Jump to content

Ad Lib

Gold Members
  • Posts

    12,924
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    9

Ad Lib last won the day on October 7 2015

Ad Lib had the most liked content!

Reputation

3,114 Excellent

5 Followers

About Ad Lib

  • Birthday 27/05/1991

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.predictableparadox.co.uk

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Watch out Simon Stainrod
  • Location
    London

Recent Profile Visitors

38,988 profile views
  1. Politics, yes. Constitutional change? No. This is irrelevant howling at the moon. UDI isn't an appeal to a higher court. It is a decision to act outwith the framework of either domestic or international law, and to hope some other folk go along with it. Unless you're seeking recognition from countries like Russia, it's a terrible idea that no sensible Nationalist should ever contemplate in the 21st century. Scotland would not get the support of the international community if it pursued UDI. Short of there being tanks in George Square again, the international community wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.
  2. Sorry Zern, but this is all over the place. You've completely misconstrued the Quebec Secession Reference. In answer to Question 1 of the reference (which was whether Quebec had a right under the Canadian constitution to secede unilaterally) the Court explicitly answered no. It said that a vote on a referendum, which is within the competence of the National Assembly would create a set of conditions in which good faith constitutional negotiations would have to take place to "respond to the desire" of Quebeckers to secede, but it did not compel any particular result or outcome. In answer to Question 2 of the reference (whether Quebec had a right to unilateral secession under international law) the Court answered in the negative as well. It said that there were two established circumstances in which secession could be asserted unilaterally under international law: (a) The right of colonial peoples to exercise their right to self-determination by breaking away from the "imperial" power (para 132 of the judgment) (b) where a people is subject to alien subjugation, domination or exploitation outside a colonial context (para 133 of the judgment) And it considered, but did not explicitly rule either way on a third situation, namely "when a people is blocked from the meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination internally, it is entitled, as a last resort, to exercise it by secession". (para 134 of the judgment) On the first and second, it said that sub-state entities like Quebec, which are democratically and constitutionally represented parts of a democratic state, clearly did not fit the criteria. On the third, the same conclusion was reached. The Court said (at para 136): I respectfully submit that, for as long as Scotland has MPs at Westminster, and especially for as long as it has a devolved Parliament, it also cannot plead being prevented from meaningful exercise of self-determination. The Quebec Secession reference also directly addresses the position in international law if constitutional negotiations about a proposed secession break down. This is what it said at para 137: Respectfully, the same position would have applied in the event that the 2014 referendum went the other way in Scotland, and the same would be true if Holyrood somehow found a way to legislate for a second referendum in the next few years. On the point of implementation, you would be relying on the success of political negotiations, albeit with a great deal of constitutional legitimacy if a referendum were lawfully held and especially if it were held with the assistance of Westminster legislation. The Quebec Secession Reference says that unilateral secession would never be permissible for a sub-state entity that was like Quebec, as a matter of international law. It recognises that an unconstitutional secession might be recognised by other sovereign states, to create a "de facto" secession, but it is emphatic that this would be unconstitutional and a breach of international law (by undermining the territorial integrity of an existing sovereign state). The UK Parliament demonstrably can legislate to abolish the Holyrood Parliament. It would face a substantial political price for doing so, not least given the legislative recognition in the Scotland Act 2016 that it should only happen if endorsed by a referendum of the Scottish people. But it can do that. I really don't see where you're going with this. Just because the UK Government currently adopts a cavalier attitude towards respect for its international obligations, doesn't mean that a sub-state entity of the UK can therefore avail itself of rights in international law that are reserved to colonised and militarily occupied peoples and territories. No I didn't. I said the Good Friday Agreement is not relevant, constitutionally, to Scotland's position in the UK. Because it isn't. And, crucially, it applies to the future of Northern Ireland, not Scotland. No it doesn't. It was a treaty text negotiated by the UK and Irish Governments to deal specifically with Northern Ireland and its unique conditions. The border poll provisions are about whether Northern Ireland should reunify with part of an entity that seceded from the UK. It is not about secession of Northern Ireland from the UK simpliciter. The only trigger for a border poll in Northern Ireland is whether the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland believes that there is a majority in favour of Irish reunification. There is no analogous constitutional or international law provision applicable either generally to sub-state units in the UK (or more widely) that would include Scotland in that. No this is wrong. The threshold is, and always has been since the Good Friday Agreement and the implementing Northern Ireland Act 1998, an assessment made by the Secretary of State as to whether a majority exists for reunification. There is uncertainty as to exactly what evidence base would underpin this, but the law is clear: it's up to the Secretary of State. Indeed, in recent days Brandon Lewis has ruled-out the possibility of such a poll, relying on evidence including the popular vote share of Nationalist parties, as well as opinion polling in Northern Ireland about the desire, or otherwise, for such a poll to take place. No it isn't. The SSNI is given wide political discretion to assess whether the condition precedent of an apparent majority is met. And he is secondly given absolute discretion, subject to the seven year waiting period, about whether otherwise to call such a poll. No, I'm afraid it patently does not. For two reasons: (1) The Good Friday Agreement doesn't apply to Scotland (2) The test contained in the GFA and NIA 1998 is very clear, and it is the Secretary of State's assessment about whether it appears likely that the majority of people in Northern Ireland would vote for reunification. There is absolutely no reference whatsoever to the passing of a motion by the Northern Ireland Assembly. I'm afraid this doesn't follow. I wish that were our constitutional arrangement, but it isn't. And international law doesn't come to our aid. No. Sorry, but as a matter of international law it really can't.
  3. No it means you’re completely wrong. No one here is disputing that the UK Parliament has constitutional power to make laws for Great Britain or any part of it. This is full of hopeless contradiction. Not even Dicey was this muddled, and unlike you it seems like I’ve read his works on both of the Unions. Either the UK Parliament has unlimited powers, in which case it can legislate to grant Scottish independence. Or the 1707 Union is “perpetual”, in which case the UK Parliament cannot legislate to grant Scottish independence. You can’t argue both. Spoiler: neither is true. The UK Parliament can legislate for Scottish independence, but it does not have unlimited powers. Indeed, I listened to Lord Hope of Craighead say precisely this (in reference to his remarks in Jackson v Attorney General, which you still have not read) at an event in Parliament yesterday evening. No it isn’t. This is what was said by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in the Foreword to the UK Government’s consultation on facilitating a Scottish independence referendum: “We want to keep the United Kingdom together. But we recognise that the Scottish Government holds the opposite view. In May 2011, the Scottish National Party won a majority in the Scottish Parliament; this was a significant electoral victory, which the UK Government has openly acknowledged. The Scottish National Party entered the May 2011 election with a manifesto pledge for a referendum on independence. They have campaigned consistently for independence, and while the UK Government does not believe this is in the interests of Scotland, or the rest of the United Kingdom, we will not stand in the way of a referendum on independence: the future of Scotland’s place within the United Kingdom is for people in Scotland to vote on.” This was, very clearly, a recognition that there was a constitutional justification for a referendum, albeit one that had to be agreed through a clear framework that included Westminster legislation. You have about as much credibility here as someone claiming that leaving drinks are “reasonably necessary for work” during a pandemic.
  4. We had booked a cottage in the Lake District for a short break from 13 November 2020 for about a week. My (now late) dad had just finished six months of chemotherapy and this was going to be our first/only opportunity to go as a full family on a short break, to make lasting memories. Then this twat's Government said that Cumbria was at an elevated risk, and that people from outside that area were not allowed to go there. He told them to shut down their self-catered accommodation. On 13 November 2020, this odious little c**t was quaffing back wine with his Vote Leave mates in his office, calling that gathering "reasonably necessary for work". I wish nothing but haemorrhoids on him.
  5. Probably because they understand when their arses have been handed to them on a plate. That self-awareness, something it appears Rangers fans specifically lack, is what redeems them.
  6. I’ll take it from this that you haven’t done any of the recommended reading? Tut tut. 0/10. Except I am denying it, and there are literally reams of peer reviewed academic literature denying it. No it isn’t. Firstly, you are playing fast and loose with the word “Westminster”. Secondly, we have plenty examples of situations where “Westminster” wanting something wasn’t enough, because it was recognised that other constitutional imperatives apply. The (vast) majority of MPs in the UK Parliament who sat between 2010 and 2015 were resolutely opposed to both Scottish independence and a referendum on Scottish independence. Yet following the 2011 Scottish elections, the Prime Minister, the Government, and then those MPs acknowledged there was a constitutional justification for that referendum they didn’t want, and they negotiated, and then legislated, accordingly. You are hopelessly out of your depth here.
  7. Thanks for your support oneteaminglasgow. The thing I’m most heartened by is that the Foundation has managed to persuade 12 people to stand for 9 positions, at relatively short notice, in the close season. Combine that with the fact that membership is up 9% since before the 3BC and Club statements, and it’s clear that there’s a solid and growing desire to make this work. Obviously some of us are running on a slate with Jags For Change and a common platform, but there looks to be some really useful expertise and experience among the other candidates too. This bodes well.
  8. It really isn't. The vast majority of the Act of Union is about the detail of things that will remain different in Scotland and in England and how that difference will be managed. Except, of course, that no court has ever definitively ruled that Parliamentary sovereignty is absolute, or that the Treaties of Union place no limits on them. This informs the extent to which the constitutional conditions giving rise to devolution are the product of pure Westminster sentiments or more fundamental principles of a state founded on the mutual bargaining of formerly independent nations. Go and read Lord Hope in Jackson v Attorney General. Go and read Lord Cooper of Culross in MacCormick v Lord Advocate. Go and read Lord Keith in Gibson v Lord Advocate. These are not unresolved questions. You are indeed correct that you are under no obligation to relieve yourself of your own childish ignorance.
  9. Britain is and always has been a union state, not a unitary state, because its founding Treaty recognised, from the outset, continued asymmetry and special arrangements for its constituent nations, including their legal systems and established churches. Politically, it even less resembles a unitary state than it ever has precisely because of devolution and the sub-state democratic mandates on which those three systems of devolution are based. Go and read some Neil Walker, some Michael Keating too, in fact pretty much any respectable constitutional lawyer or British political scientist from the last sixty years, then get back to me.
  10. This was very very very funny. Enjoy your derbies with lolkirk next season.
  11. I think Bannigan is past his best. He's fine as a squad player at this level but I wouldn't be building a team around him. Docherty is much of a muchness but offers more goal threat and is a better passer of the ball.
  12. I lost my dad to a brain tumour (at 58) just before Christmas and the last few months have if anything felt progressively harder. In the immediate aftermath and even up to the funeral, I had a clear role and things to distract myself with (basically all the financial and legal admin). Then that kind of ran out. Everyone else's lives went back to normal. Except for ours. My sister, who always had a less complicated relationship with dad, grieves very publicly on social media (I don't want to say performatively, but you know what I mean by that). My mum, with bipolar and all manner of physical health problems, is a bit of a mess at the moment and is up to her eyeballs in painkillers for a hip problem. We know she falls into deep depressions when she's not surrounded by other people and being constantly distracted from being alone. And I'm stuck down in London distant and powerless to do anything about it all. In the weeks after the funeral I'd occasionally have teary moments, but having gone back to work I just looked for whatever distractions I could find and to minimise the amount of time I spent alone. But in recent weeks, I've found myself bursting into streams of tears over the tiniest of things, sobbing uncontrollably. There are so many evenings when my brain wanders into thinking "I'd really like to have a video chat with dad" and then I realise I can't. I'll see a Facebook memory come up of him ripping the piss out of my latest haircut and be disconsolate for an hour. The latest incident was when I saw a Facebook post about the Minister's wife at dad's old church replacing the shed he had built in the Manse back garden with a summer house. Sobbing over a fucking shed in a house we haven't even lived in for 5 years. I know this is the spell when they say grief can get to its worst and that it eventually passes, but Christ, it's fucking exhausting. I don't really feel any sustained happiness at anything in my life at the moment, just blips of numbness. Nobody who hasn't been through losing a parent really gets it. So often people try to say a nice thing like that they'd have been proud of you or some such shit like that. But I'd give up 99% of my on paper success in life to have just one more conversation with my dad.
  13. FWIW I think Albus Bulbasaur is quite a good username. It's a shame it had to be wasted on this person(a).
  14. Do you really need me to explain to you in crayon the difference between representative and direct democracy? The popular vote. This isn't fucking hard.
×
×
  • Create New...