Scottish Independence

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's simply not the case, much as independence supporters will (loudly) try to frame it that way. It has nothing to do with children's rights or devolution. As Andy Wightman points out it's a straightforward procedural matter regarding the law making process.

How could you frame it any other way? It would be law right now if not for the intervention of the UK govt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's simply not the case, much as independence supporters will (loudly) try to frame it that way. It has nothing to do with children's rights or devolution. As Andy Wightman points out it's a straightforward procedural matter regarding the law making process.

Andrew Tickell

In summary: Westminster will be able to pass legislation which violates children's rights in devolved areas without these being challengeable in the courts, on the basis that the UK parliament must have "unqualified legislative power" to make laws, even in clearly devolved areas.

Next we'll be told its all grievance politics. This time however the whole Scottish Parliament voted it through.

[James310]

Roddy Dunlop QC the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates offers a different viewpoint about today.

https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1...LX2KOve4g&s=19

Agreed. Lots of cries of “what about the children?!” Not the point of this case. I am aware of no deficit re child rights in Scots law& if there is then Holyrood is free to legislate as a devolved matter. What can’t be done is to pass legislation that qualifies reserved powers.

[Skol]

I must be a yoon :-(

Douglas Ross wrote to me today and asked me to consider standing as a councillor. Quite how I found my way on to his mailing list I have no idea.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Roddy Dunlop QC the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates offers a different viewpoint about today.

https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1...LX2KOve4g&s=19

Agreed. Lots of cries of “what about the children?!” Not the point of this case. I am aware of no deficit re child rights in Scots law& if there is then Holyrood is free to legislate as a devolved matter. What can’t be done is to pass legislation that qualifies reserved powers.

All he is saying is he is happy with the way things are? This was new legislation that was backed by all parties in The Scottish Parliament. It put new responsibilities on public bodies operating in Scotland and it has been blocked by the UK govt. Interestingly when the Welsh govt passed the exact same legislation the UK govt let it go without challenge? Why would they treat Scotland differently?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lord bunberry]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I must be a yoon :-(

Douglas Ross wrote to me today and asked me to consider standing as a councillor. Quite how I found my way on to his mailing list I have no idea.

Councillor Skol has a certain ring to it mate

[greenlex]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Councillor Skol (Conservative)has a certain ring to it mate

Fixed that. 😬😬

[Ryan91]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

All he is saying is he is happy with the way things are? This was new legislation that was backed by all parties in The Scottish Parliament. It put new responsibilities on public bodies operating in Scotland and it has been blocked by the UK govt. Interestingly when the Welsh govt passed the exact same legislation the UK govt let it go without challenge? Why would they treat Scotland differently?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I assume no fuss with Welsh Gov as it's already part of English (and Welsh) law.

Or because it's an opportunity for UK Gov to flex their muscles and show that SNP bad.

It's beyond me in all fairness, but I'm pretty sure I read that it's due to wording, and that these laws can be passed again with some changes to the way things are written and not be challenged.

[Skol]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Councillor Skol has a certain ring to it mate

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Fixed that. 😬😬

lol

I can only think its because my better half objected to a building application and enlisted the support of all local MPs, MSPs and Councillors (*) in an effort to get the application blocked. To be fair they were all very supportive and helped to get the original application blocked and replaced by an alternative which wasnt as bad as the original would have been.

(*) I think they were all either Lib Dem or Conservative at the time.

[Moulin Yarns]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I must be a yoon :-(

Douglas Ross wrote to me today and asked me to consider standing as a councillor. Quite how I found my way on to his mailing list I have no idea.

I regularly get letters from him talking about farming. My address is.... Farmhouse 😁

Not been a working farm for over 30 years!!

[Moulin Yarns]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

lol

I can only think its because my better half objected to a building application and enlisted the support of all local mps, msps and councillors (*) in an effort to get the application blocked. To be fair they were all very supportive and helped to get the original application blocked and replaced by an alternative which wasnt as bad as the original would have been.

(*) i think they were all either lib dem or conservative at the time.

nimby 😉

[He's here!]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How could you frame it any other way? It would be law right now if not for the intervention of the UK govt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It appears that the legislation can quite easily be brought into line with the court ruling. There's no serious controversy about its content, with both treaties having long been ratified by the UK. It simply fell outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish government, something they were made well aware of prior to its publication (IIRC the Scottish secretary flagged up the potential problems well in advance but was ignored). Sturgeon & Co can't surely be surprised by the legal defeat as the law is abundantly clear (underlined by the Supreme Court's decision a few years back on the Withdrawal from the EU (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill...yep, I had to look up the wording for that). It seems not unreasonable to suggest that the legislation was drafted in such a way that it was intended to fail, but then our 'chief Mammy' would never resort to such underhand tactics would she?

[Crunchie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It appears that the legislation can quite easily be brought into line with the court ruling. There's no serious controversy about its content, with both treaties having long been ratified by the UK. It simply fell outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish government, something they were made well aware of prior to its publication (IIRC the Scottish secretary flagged up the potential problems well in advance but was ignored). Sturgeon & Co can't surely be surprised by the legal defeat as the law is abundantly clear (underlined by the Supreme Court's decision a few years back on the Withdrawal from the EU (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill...yep, I had to look up the wording for that). It seems not unreasonable to suggest that the legislation was drafted in such a way that it was intended to fail, but then our 'chief Mammy' would never resort to such underhand tactics would she?

Our chief mammy believes she is a law unto herself.

[degenerated]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Our chief mammy believes she is a law unto herself.

Its a very odd mindset where folk can get a chubby over a bill to protect children's rights in their own country being overturned by a court in another country.

Regardless of what the Tories in the Scottish regional branch say now they, along with the other unionist parties, supported this bill in Holyrood.

[Peevemor]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Its a very odd mindset where folk can get a chubby over a bill to protect children's rights in their own country being overturned by a court in another country.

Regardless of what the Tories in the Scottish regional branch say now they, along with the other unionist parties, supported this bill in Holyrood.

Yep, immature nonsense.

[degenerated]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yep, immature nonsense.

Quite depressing really.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Its a very odd mindset where folk can get a chubby over a bill to protect children's rights in their own country being overturned by a court in another country.

Regardless of what the Tories in the Scottish regional branch say now they, along with the other unionist parties, supported this bill in Holyrood.

What was weird yesterday was that although all parties supported this bill in the Scottish Parliament, when it was debated yesterday, all the parties chose to attack the SNP following the UK govt stopping the bill. Not a bad word from Labour for the UK govt. it’s almost like there is no principle they won’t set aside for their precious union.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[degenerated]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What was weird yesterday was that although all parties supported this bill in the Scottish Parliament, when it was debated yesterday, all the parties chose to attack the SNP following the UK govt stopping the bill. Not a bad word from Labour for the UK govt. it’s almost like there is no principle they won’t set aside for their precious union.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, they were all mighty proud of themselves when they votes in favour of the bill. Now they are all tugging themselves off on social media about the fact that they've been told these sort of things are above their pay grade.

The lack of self-respect is staggering.

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Our chief mammy believes she is a law unto herself.

You believed there weren't any empty shelves in the supermarkets.

I wonder who's judgement to trust.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

I wonder how many other people noticed the irony of Boris yesterday telling Scotland that the English government were going to improve the A75 and A1 in Scotland (devolved powers) on the same day that the supreme courts were giving the decision that the Scottish government had overstepped their powers?!

[Skol]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

nimby 😉

haha, wasnt quite in my back yard but was going to be a property with a roof terrace that pretty much hung over my back yard.


We managed to get that stopped and they had to get a different design and different location on the plot of land. We now have ugly but less intrusive garage, granny flat and a box that I think contains either a sauna or a hot tub which we can live with

[One Day Soon]

The Presiding Officer, the parliament's legal advisors and the Scottish Government's law officers should probably be taking a long look at themselves over this stuff. Legislating outwith your legal competence is as basic an error as it gets and there is a duty on the PO in particular to get this right in the first place.

I don't doubt that these most likely happened by accident rather than design but it has made the parliament and all the parties in it look pretty foolish. It's all very well to attack Sturgeon - that's politics and she'd be doing the same thing in opposition - but it doesn't make any of them look clever.

[Since90+2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The Presiding Officer, the parliament's legal advisors and the Scottish Government's law officers should probably be taking a long look at themselves over this stuff. Legislating outwith your legal competence is as basic an error as it gets and there is a duty on the PO in particular to get this right in the first place.

I don't doubt that these most likely happened by accident rather than design but it has made the parliament and all the parties in it look pretty foolish. It's all very well to attack Sturgeon - that's politics and she'd be doing the same thing in opposition - but it doesn't make any of them look clever.

Agreed.

Nobody comes out of this looking particularly good.

[Santa Cruz]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The Presiding Officer, the parliament's legal advisors and the Scottish Government's law officers should probably be taking a long look at themselves over this stuff. Legislating outwith your legal competence is as basic an error as it gets and there is a duty on the PO in particular to get this right in the first place.

I don't doubt that these most likely happened by accident rather than design but it has made the parliament and all the parties in it look pretty foolish. It's all very well to attack Sturgeon - that's politics and she'd be doing the same thing in opposition - but it doesn't make any of them look clever.

The P.O. was asked about the point you made in relation to her role.

Miles Briggs (Lothian) (Con)
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Today might not be a good day for ministers but it is certainly not a good day for our Parliament and how we make legislation. The UK Supreme Court ruling calls into question the legal advice that members of the Scottish Parliament have received and, perhaps more so, the legal advice that Scottish National Party ministers have been given and have said that they hold when members are making legislation. In the light of that and the ruling that we have received today, what review or consideration will you and the Parliament undertake of what needs to change?
The Presiding Officer
I thank Mr Briggs for his point of order. The role of the Presiding Officer is to indicate a view—an opinion—on legislative competence at the point when a bill is introduced, and the intention of that statement is to inform the Parliament in any consideration of the bill. The Presiding Officer has no further role in relation to legislative competence during the passage of any bill, and their view on the matter does not prevent any bill from being submitted for royal assent. In all instances, the United Kingdom Supreme Court is the ultimate authority in determining legislative competence. Its ruling on these matters clarifies the legal position and will inform future consideration of legislative competence.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The Presiding Officer, the parliament's legal advisors and the Scottish Government's law officers should probably be taking a long look at themselves over this stuff. Legislating outwith your legal competence is as basic an error as it gets and there is a duty on the PO in particular to get this right in the first place.

I don't doubt that these most likely happened by accident rather than design but it has made the parliament and all the parties in it look pretty foolish. It's all very well to attack Sturgeon - that's politics and she'd be doing the same thing in opposition - but it doesn't make any of them look clever.

I would say those opposing the protection of children through the courts look worse than others.
This legislation only concerns incorporating the UN children’s human rights act into Scots law. The only affect it would have had on the UK govt is that it would have to make sure that their own laws also complied with it where they applied in Scotland. Why would the UK govt be against that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

The most common response from unionists on this appears to be that everyone looks bad in this?

Surely that’s as clear a sign as any that they know the UK govt comes off a lot worse?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skol]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I would say those opposing the protection of children through the courts look worse than others.
This legislation only concerns incorporating the UN children’s human rights act into Scots law. The only affect it would have had on the UK govt is that it would have to make sure that their own laws also complied with it where they applied in Scotland. Why would the UK govt be against that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I dont believe anyone is opposing the protection of children though?

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The P.O. was asked about the point you made in relation to her role.

Miles Briggs (Lothian) (Con)
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Today might not be a good day for ministers but it is certainly not a good day for our Parliament and how we make legislation. The UK Supreme Court ruling calls into question the legal advice that members of the Scottish Parliament have received and, perhaps more so, the legal advice that Scottish National Party ministers have been given and have said that they hold when members are making legislation. In the light of that and the ruling that we have received today, what review or consideration will you and the Parliament undertake of what needs to change?
The Presiding Officer
I thank Mr Briggs for his point of order. The role of the Presiding Officer is to indicate a view—an opinion—on legislative competence at the point when a bill is introduced, and the intention of that statement is to inform the Parliament in any consideration of the bill. The Presiding Officer has no further role in relation to legislative competence during the passage of any bill, and their view on the matter does not prevent any bill from being submitted for royal assent. In all instances, the United Kingdom Supreme Court is the ultimate authority in determining legislative competence. Its ruling on these matters clarifies the legal position and will inform future consideration of legislative competence.

Point scoring from Briggs and truly pathetic deflection from the PO.

The Presiding Officer receives legal advice on things like this and attempting to downplay having made an ar5e of it with the language of 'indicate a view - an opinion' just makes her office look weaker. It's not like it's a question of 'would you prefer the veal or the pasta Madge?'. These are points of law.

[degenerated]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The most common response from unionists on this appears to be that everyone looks bad in this?

Surely that’s as clear a sign as any that they know the UK govt comes off a lot worse?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The optics for this are absolutely dreadful for the UK.

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The Presiding Officer, the parliament's legal advisors and the Scottish Government's law officers should probably be taking a long look at themselves over this stuff. Legislating outwith your legal competence is as basic an error as it gets and there is a duty on the PO in particular to get this right in the first place.

I don't doubt that these most likely happened by accident rather than design but it has made the parliament and all the parties in it look pretty foolish. It's all very well to attack Sturgeon - that's politics and she'd be doing the same thing in opposition - but it doesn't make any of them look clever.

There are already a number of senior legal figures questioning the CA judgement, and the fact that it went there in the first place indicates how legally complicated the issue is. Anyone who thinks this is a "basic error" is either wilfully or blissfully ignorant of the complexities of the law.