tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post7223976525744397351..comments2024-03-28T07:16:39.621+00:00Comments on Lallands Peat Worrier: "... to be faithful and bear true allegiance..."Lallands Peat Worrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18276270498204697708noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-67662096020539064552011-05-25T14:19:15.493+01:002011-05-25T14:19:15.493+01:00Ann Thropologist.
A fair point - the language is ...Ann Thropologist.<br /><br />A fair point - the language is loose - and I should emphasise, my expertise in anthropology is exceedingly limited and I wouldn't want to give out any other impression. My goal here was to maybe prompt folk to have a think about the queerness of this particular contemporary Scottish ritual - hopefully I managed that. In terms of its anthropological theory-driven content, it is inspired by a smattering of independent readings, with the ramshackle amateurism implied!Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-88541660129979759972011-05-25T12:00:30.541+01:002011-05-25T12:00:30.541+01:00Functionalism as 'more recent'? More rece...Functionalism as 'more recent'? More recent than what, Malinowski? It went out of fashion in the 60s. You want to be namechecking Rappaport, Bloch, 'processual approaches' and 'spectacle' instead. And possibly 'polyvocality'.<br /><br />The rest of the post wisnae bad, though.Ann Thropologistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-16117054922145642972011-05-17T12:50:19.973+01:002011-05-17T12:50:19.973+01:00ObiterJ,
You mean inwardly? Do you get the whiff ...ObiterJ,<br /><br />You mean inwardly? Do you get the whiff of a certain mental reservation? <br /><br />I don't know what legal force, if any, supports the requirement of taking an oath in Westminster - but the Scotland Act 1998 is clear for Holyrood parliamentarians. § 84 explicitly provides that an elected member who hasn't taken the oath within two months loses their seat. For the inveterate Republican, it's a fib, or <i>nae luck.</i>Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-21201533826630834642011-05-16T19:08:34.542+01:002011-05-16T19:08:34.542+01:00The real question is - how many of these Scottish ...The real question is - how many of these Scottish Nationalists actually accept the oath?<br /><br />Whether such an oath is necessary is, of course, another question.ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-82690684371317787862011-05-15T12:31:25.914+01:002011-05-15T12:31:25.914+01:00Ach, mine was only to ask whether Westminster took...Ach, mine was only to ask whether Westminster took an oath of allegiance to the banks?Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08902364411241935656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-21824434484329984322011-05-13T18:01:53.445+01:002011-05-13T18:01:53.445+01:00I hope you were subscribed to replies to this post...I hope you were subscribed to replies to this post, as blogger has incompetently lost the subsequent comments. My apologies!Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-60208026097411805012011-05-12T15:21:49.838+01:002011-05-12T15:21:49.838+01:00Does Westminster give an oath of allegiance to the...Does Westminster give an oath of allegiance to the banks?Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08902364411241935656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-69337283505633807382011-05-12T13:39:14.787+01:002011-05-12T13:39:14.787+01:00Graham,
I have some sympathy with that position. ...Graham,<br /><br />I have some sympathy with that position. I think an oath of some sort serves a useful function - but I'm no enthusiast for a vow of Regal submission.<br /><br />Voice of Reason,<br /><br />Another demonstration of your usual precision! Wrong of me to exclude the other begowned folk.Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18276270498204697708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-19455656152745013312011-05-12T13:28:28.416+01:002011-05-12T13:28:28.416+01:00GHmltn, Conan,
I notice that before he took his o...GHmltn, Conan,<br /><br />I notice that before he took his oath yesterday, the Maximum Eck issued his usual sentiments about the "constitutional position" that the people are sovereign. <br /><br />I wanted to double-check a few things before replying. I'm interested in constitutional law, but it isn't a particular specialism of mine. A few points. Firstly, the sovereignty question may be something of a red herring. The oath itself is to the British monarch. It is not, therefore, contingent on any legal consideration about that monarch's sovereignty.<br /><br />Secondly, the Queen-in-Parliament is, as I understand matters, a concept limited to Westminster. As you suggest, the monarch constitutes the third element of the sovereign legislature, along with Lords and Commons. While Royal Assent is required for Acts of the Scottish Parliament to become law, there isn't the same conceptual integration.<br /><br />It is also worth recalling Lord President Cooper's famous remarks in the 1953 case of <a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/MacCormick_v_Lord_Advocate" rel="nofollow"><i>MacCormick v. Lord Advocate</i></a>. Although principally speaking about the Act of Union, the Lord President noted:<br /><br /><i>"The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. It derives its origin from Coke and Blackstone, and was widely popularised during the nineteenth century by Bagehot and Dicey, the latter having stated the doctrine in its classic form in his Law of the Constitution. Considering that the Union legislation extinguished the Parliaments of Scotland and England and replaced them by a new Parliament, I have difficulty in seeing why it should have been supposed that the new Parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English Parliament but none of the Scottish Parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the Parliament of England. That is not what was done. Further, the Treaty and the associated legislation, by which the Parliament of Great Britain was brought into being as the successor of the separate Parliaments of Scotland and England, contain some clauses which expressly reserve to the Parliament of Great Britain powers of subsequent modification, and other clauses which either contain no such power or emphatically exclude subsequent alteration by declarations that the provision shall be fundamental and unalterable in all time coming, or declarations of a like effect. I have never been able to understand how it is possible to reconcile with elementary canons of construction the adoption by the English constitutional theorists of the same attitude to these markedly different types of provisions."</i><br /><br />English constitutional jurisprudence, however, is clear. Westminster is the sovereign body - and that is not changed by devolution. Holyrood is not. It would be for an independent Scotland to determine what sort of parliament it wanted - one hemmed in my constitutional provisions in a traditional document, or a supreme parliament of its own.Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18276270498204697708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-51975914418826285482011-05-11T23:23:23.022+01:002011-05-11T23:23:23.022+01:00Technically, he is sworn in before the entire Coll...Technically, he is sworn in before the <i>entire</i> College of Justice, not merely the Senators. The Law Officers and the office bearers of the three bodies that constitute the college (Faculty of Advocates, WS Society, and SSC Society) are also in attendance dressed in their formal robes and bearing their insignia of office. Ministers are sworn on a later date, and this year there will also be the appointment of a new Lord Advocate and Solicitor General.the_voice_of_reasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10179007944478552588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-20579983982017917112011-05-11T22:41:28.935+01:002011-05-11T22:41:28.935+01:00Natha,
Glad you enjoy the blog. In point of fact,...Natha,<br /><br />Glad you enjoy the blog. In point of fact, Ministers will be taking <i>yet another</i> another oath, the so-called Official Oath. Alex Salmond, as Keeper of the Great Seal of Scotland, will be making a trip to the Court of Session, to be sworn in before the Senators of the College of Justice. Rather hope the press get decent footage of the event. It does have a certain colour and interest - and the meeting of the executive and judicial wings of the Scottish State.Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-9424762715608465302011-05-11T22:13:40.261+01:002011-05-11T22:13:40.261+01:00Thank you Conan. Interested to hear expanded answe...Thank you Conan. Interested to hear expanded answer on how that works within a monarchy and the British state.<br /><br />If people sovereign in scot parlt the oath shud b different!GHmltnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08420475365803049630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-39422684772450285522011-05-11T22:09:13.823+01:002011-05-11T22:09:13.823+01:00I hope that the Scottish Parliament will one day m...I hope that the Scottish Parliament will one day mature to cease swearing oaths and affirmations to monarchs. It undermines the Parliament as an institution, the MSPs, the people whom they are there to represent and, indeed, democracy itself. It looks ridiculous because it is. No stunts, no antics, just wrap it.Grahamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-52284089766066099372011-05-11T18:01:49.382+01:002011-05-11T18:01:49.382+01:00Gavin, in Scotland the people are sovereign, thoug...Gavin, in Scotland the people are sovereign, though that has been ignored for the past three hundred years.<br /><br />I'm sure Lallands will answer your question far more eloquently and wittier than me.<br /><br />The *^%@" :)Conan the Librarian™https://www.blogger.com/profile/01904339261121451779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-33132701958976338852011-05-11T14:34:27.854+01:002011-05-11T14:34:27.854+01:00Indeed,
I see what you are saying Peat Warrior.
...Indeed,<br /><br />I see what you are saying Peat Warrior.<br /><br />I am curious about the constitutional position<br /><br />The Queen's sovereignty lies in parliament.<br /><br />We have a tri-partite sovereignty of Monarch Commons and Lords.<br /><br />How is this modified in Scotland with the Scottish Parliament.<br /><br />I have always presumed it is something like this:<br /><br />In Scotland the Queen is sovereign in parliament - as devolved to Scotland.<br /><br />Is this the Constitutional Law position? or something to that effect?<br /><br />I guess when they swear an oath they are swearing an oath to the Queen in parlaiment - including as it is devolved to the Scottish Parliament.<br /><br />This therefore is an oath to the British state and the Scottish state in as much as it is devolved.<br /><br />It would be nice if the language could be subtly changed to include the concept of citizenship in our relationship with the monarch as head of state.<br /><br />Yours hoping for an answer.<br /><br />Gavin<br /><br />:) <br />When they swearGHmltnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08420475365803049630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-29620512067315552102011-05-11T13:55:07.607+01:002011-05-11T13:55:07.607+01:00I think it's bollocks all this oath taking.
P...I think it's bollocks all this oath taking.<br /><br />People are judged by their actions and not by their supposed inner loyalty to this thing or that.<br /><br />Bunkum.<br /><br /><br />Enjoy your articles very much.nathahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13635570445708266307noreply@blogger.com