When will indyref2 happen?

[Ad Lib]

2 hours ago, GordonS said:

I think a lot of people at the time, including some of those writing it, understood that it would be a bar on any cases being decided in an English court. But our "flexible" constitution took care of business.

The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords isn’t and cannot be regarded as an English court when it’s literally a Committee of a constituent part of the Parliament of Great Britain (and later U.K.).

2 hours ago, GordonS said:

That's a thought that's going to fester.

2 hours ago, GordonS said:

I agree, but I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to take a different position. While the Supreme Court isn't strictly speaking reversing acts of the High Court, it's definitely reversing acts of the Scottish criminal system, which arguably is contrary to the spirit of the Treaty of Union.

This is where you lose me, even at “arguably”.

The Scottish criminal system became (for the most part) a devolved function in 1999, and therefore became subject to the norms of devolved competence. It’s important to remember that the UKSC’s jurisdiction in devolution issues related to criminal matters was originally that of the Privy Council and not the House of Lords.

If devolution were abolished tomorrow, the UK Supreme Court, by default, would lose its jurisdiction over (in essence) human rights related criminal justice system matters. What is being policed is the Lord Advocate rather than the courts  and that’s entirely proper in the context of what Article XIX says (IMO).

2 hours ago, GordonS said:

It's a fact that the Supreme Court has changed our rules of evidence, and as a consequence forced the High Court to make different judgements on criminal procedure than it otherwise would have done. Evidence and procedure are utterly intrinsic to the criminal law of any legal system.

Yes but, for example, Cadder and the related cases were really about whether evidence was obtained properly (by the police and the Crown Office/PF). That’s a prior question to whether the criminal courts can then admit that evidence. It’s reviewing acts of executive or administrative actors not judicial ones.

2 hours ago, GordonS said:

You're saying that the Supreme Court ensures that a member of the Scottish Government complied with their obligations under the Scotland Act (I refuse to say "his" when referring to Elish) in a matter of criminal law, but it would be fair to question why the Supreme Court should have jurisdiction and why there is any court between Edinburgh and Strasbourg on a matter of criminal law. I'm just about with you on it but I don't think it's a closed question.

Fair point re Elish (I was thinking about the incumbent not the then incumbent...).

The simple answer is, I think, that it’s about the enforcement of limits on devolved competence of executive/administrative actors, and not about the challenging (directly) of the High Court of Justiciary.

I think it is a closed question.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Pepp been at the glue again?

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Well, when I look at Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland, for starters, I think I see countries that are more responsive to the needs of their economies. The UK government is responsive to the needs of the UK economy, which is naturally heavily skewed to the south-east.
SG has very little control over the economy. They have no powers over corporation tax or capital gains tax, for starters, and no real funding for investment.
The examples you give are mostly pretty small potatoes, but we hear a lot about them because failures are news while successes aren't and because our journalists are shite. We're doing well in biosciences, space, food and drink, tourism and financial services. Oil and gas is now firmly on the way out but there's a bit more to be made from it yet. Our major infrastructure spending has been incredibly effective. Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen are in the top 10 in the UK for foreign investment. Unemployment is generally no worse than the UK level despite more entrenched poverty and we've got world class universities.
That can all be argued over, of course. I think if we had to ring our own till then we'd pay a lot more attention to the economy than we do now, though.
I just can't see a way of looking at Scotland and saying it would be worse off independent while every comparable country is doing better than the UK. What's uniquely shit about us?
Bottom line for me is that I don't know if we'd be better or worse off independent but I'm very confident we're facing decades of decline if we stay. The government that England elects habitually follow paths that our neighbours have shown us are the wrong way to go, and that's not going to change any time soon. I'm 45 years old and in my lifetime the only Labour leader England has elected is Tony Blair, who was hardly a Scandi social democrat. They've gone further and further right and the only people that ever helps are the rich - but a strong economy needs to use the talents of all the people, and not have the massive social drag of an underclass.

The UK economy doesn't just f**k over the Scottish economy but whole swathes of the English economy to keep one part happy.

[John Lambies Doos]

I’d still like to see why you’re so sure we’d be in the EU?
Source of certainty, please?

Yer Maw

[welshbairn]

Just for background and context.

On 15/08/2020 at 18:03, Dawson Park Boy said:

Next Saturday in Callendar Park there’s an anti lockdown, anti muzzle, freedom rally between 12 and 3.

I understand there was one today (no knowledge) but another one next week.

Id imagine it might be fun.

 

[Ira Gaines]

Just for clarity, the Falkirk lot have had enough of this c**t's trolling, so they're branching out because they're not getting enough attention in the desired thread.

[Dawson Park Boy]

25 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Just for background and context.

 

Yep.

It was good but not very well attended.

I made my points.

Main speaker was SNP councillor from Lanarkshire (no fan of Saint Nikla )

Were you there?

Democracy and freedom of speech are great things.

[madwullie]

I don't understand why you wouldn't just say that you support brexit because you're a British nationalist and oppose indy because you're a British nationalist too, rather than try to develop a fiction about the economy. 

Edited January 26, 2021 by madwullie

[welshbairn]

27 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Yep.

It was good but not very well attended.

I made my points.

Main speaker was SNP councillor from Lanarkshire (no fan of Saint Nikla )

Were you there?

Democracy and freedom of speech are great things.

No. I was just trying to explain that as an enthusiastic follower of Toby Young, Trump, Delingpole and other fashionable icons of the Right, we should put your thoughts about Scottish independence into something that just ended up in the kitbag of an enthusiastic cultural warrior, not something you necessarily came by yourself. No doubt next week it will be climate change and the delights of seal clubbing from the latest Spectator. Democracy and freedom of speech are certainly great things, what points did you make?

Edited January 25, 2021 by welshbairn

[Thistle_do_nicely]

Dawson Park Boy, Carnoustie Young Guvnor...

wonder what the next triple barrelled gimmick poster to start spraying posts like a machine gun all over P&B will be called?

Gentlemanly Berwick Scholar? Pollok Pond Fisherman?

what is it with 3 pronged names on this site the now man

edit: mine is underscored so im not counting it on a technicality, so there, nyahhh. and its a phrase thats fairly commonplace, 3 word phrases are normally alright (inanimate carbon rod probably the best imo)

Edited January 25, 2021 by Thistle_do_nicely

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, Ad Lib said:

If devolution were abolished tomorrow...

More likely is that the UK withdraws from ECHR, at which point the Supreme Court could only have a say on whether SG legislation was competent.

Quote

Yes but, for example, Cadder and the related cases were really about whether evidence was obtained properly (by the police and the Crown Office/PF). That’s a prior question to whether the criminal courts can then admit that evidence. It’s reviewing acts of executive or administrative actors not judicial ones.

Sure, but until 1999 it was the High Court that decided on the legality of the prosecution and police's actions, and if they needed an opinion on Convention rights they would ask directly for one. If they decided that evidence was admissible no court other than Strasbourg could tell them otherwise. It's not as if ECHR began in 1999 and it wasn't devolution that caused the change, that was coincidental. They popped the Convention into the Scotland Act to bring it in a year early in Scotland so it would be part of devolution from the outset.

If the Crown Office does something, the defence challenges and the High Court rules in favour of the prosecution, while the Supreme Court is technically unwinding the action of the prosecution, they are obviously supplanting the High Court's power to make that decision. They're saying to the prosecution "you shouldn't have done that" but by implication they're also saying to the High Court "you interpreted ECHR incorrectly".

[ICTJohnboy]

For all of you out there, like me, who may very well vote with their heart rather than their head, come Indyref2, here's a wee song for you.   Happy Burns night!

 

 

Edited January 25, 2021 by ICTJohnboy

[Ad Lib]

50 minutes ago, GordonS said:

More likely is that the UK withdraws from ECHR, at which point the Supreme Court could only have a say on whether SG legislation was competent.

The point was not about what was likely but what underpins the jurisdiction of the UKSC.

50 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Sure, but until 1999 it was the High Court that decided on the legality of the prosecution and police's actions, and if they needed an opinion on Convention rights they would ask directly for one.

Small problem with this is that the Human Rights Act didn’t come into force until 2000: after devolution had commenced. Before 1999 the Convention wasn’t directly enforceable in domestic courts at all; they had to rely on common law rights providing analogous protection. There wouldn’t have been a “reference” to Strasbourg except after the exhaustion of very limited domestic legal remedies. That’s as true of the English criminal legal system as it is of the Scottish one.

50 minutes ago, GordonS said:

If they decided that evidence was admissible no court other than Strasbourg could tell them otherwise. It's not as if ECHR began in 1999 and it wasn't devolution that caused the change, that was coincidental. They popped the Convention into the Scotland Act to bring it in a year early in Scotland so it would be part of devolution from the outset.

The enforcement of the ECHR in domestic courts effectively did start only from 1999 (and in non devolved contexts from 2000). You’re making my point for me.

50 minutes ago, GordonS said:

If the Crown Office does something, the defence challenges and the High Court rules in favour of the prosecution, while the Supreme Court is technically unwinding the action of the prosecution, they are obviously supplanting the High Court's power to make that decision. They're saying to the prosecution "you shouldn't have done that" but by implication they're also saying to the High Court "you interpreted ECHR incorrectly".

No, they’re saying “the prosecution didn’t have the power to do that. We are the guardians of the constitutional rules that govern the actions of the devolved institutions. It’s irrelevant what the High Court has said because it is not the final arbiter of constitutional rules”.

[Erih Shtrep]

@Ad Lib  I haven't a chuffing clue about any of that.   Can I normalise yourself with the following:  

1)  When was the last time you ate fruit Polos?   

2)  Do you think Gino D'Acampo has improved family fortunes ? 

3) What's the best Edinburgh based club ground in Scottish football?  

4)  Do you own a tumble dryer?   

5)  Chicken or beef burger?  

 

Edited January 25, 2021 by Erih Shtrep

[Ad Lib]

15 minutes ago, Erih Shtrep said:

@Ad Lib  I haven't a chuffing clue about any of that.   Can I normalise yourself with the following:  

1)  When was the last time you ate fruit Polos?

Never had them

15 minutes ago, Erih Shtrep said:

2)  Do you think Gino D'Acampo has improved family fortunes ?

I don’t watch it.

15 minutes ago, Erih Shtrep said:

3) What's the best Edinburgh based club ground in Scottish football?

Easter Road. The away turnstiles at Tynecastle are a ball ache unless you’re a midget.

15 minutes ago, Erih Shtrep said:

4)  Do you own a tumble dryer?

No because I rent and therefore don’t own the white goods in my abode.

15 minutes ago, Erih Shtrep said:

5)  Chicken or beef burger?

Please clarify. Do you mean beef burger or chicken or do you mean beef burger or chicken burger?

If the former, I generally prefer beef burgers over chicken, but if we are talking about burgers I actually prefer a chicken burger done right.

[Erih Shtrep]

7 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

 

Please clarify. Do you mean beef burger or chicken or do you mean beef burger or chicken burger?

 if we are talking about burgers I actually prefer a chicken burger done right.

It was battle of the meat-based burger.    Dunno why but when I engage with you I feel like I'm speaking to David Mitchell on WILTY! 

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

2 hours ago, Thistle_do_nicely said:

Dawson Park Boy, Carnoustie Young Guvnor...

wonder what the next triple barrelled gimmick poster to start spraying posts like a machine gun all over P&B will be called?

Gentlemanly Berwick Scholar? Pollok Pond Fisherman?

what is it with 3 pronged names on this site the now man

edit: mine is underscored so im not counting it on a technicality, so there, nyahhh. and its a phrase thats fairly commonplace, 3 word phrases are normally alright (inanimate carbon rod probably the best imo)

I'm not a gimmick poster.  That's actually a joke that anyone from Carnoustie would get immediately. 

[The_Kincardine]

2 hours ago, Thistle_do_nicely said:

Dawson Park Boy, Carnoustie Young Guvnor...

wonder what the next triple barrelled gimmick poster to start spraying posts like a machine gun all over P&B will be called?

Thistle do nicely?

[Thistle_do_nicely]

21 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Thistle do nicely?

I covered that in a later edit, you.  

edit: NTP gets a pass also, its technically a 3 word username but its squashed together so 's all good

Edited January 26, 2021 by Thistle_do_nicely

[The_Kincardine]

9 minutes ago, Thistle_do_nicely said:

I covered that in a later edit, you.  

edit: NTP gets a pass also, its technically a 3 word username but its squashed together so 's all good

Too late, mate.  Your thesis is shite even if I quite like you and NTP.