would be the practicalities of organising one?<br /><br />Would a private referendum represent a mandate for independence under international law?Stuart Wintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02772436419630464325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-8206083112730214622012-02-08T12:58:48.320+00:002012-02-08T12:58:48.320+00:00Bobelix, you beat me to it :)Bobelix, you beat me to it :)R Louisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-26068238175280638382012-02-08T12:56:53.423+00:002012-02-08T12:56:53.423+00:00Lallands Peat Worrier,
What do you consider of th...Lallands Peat Worrier,<br /><br />What do you consider of the opinion expressed by several 'legal eagles' here;<br /><br /><br />http://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2012/01/31/gavin-anderson-et-al-the-independence-referendum-legality-and-the-contested-constitution-widening-the-debate/R Louisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-27815603598442008152012-02-08T12:29:01.593+00:002012-02-08T12:29:01.593+00:00And does this change any of your views on the lega...And does this change any of your views on the legality of the matter? http://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2012/01/31/gavin-anderson-et-al-the-independence-referendum-legality-and-the-contested-constitution-widening-the-debate/Bobelixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09560064848522334094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-54181953867222197692012-02-08T12:22:01.286+00:002012-02-08T12:22:01.286+00:00The blog post you refer to states "Show me th...The blog post you refer to states "Show me the section of the Act of Union or the Claim of Right or paragraph of MacCormick v. Lord Advocate which provides that a future devolved parliament, set up by the parliament created by the Union, shall have untrammelled power to hold referendums. You won't find it. It isn't relevant."<br />However, that doesn't address the question of the sovereignty of the People. Whether the referendum is legal or not under the Scotland Act, once it has taken place, it is undeniably the expressed wish of the Scottish People. According to the Declaration of Arbroath and the Claim of Right, and assuming (as I do) that these fall under the guarantees to Scots Law contained in the Treaty of Union, then that expressed wish has the force of law whether or not the referendum that established it could lead to an Act allowed by the Scotland Act in the Scottish Parliament. International law, as I understand it, would also back the premise that a nation's democratically expressed desire for independence should be heeded. Short of military invasion, what could Cameron do if Scotland simply declared itself independent?Bobelixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09560064848522334094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-74881340078399881152012-02-08T11:46:37.826+00:002012-02-08T11:46:37.826+00:00Owing in great part to my way of writing on this t...Owing in great part to my way of writing on this topic (not wanting to reiterate myself and making implicit and explicit reference back to my past posts), I'm conscious that a few folk think I'm suggesting that the referendum is unlawful and needs must remain so now and forever. <br /><br />For the sake of clarity, that's absolutely not my position. In fact, if Westminster and Holyrood can agree an order under section 30 of the Scotland Act, amending the list of matters reserved to Westminster in schedule 5, the referendum will be clearly legal, no bother. <br /><br />What is more difficult, however, is the legal position <i>now</i> under the unamended Scotland Act. On that, I've <a href="http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.com/2011/10/my-alignment-with-john-mcternan.html" rel="nofollow">consistently argued that the independence referendum is <i>arguably</i> legal,</a> but no more than that. The matter isn't clear, certain, Holyrood does not definitively and absolutely have the power. I explained <a href="http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.com/2011/11/adam-tomkins-unionist-stooge.html" rel="nofollow">why in some (I hope accessible) detail here.</a> Under the Scotland Act as is, the Scottish Parliament Act authorising the referendum would almost certainly be subject to challenge in court, the case could drag out appallingly, and the outcome of that litigation one way or the other could not be predicted with any certainty at this stage.<br /><br />It is this lack of security from legal challenge which has primarily concerned me for some time and why the steps towards a s30 order are generally to be welcomed.Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-44876668948736412842012-02-08T09:58:32.718+00:002012-02-08T09:58:32.718+00:00R Louis
So how precisely does the mechanism of th...R Louis<br /><br />So how precisely does the mechanism of the right to self-determination work?<br /><br />For a start, how precisely is the desire for self-determination manifested?<br /><br />A Newsnet Scotland readers' poll?!?Stuart Wintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02772436419630464325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-33958802023608730452012-02-08T08:53:56.683+00:002012-02-08T08:53:56.683+00:00My reference in all I say, is the right to self de...My reference in all I say, is the right to self determination as enshrined in the UN charter of human rights, and upheld by the council of Europe and the ECHR. Their is no requirement for a country to seek legal authority to seek independence. Indeed, no independent country in the world has ever done so.<br /><br />This is why the legal positions discussed by LPW are interesting, however in relation to self determination, they become irrelevant. <br /><br />Consider, the pretendy London 'supreme' court says NO, and the people of Scotland says 'YES', what will happen?? Will London send troops up to Scotland, like they did in Ireland? Legal judgements become irrelevant, when they have NO consequences.<br /><br />With the current situation regarding Las Malvinas, expect to hear London shouting loud and long about the right of 'Falkland Islanders' to self determination.<br /><br />It seems Westminster regards self determination as an inalienable right, but only if you choose to be 'British'.R Louisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-67667696656845937622012-02-08T08:36:10.352+00:002012-02-08T08:36:10.352+00:00LOL, aye indy, as an old unionist,LOL.LOL, aye indy, as an old unionist,LOL.mountaincadrenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-66771551894237166642012-02-08T08:23:30.307+00:002012-02-08T08:23:30.307+00:00Robert Blake - good work my man. Hook, line and s...Robert Blake - good work my man. Hook, line and sinker.Indyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04383904151475839441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-61184375065133770452012-02-08T04:29:21.889+00:002012-02-08T04:29:21.889+00:00R Louis
OK, so let's assume that the "de...R Louis<br /><br />OK, so let's assume that the "democratic right to self-determination" can usurp the letter of UK constitutional law.<br /><br />However, when would that apply?<br /><br />When the SNP gets more than 22% of the electorate to endorse it in an election during the course of which they try their best not to mention the referendum, never mind question marks over its legality?<br /><br />Or perhaps when the SNP conducts a Westminster election as being predominantly about independence and perhaps gets more than a half dozen or so MPs?<br /><br />Or when opinion polls demonstrate an equivocal and long-standing support for independence?<br /><br />The fact is that as things stand this "democratic right to self-determination" isn't a particularly persuasive one, and even May's supposed mandate isn't particularly compelling vis-a-vis a referendum except on the basis of crude parliamentary arithmetic.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I don't think many dispute the democratic mandate for a referendum, and it's not as if Westminster is demonstrably opposed to a plebiscite conducted on a fair and indisputably legal basis.<br /><br />Therefore I can't really see how the "democratic right to self-determination" is being thwarted at the moment.<br /><br />This isn't UK v India at the fag end of the British Empire, and you're not Mahatma Ghandi.<br /><br />I'm sure that if the current situation became analogous to that of pre-independence India then your analysis would be more compelling, but until such time your case amounts to little more than crude rhetoric.Stuart Wintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02772436419630464325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-59492236868035378922012-02-08T02:44:03.375+00:002012-02-08T02:44:03.375+00:00The basis of the union clearly marks out that Scot...The basis of the union clearly marks out that Scotland can break the union or make changes to it if it chooses to do so. If Westminster declines to agree with that then the jig is up and the Rumpians will have to tuck their tails between their legs and scuttle off and leave a free Scotland alone. Anything else and they are acting in a colonial manner and contrary to the original agreements.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-60667680844245143992012-02-08T01:34:32.204+00:002012-02-08T01:34:32.204+00:00Frankly, I agree that any supposedly civilised gov...Frankly, I agree that any supposedly civilised government in a mature democracy that attempted to deny a desire expressed by a majority in a democratic referendum would get short shrift in any international court and would create so much resentment in Scotland that the Independence issue would quickly and permanently become <i>de facto</i> if not <i>de jure</i>. The legal discussion would be deemed moot and a matter for historians.<br />However, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that some delay might be occasioned by some imperialist loon-with-money kicking up a fuss. <br />Given that, I would be very interested in LPW's view of the argument, frequently advanced, that the terms of the Declaration of Arbroath and the Claim of Right are enshrined in Scots Law; that the legality of Scots Law within Scotland is guaranteed by Article 19 of the Treaty of Union; that the People are therefore sovereign; and, accordingly, that the referendum, being an expression of the will of the Scottish People, would trump any Westminster legislation invoked to discredit it. This is widely believed in Scotland to be the basis of the SNP's claim that the referendum would be legal. How do you assess this?Bobelixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09560064848522334094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-6070109385098496092012-02-08T00:39:09.459+00:002012-02-08T00:39:09.459+00:00Anonymous & Katherine
But you read the variou...Anonymous & Katherine<br /><br />But you read the various articles by LPW<br /><br />The Scots have no power, no recourse, should Westminster grant it, to change things.<br /><br />No avenue is open to them, the law is against them. Anything they will try will be stopped.<br /><br />Given that, Given the supremacy of Westminster that even LPW acknowledges (the subordination of the Scottish Legal system to the Supreme Court has recently been made evident, whereas English law is obviously in a superior position) might as well finish the jobRobert Blakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13408651503272276922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-52893647057772027402012-02-08T00:37:38.735+00:002012-02-08T00:37:38.735+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Robert Blakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13408651503272276922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-35715036811867260222012-02-07T21:07:30.949+00:002012-02-07T21:07:30.949+00:00OOPs that should say "And where the hell does...OOPs that should say "And where the hell does his name originate from? Scandinavia? It sure as hell ain't Clydebank."<br /><br />Barbie, it doesn't matter where he comes from. It matters what sort of person he is and whether he is right or wrong.<br /><br />After all, nationality is just an accident of birth...Bravehearthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07223196805548966030noreply@blogger.com