tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post9126065286476761155..comments2024-03-28T07:16:39.621+00:00Comments on Lallands Peat Worrier: Of Joan McAlpine & "distinctively English" constitutional principles...Lallands Peat Worrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18276270498204697708noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-90150661838835370882011-09-26T00:23:59.803+01:002011-09-26T00:23:59.803+01:00It seems to me that there is an opportunity to re-...It seems to me that there is an opportunity to re-balance the law in favour of victims rather than corporate interests.<br /><br />Whether that is enough, of itself, to swing us to independence, the straw that broke tha camels back - probably not - but it is certainly another straw <b>on</b> the camels back, I'd have thought.<br /><br />The list of grievances, real or imagined, is becoming politically compelling.douglas clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11422060678908705962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-29277693692573897552011-09-24T22:50:28.431+01:002011-09-24T22:50:28.431+01:00As in the previous thread Peter Thomson articulate...As in the previous thread Peter Thomson articulates my thoughts - indeed adds weight to them - much better than I could.<br /><br />As Peter says LPW, I'm not convinced that the paradox of which you highlight was Joan's intention. I'm not aware of her being a Constitutional expert, but aye I suppose she or more pointedly her advisors should really have delved much deeper into the constitutional intricacies. They could do a lot worse that read this excellent educational site. However a political point is at play here, and too much detail might dilute the thrust of the piece.<br /><br />As I tried to get across in the previous thread (and which Peter surely did) is that the winds of change have and are blowing across this great nation. How the Courts reflect this is upto them, but reflect they must!<br /><br />As the grandson of a miner who suffered and died from a lung condition. My family recieved a minor payment, so small that once split between my Ma and her siblings it wasn't worth falling out over. Thing is there are hundreds of thousands of family members like me who would automatically sympathise with the families whom axa & others is trying to shaft.<br /><br />At the moment we are subject to a Constitutional law that is not our own. Most people won't delve deep enough to consider much more than the fact that a law made in holyrood may potentially be over-ruled by a Court that was never intended to do any such thing. Thus while you correctly highlight a paradox, it is really only the likes of us who will notice.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-56061593902740622142011-09-24T22:48:43.996+01:002011-09-24T22:48:43.996+01:00Gosh.
I wonder if the turnout would be more than ...Gosh.<br /><br />I wonder if the turnout would be more than 50%?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-11497027690541361792011-09-24T22:33:21.989+01:002011-09-24T22:33:21.989+01:00You have quite a static view of things, which prob...You have quite a static view of things, which probably comes from being a lawyer not a politician.<br /><br />Supposing the worst happens as you see it and some unionist does go to court to try and stop the referendum. And supposing they even win. What would the consequences of that be? <br />It would mean the referendum campaign would seamlessly become the Scottish Parliament election campaign - and the single issue dominating it would be the right of the Scottish people to decide their own future. Plus - and this could be significant - it would mean a much longer unregulated campaign period. The referendum period would be set in statute, with spending limits set and so on. If polling day came and went with no referendum we would then be into an unregulated period but I suggest the campaign would be more intensive than ever and party members and supporters would dig deep - let's face it we all gave money to HQ for that legal challenge to the BBC during Westminster even though we thought it would probably go nowhere. <br /><br />I mean seriusly, can you imagine the momentum that would build up behind a campaign simply to allow people to vote on their own country's future? It would be tremendous. And you have to consider that if that kind of momentum built up it would make a yes outcome all the more likely.<br /><br />And where would it leave the unionist side? Because it would be pretty difficult for them to distance themselves from a challenge to, basically, the Scottish peoples right to self-determination if the challenge was mounted by a unionist.<br /><br />So even if someone did mount a legal challenge it would not be the end of the world, far from it.<br /><br />Lest anybody think I am starting a new conspiracy theory in which the SNP secretly hopes the referendum is ruled unlawful so that they can sweep all before them on a tide of popular outrage and demand that Westminster gives them the undisputed power to hold a referendum on independence - I am not. I think they would far and away prefer to hold the referendum they plan to hold.<br /><br />But they'll play the cards they are dealt because that's what politics is like - you don't always get to deal the cards, there are always circumstances beyond your control. It's how you adapt to circumstances that counts.Indyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04383904151475839441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-49703393462987211332011-09-24T17:20:09.986+01:002011-09-24T17:20:09.986+01:00Let's not lose sight of the fact that McAlpine...Let's not lose sight of the fact that McAlpine's primary concern here is the status of Holyrood in the overall constitutional framework of the UK. The case itself is little more than a convenient means through which she can voice her opinion.<br /><br />As for the idea that the UK courts can't overrule Parliament, that's an outdated notion. Acts of the UK parliament have to comply with EU law, if they don't the UK courts must ignore UK statute law and apply EU law instead.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-66232200485505254102011-09-24T12:58:37.994+01:002011-09-24T12:58:37.994+01:00Lalland's - forget the niceties of law many Sc...Lalland's - forget the niceties of law many Scots see this as purely political, an attempt by Westminster to 'put Scotland in its place' and are more in accord with Joan than your good self.<br /><br />The reality is that Scotland has never been in the thrall of Westminster. The Scottish people's sovereignty was held in trust by the Scottish Grand Committee and never made subservient to the Westminster oligarchy - that is Lord Coopers point in his 1953 judgement.<br /><br />For you to be correct requires that Westminster repeals the Scottish 1698 'Claim of Right' and removes the independence of Scots Law from the 1707 Union Treaty.<br /><br />As the English majority is so huge, Westminster could pass legislation to do both but it is only in this way that the Scottish people can have their sovereignty and right to our independent legal system removed and made subservient to Westminster. To do this scores a massive own goal and only makes Wee Eck's job even easier.<br /><br />It is up to the Scottish people to say 'what is' and 'where lies their sovereignty' and that process is reserved to the Scottish people by the 1689 Claim of Right.<br /><br />The latent anger in Westminster's presumption over this and other issues is reaching a critical point in Scotland and if the Supreme Court does not take this into account the Union will be gone sooner than 2014, leaving England and its debt finances in disarray.<br /><br />No, Joan is right to emphasise the political nature of this judgement no matter what is decided. Simply because it is about the Scottish people's right to our independent system of law and our expression of sovereignty.<br /><br />The Supreme Court can go hang itself and the Union for all I care.Mad Jock McMadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17088238215251518226noreply@blogger.com