Human rights
Took some time for the Holyrood debate on the Cadder-enforced reforms to get going. But, when it did, it was fascinating - and notably lively.
The opening exchanges were Appeal Court dusty. Never mind the rhetoric, counsel, just give me the relevant dates.
But it soon livened up. Firstly, Robert Brown of the Liberal Democrats delivered an impassioned warning that the changes, designed to enhance human rights, might end up eroding them.
How so? Because, coupled to the right to consult a solicitor prior to interview by the police, the detention time is to be extended from six hours to twelve with the option of 24 on the direction of a senior officer in exceptional circumstances.
Mr Brown's contribution was thoughtful, focused and well-argued.
Next, the debate moved onto a constitutional plane. Stewart Maxwell of the SNP noted that the intervention of the UK Supreme Court in this matter involved a diminution of Scots Law.
He noted further that the said Supreme Court - while headed in this instance by two Scots - featured "a majority of English judges", contrary, he said, to assurances that distinctive Scots matters would not be settled in such a form.
Powers 'exceeded'
The argument here, also advanced in somewhat milder form initially by Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, is that the ultimate court in Scottish criminal cases is supposed to be Scotland's own supreme court.
Previously, it was possible to take "ultra vires" cases to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Those were cases where it was alleged that the powers in the Scotland Act had been exceeded.
That role was transferred to the new UK Supreme Court - against the advice of those who warned that it would eventually result in that court arrogating further powers to itself.
The Cadder case is just such an "ultra vires" test.
That is because the European Convention on Human Rights was incorporated within the Scotland Act 1998.
At the time, that was trumpeted as an example of Scotland being ahead of the game, of Scotland being in the advance guard of liberal reform.
Evocative argument
Now, doubts are being voiced and voiced strongly.
The UK Supreme Court ruled, themselves, that they were entitled to form a judgement in the Cadder case as to whether the Crown Office in Scotland breached the ECHR element of the Scotland Act by pursuing a case where the suspect had been questioned by police in the absence of a solicitor.
To be clear, the minister made precisely this point in his opening address - although he appeared at that point, understandably, to be suppressing evocative argument in favour of winning the day for his emergency legislation.
He pointed out that seven Scottish judges, sitting in the High Court, had ruled that Scotland's system of interrogation was ECHR compliant, given the substantial checks and balances on offer.
That principle had now been countered.
By virtue of a "devolution minute", the Cadder case had wound its way to the UK Supreme Court.
Mr MacAskill commented acidly that there appeared to be a "small industry" within his own legal profession eager to take such matters to the London court.
He noted further that he planned to seek action from the UK government to ensure that the "centuries old supremacy of the High Court" in Scotland might be restored.
Argument 'nonsense'
As the debate wore on - and the argument intensified - rival arguments were adduced.
Several Labour MSPs complained at the tone of the Nationalist arguments.
This was not, they said, a constitutional matter but a legal and human rights issue. Mr Brown said the Nationalist argument was "nonsense".
Enter Alex Salmond. The first minister intervened to point out that every other signatory to the ECHR was able to put its case directly to the European Court in Strasbourg.
Only Scotland was subject, because of the Scotland Act "anomaly", to an interpretation by the UK Supreme Court.
More heat. Both the Liberal Democrats and Patrick Harvie of the Greens complained at those provisions on time.
Why rush that? Why not consult still further?
Emergency implementation
Plainly exasperated, Mr MacAskill fought back. It was, he said, a question of balance.
The rights of the suspect versus the need to pursue questioning. What if a solicitor could not be contacted in time? What if forensic investigations in serious cases were pending?
Labour and the Tories broadly backed the bill and its emergency implementation.
But Bill Aitken of the Tories said the flaw lay in the endorsement of the ECHR in the first place.
And, in a well-argued contribution, Richard Baker for Labour posed a small point.
While, he stressed, endorsing the ECHR, he rather longed for the day when the controversy would be about a ruling concerning the rights of the victim.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~22~RS~)
I'm 
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Typical example of London imposing direct rule over Scotland against the idea of devolution. Setting up the "Supreme Court" was clearly a way to snatch back control of aspects of Scottish Law. If you vote for London's parties at election this is what to expect. The next step will be "Calman" which has an array of powers in its sights that London wants to grab back.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
One point that is worth considering. This case seems to me to drag Scottish law MORE under "British" rule than it was even PRE-devolution.
What happened to the will of the people who voted for devolution?
Complain about this comment
3. JRMacClure
PS. That is not a reflection on the decision itself, but a Scottish court had ruled on this matter and now has been overturned by a British court.
I have no opinion on which decision was better. It appears to me that Mr. McAskill and the SNP are dealing with the reality of the situation, while not happy with Scottish law being make subservient to British law.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
5. Reluctant-Expat
"Just why do you think this is any of your business? "
No, I am not a Scot. My opinion, unlike yours, is not formed by prejudice or a political axe to grind.
It is discussion on a public board. Get over it.
Complain about this comment
5. Stop Biffo the Clown before you make a fool of yourself!
Oh too late you've done it again.
"Even better, as you are a single, unemployed US woman living in Oregon, with zero Scottish connections, maybe you should stick to American matters and leave Scottish matters to us, eh?
Biffo you're not Scottish!
What exactly was your point Biffo in your "comment" you just seem to be launching a venomous tirade against posters.
Complain about this comment
5. Reluctant-Expat
No, love, I was not the one who reported your personal attack on me. I'm perfectly happy for everyone here to see your real nature. You should thank the moderators for protecting you.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
5. At 5:01pm on 27 Oct 2010, Reluctant-Expat wrote:
Rant No 6
And what makes this blog your business and not other peoples ?.
You keep claiming no one else knows anything on this matter,
but fail to demonstrate any knowledge or position yourself.
I guess your as clever as seven Scottish judges from the High
Court all added together.
Complain about this comment
Reinforcing the stereotype that Americans don't 'get' irony:
7. JRMacClure: "No, I am not a Scot. My opinion, unlike yours, is not formed by prejudice or a political axe to grind."
Clearly she doesn't read her own posts in her haste to post as often as possible.
It does say a lot about the strength of the independence campaign that the most prolific poster is an American with zero knowledge of the facts.
(And what's the use of complaining about my posts to the mods if you're just going to quote them anyway?!)
Complain about this comment
10. Reluctant-Expat
"This is a European human rights law ruling. Again, you are advised to read up on the subject before you make a total fool of yourself."
You are advised to read Brian Taylor's post and the Holyrood debate. There was considerable discussion of the constitutional aspects of this case.
You may or may not be a Scot. (I'm skeptical but it doesn't matter since this is a PUBLIC board open to people across the world) However, you need to make yourself more knowledgeable about the terms of the debate. Maybe try actually reading the post you are responding to.
And maybe just accept the fact that it isn't up to you who posts here. Personally, I hope the moderators leave your more recent post up. It does show exactly what kind of person you are.
Complain about this comment
My husband is working down south at the moment, he says it is raining in Greenwich.
Complain about this comment
Something else for the SNP to be proud of:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-11635745
This is the type of investment Scotland needs: More golf courses. Especially on nature reserves.
Outstanding.
Leave the building of schools, hospitals, roads, railways, renewable energy schemes etc. to the Labour government coming back in next May, but make sure the donors get their golf courses.
Complain about this comment
14. So, do you campaign for independence for Oregon?
Complain about this comment
There are two distinct aspects to the Cadder case.
1. Whether the change required in police procedures is good or bad (my personal view is that the change will be beneficial).
2. Whether the impact of the UK Supreme Court is beneficial to Scots Law (as opposed to Scots lawyers) or not.
People may like to look back to the debate in the Scottish Parliament when the Supreme Court was first mooted.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/sp/?id=2004-01-29.5295.2
Nicola Sturgeon made the interesting point that
"One of the earliest Scottish cases to be heard in the House of Lords—the 1711 case of James Greenshields—led to a motion in the legislative House of Lords for the repeal of the Acts of Union. It is an interesting but little-known fact that that motion won the support of the majority of the surviving Scottish politicians who had voted for the union in 1706; however, sadly, their will was thwarted by the English majority—a sad sign of things to come."
Complain about this comment
14. And there are no 'constitutional aspects of this case' other than the always-predictable SNP pro-independence rants.
If the UK Supreme Court didn't make this ruling then the ECHR would have.
Didn't you know that?
Complain about this comment
Another topic starts off and within minutes debate is ruined by RE. You bring nothing to the table RE, other than angst and animosity. It's bad manners; please leave the room. JR, make yourself comfortable, please.
Complain about this comment
18. Many thanks for that, duly noted.
The other parties discuss how this will change our judicial system, the change to the constitutional division of legislature and judiciary, and potential future developments of our legal system.
The SNP can only reinforce their stereotype of being wholly obsessed with the past.
At least they have moved five years further into the 18th Century! We have progress, people!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I note that someone is referring to "rants".
Of course, the word "ReluctANT" is formed by the neologism "eluct" (a word which doesn’t exist, but easily distilled from two words which do – a struggling to bring forth, or a bringing forth struggling)according to Peter Riley, the English Language Poet, within the word "RANT".
Poets can have incisive insights.
"bringing forth struggling within a rant" - what a perfect description of RE's posts.
Complain about this comment
Salmond is talking his usual nonsense. The laws passed by the German Laender (provinces) can be found to be contrary to the German constitution (the Grundgesetz) or the European Convention on Human Rights by the Constitutional Court (the Verfassungsgericht) on which the judges (if any) from the Land in question will always be a minority. If Mr Salmond does not want Scots law to be compliant with the Convention he and his party should say so and fast.
Complain about this comment
The question is do you need a poster who only appears to offer a venomous tirade against other posters. They offer no cohesive argument, answer no points or demonstrate ability to hold a debate. It's questionable that a poster is allowed to only sling insults at posters offering points, who also seeks to divulge their identity and location to other posters (is that legal?). When at other times moderators seem to be happy to disallow everyone elses comments.
Complain about this comment
17. At 5:34pm on 27 Oct 2010, Reluctant-Expat wrote:
14. So, do you campaign for independence for Oregon?
Youre off topic, your over the line on personal attacks,
and you failed to notice that Oregon is independent. It
is after all the State of Oregon.
Are you unwilling to expose youre lack of knowledge in
Scots law or is it just that you got caught out by JRMacClure
and have petulently resorted to youre infantile personal attacks.
Complain about this comment
So bill passed. REs chappies clearly omit to oppose for the sake of opposition just to keep RE happy. Opposition parties vote with government. That is what you wanted isn't it RE, or did you, once again, just visit to cast your usual abuse far and wide?
Yes I know, feeding the troll again, but thinking about Old Nat it does give you the dry boak, doesn't it?
Complain about this comment
19. At 5:37pm on 27 Oct 2010, Reluctant-Expat wrote:
If the UK Supreme Court didn't make this ruling then the ECHR would have.
Didn't you know that?
Well actually no one knows that except you, since only you can see
the future.
Complain about this comment
No 16. Re Golf Courses:
Please note the golf course in question was Mr Jack McConnell's, now Lord, project following his meeting with D Trump in New York.
See: Scotsman 2006. http://news.scotsman.com/businessandthescottishparliament/How-Jack-of-clubs-came.2775346.jp
Complain about this comment
24. Andrew
"The laws passed by the German Laender (provinces) can be found to be contrary to the German constitution (the Grundgesetz) or the European Convention on Human Rights by the Constitutional Court (the Verfassungsgericht)"
Quite true. However, Germany is a Federal country with a single legal system. If you are advocating that for the UK then you "and your party should say so and fast".
Complain about this comment
Any more news on the 12 SNP MSPs who have been relegated down the List for the next election and are almost certain to lose their seats?
Any truth in the rumour that they had voiced doubts of Salmond's leadership?
Complain about this comment
29. So the nationalist line now is that the SNP had nothing to do with the Trump Golf Course?
Complain about this comment
Biffo the Clown states "Any more news on the 12 SNP MSPs who have been relegated down the List for the next election and are almost certain to lose their seats?
"
and
"Any truth in the rumour that they had voiced doubts of Salmond's leadership?"
How can their be news on things you invent. Do you have a link or a source to the nonsense you spout?
Complain about this comment
30. An irrelevant response.
Andrew's point was whether the SNP accepted the jurisprudence of the ECHR or not.
I realise you cannot and will not commit before you see where the SNP leans, but instead of waffling about the UK legal system (and this obviously demonstrates there is a UK legal system), the SNP should declare where they stand as it will help to clarify their vaguest of vague policy on Europe.
Complain about this comment
33. http://tinyurl.com/34vylav
Complain about this comment
20. heraldnomore
" JR, make yourself comfortable, please."
Thank you. I have always found the Scottish people to be friendly and welcoming (even to we Americans).
And I always make sure that it is clear that my opinion is that of an outsider unlike some who, as we know, pretend to be Scots when they are not.
Complain about this comment
The cats all content now?
Complain about this comment
18. "One of the earliest Scottish cases to be heard in the House of Lords—the 1711 case of James Greenshields—led to a motion in the legislative House of Lords for the repeal of the Acts of Union. It is an interesting but little-known fact that that motion won the support of the majority of the surviving Scottish politicians who had voted for the union in 1706; however, sadly, their will was thwarted by the English majority—a sad sign of things to come."
It's a pity the turncoats and collaboraters realised too late what they had done! Unfortunately I don't expect todays collaborators and turncoats ie unionists to realise. Mind you then and now they are in the pay of London.
Complain about this comment
I notice today the Legatum Institute has issued it's top ten list of the Most Prosperous Countries. No surprise the defunct dis-United Kingdom doesn't appear. Also 8 out of 10 of the countries are small independant countries the only one coparable with Scotland is the number 1 - Norway which has equal gas and oil reserves to Scotland. Oh and Ireland and Iceland are higher placed outside the top ten than thedis-United Kingdom. Kind of makes Grey look silly again. Here is the list http://www.prosperity.com/
or
1 Norway
2 Denmark
3 Finland
4 Australia
5 New Zealand
6 Sweden
7 Canada
8 Switzerland
9 Netherlands
10 United States
11 Ireland
12 Iceland
Complain about this comment
Someone is looking a bit desperate today having been shown to be an ignoramous on the issue brought up--since both the Tories and Labour voted WITH the SNP on the bill before parliament.
So he'll desperately throw issues at the wall hoping one will stick.
However, I'm skeptical that Baron McConnell of Glenscorrodale has become a member of the SNP.
Complain about this comment
New North Sea Gas platform comes into operation today more of Scotlands resources being stolen. According to Mike Tholen Oil and Gas UK
"We have produced something like 40 billion barrels of oil and gas, there could be another 24 billion still to come”
Does anyone have the resource and stripping a country of it's assets police?
Shouldn't they give back what they've stolen never mind carrying on plundering Scotland?
Complain about this comment
39. Vakov2000
"I notice today the Legatum Institute has issued it's top ten list of the Most Prosperous Countries. No surprise the defunct dis-United Kingdom doesn't appear. Also 8 out of 10 of the countries are small independant countries the only one coparable with Scotland is the number 1 - Norway which has equal gas and oil reserves to Scotland. Oh and Ireland and Iceland are higher placed outside the top ten than thedis-United Kingdom."
The UK placed #14. Interesting how all the nations of the supposed "arc of insolvency" placed higher than the UK.
Complain about this comment
33. At 6:17pm on 27 Oct 2010, Vakov2000 wrote:
Biffo the Clown
Indeed, its off topic splurge gun today from the clown mobile.
I guess his in depth knowledge of Scots, European and International
Law is taking a rest and cannot come out to play.
Although 'petulant and insulting' made a strong showing earlier today.
Complain about this comment
16. Reluctant-Expat
"Something else for the SNP to be proud of:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-11635745
"
From your link: "A judge has ruled Trump International Golf Links and Aberdeenshire Council were entitled to expenses."
What evidence do you have that the judge who made the ruling is a member of the SNP?
Complain about this comment
#35 - Reluctant-Expat:
Because, of course, none of those on the lists could possibly be elected as constituency MSPs, could they? Thus removing themselves from the list. As the article you've quoted so helpfully points out John Swinney is top of the Mid-Scotland and Fife list. Are you saying there's no chance of his being elected to represent his constituency in May. Bruce Crawford is 2nd on the same list. Are you claiming he'll be returned as a list MSP and not as the elected representative of his constituency.
Comparisons between rankings on the list and the number of list MSPs returned only become relevant once you subtract the likely number of constituency representatives - something neither you nor the Scotsman bothered to do (Surprised? Not so much)
So, now that's demolished that. Where's your evidence of these 'rumours' about criticisms of Alex Salmond's leadership?
Complain about this comment
24. Andrew
"If Mr Salmond does not want Scots law to be compliant with the Convention he and his party should say so and fast."
You might want to notice that the bill which the SNP brought before Holyrood and which was voted for by the SNP and Labour and the Tories was in order to bring the Scottish law into compliance.
The only argument was that they they had considered that Scots law (according to a previous Scottish court decision) was already in compliance.
Complain about this comment
#34 It was not an irrelevant response. Nor is this about whether the SNP accept the jurisprudence of the ECHR or not (despite you're failed attempt to sound as if you know what you're talking about).
The point is, the SNP believed Scots law was ECHR compliant. Indeed, the Scottish High Court has confirmed that it was. Now the Supreme court has overruled this, Scotland, unlike every other country in Europe, has no recourse to argue its own case to a higher court and MUST implement the Supreme courts judgement.
Hooray for the union, yet again it disadvantages Scotland.
Complain about this comment
45. Bandages_For_Konjic
"Where's your evidence of these 'rumours' about criticisms of Alex Salmond's leadership? "
]
There is a good chance that someone, somewhere has criticized the leadership of the Mr. Salmond. LOL
Let's see... About twice as many Scots want him as FM as the sparklingly witty Mr. Iain Gray, according to a recent poll. So I'm sure the SNP is eager to get rid of him, right? ;-)
Complain about this comment
On the Beeb news today they spoke about an oil platform in the North sea 200 miles East off the English coast...makes you think doesn't it?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
49. At 7:56pm on 27 Oct 2010, paul Hunter wrote:
On the Beeb news today they spoke about an oil platform in the North sea 200 miles East off the English coast...makes you think doesn't it?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it was the story about the re-usable platform then it was indeed 200 miles off the East coast of England .... in Dutch territorial waters.
Complain about this comment
49. paul Hunter
A small part of the oil fields does lie in English waters - as in German and Danish waters. Let's not be greedy! :-)
Complain about this comment
I'm certain there are a lot of unhappy Scots lawyers out there now. The whole certainty of autonomy in Scotland's criminal law has been torpedoed by one of their own. Oops.
OK, now for a Megrahi inquiry, highlight the suggestion of innocence and shoot Labour's fox in the run up to the election.
Complain about this comment
#51 Edzell
You shouldn't be surprised.
When you look out to sea from Montrose or St. Andrews you're looking at English territorial waters thanks to labours contempt for Scotland and it's people.
Complain about this comment
37. At 6:28pm on 27 Oct 2010, Reluctant-Expat wrote:
The cats all content now?
What you do to cats is between you, god and your conscience, although
possibly also the animal welfare institutions of whatever country you
actually reside within.
There is no need to bring it up here, we dont wish to know.
Complain about this comment
Mike Russell ripping Gordon Brewer there was funny. Gordon didn't like it much.
Mike Russell is good at not letting people talk over him and being tough and cutting while remaining very controlled.
Complain about this comment
#56 Gordon got slapped about big style. Go Mike! Go Mike!
Complain about this comment
54. Harry Stottle
"When you look out to sea from Montrose or St. Andrews you're looking at English territorial waters"
You would have to see a very long way, before you could see English waters from Montrose!
Try looking at a map. (I don't know whether the Beeb will accept the link to this one)
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/99112601.gif
Complain about this comment
#58
If you were up to speed you would be aware of the theft of 6000 square miles of Scottish territorial waters to England without the people of Scotland having any say in 1997 as part of labours scorched earth anti Scottish agenda north of the border.
Complain about this comment
#58 Reincarnation
Thanks for the link, a very interesting map. Especially with Rockall extending the boundary so far into the Atlantic
Complain about this comment
59. Harry Stottle
"If you were up to speed you would be aware of the theft of 6000 square miles of Scottish territorial waters to England without the people of Scotland having any say in 1997"
It was 1999 that the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order was laid before the UK Parliament.
What that did was to align the fisheries jurisdictions covered by Scottish and English law with the Scottish sector of the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) which is set out under international legal principles by the Continental Shelf Act 1964 as amended by the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968.
You may prefer to have Scotland defined by an administrative order of the UK Parliament. I prefer that our maritime borders with our neighbours are in accordance with the international conventions that independent countries stand by.
Still, if you want to be subject to the decisions made by Westminster, that's up to you.
Complain about this comment
60. soosider
"Especially with Rockall extending the boundary so far into the Atlantic"
The Rockall basin is strongly contested internationally though. Ireland, Iceland (and whatever state Northern Ireland is in), all have a reasonable claim.
That one is going to have be settled by the UN.
Complain about this comment
--If Mr Salmond does not want Scots law to be compliant with the Convention he and his party should say so and fast.--
Britain is being a bit sneaky with European law.
While at the moment it is taken as best practice and enforced by the establishment, no proper democratic legal ratification has ever occurred so the political machinery in Scotland as well as the mainstream UK can walk away from Europe in a heartbeat.
None of the stated rights nor any obligations are enforceable.
So by default the UK has a 'get out of jail free' card...very handy.
Complain about this comment
#60. soosider wrote:
"Thanks for the link, a very interesting map. Especially with Rockall extending the boundary so far into the Atlantic"
That is the point I have tried to make a couple of times when trying to calculate the recently discussed 'geographical share' for repatriating finance.
Surely with the inclusion of the sea areas which make up Scotland - the inner and outer isles, Orkney, Shetland, Hirta, Heisker and Rockall the 'geographical area' of Scotland is much larger than any of the other individual countries in the UK (individually and probably also put together). I wonder if anyone knows the actual land and sea area of Scotland as a percentage of the UK land and sea mass total and what the actual percentage that the Westminster Government uses, so that we could work out how much short change the invoice should be made out for. You never know it might be enough to put a rubber bumper round the Isle of Skye so that it is not violently attacked by any more underwater boats.
Complain about this comment
#62
Aye I think you have a point there, however looking at the map Scotland does appear to be the closest land, which I would have thought was a helpful thing, that and the fact that the Uk in the Island of Rockall Act 1972 specifically made it part of Scotland http://tinyurl.com/5bhm2b
It is a very short Act the complete preamble to it is
"An Act to make provision for the incorporation of that part of Her Majesty’s Dominions known as the Island of Rockall into that part of the United Kingdom known as Scotland, and for purposes connected therewith. "
It specifically made it part of the then County of Inverness, now Western Isles
Complain about this comment
63. ady
"Britain is being a bit sneaky with European law.
While at the moment it is taken as best practice and enforced by the establishment, no proper democratic legal ratification has ever occurred so the political machinery in Scotland as well as the mainstream UK can walk away from Europe in a heartbeat.
None of the stated rights nor any obligations are enforceable."
You really don't understand either international law or the UK/English doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty do you?
Nothing in international law requires that there be "proper democratic legal ratification". How could there be? International treaties entered into by China, for example, could never have been considered that way. international law does not concern itself, by and large, with the internal procedures that countries adopt.
English/UK constitutional law gives no sovereignty to the people. Sovereignty lies with "the Queen in Parliament". That they happen to allow UK citizens to vote for which set of politicians is to exercise sovereignty is simply a decision they made - and could rescind.
Of course, any state can abrogate treaties etc if they wish, as long as they are willing to take the consequences of whatever the other countries decide to do in response.
Complain about this comment
65. soosider
You are right about the UK Government's actions, but claiming an uninhabited rock by planting a flag on it doesn't guarantee that other countries will recognise the claim.
If any country is able to establish a claim, Scotland will be among them, but there are concerns internationally about states embarking on "imperial" seizure of the seabed. Hence why I say the UN will probably need to arbitrate. The UK clearly doesn't see that it has an undisputed claim -
"Britain is also in discussions with Iceland, Ireland and Denmark - on behalf of the Faroe Islands - about a joint claim in the Hattan-Rockall area of the North East Atlantic, off the west coast of Scotland. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7583353.stm
Complain about this comment
Brian
"And, in a well-argued contribution, Richard Baker for Labour posed a small point.
While, he stressed, endorsing the ECHR, he rather longed for the day when the controversy would be about a ruling concerning the rights of the victim."
Did he have foreknowledge of Gordon Brewer becoming a victim?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00vn558/Newsnight_Scotland_27_10_2010/
Although, seriously, one takes his point - despite the policy of social inclusion pushed by his and other parties (which I broadly support) often ignored the rights of victims in schools.
In one case that I remember, the bully had an absolute right to return to the same school after being excluded, while the victim was told that they could make a placing request to another school (and pay their own travel expenses).
Complain about this comment
Do any of you read The Daily Mash? I'd put up a link but I suspect that the moderators would not appreciate the humor.
I laughed and laughed. Then again--maybe it wasn't a joke. =-)
Complain about this comment
The parties appear to have come to an agreement in common cause, one that is not ideal, but an agreement that they can support.
It is revealing that those british posters on this site feel compelled to take opportunity to vent their spleen on all things Scottish and try to reaffirm the uk's right to stamp its power on Scotland.
Such is life!
Does the ECHR extend to Iraq and the imperialist ambitions of the uk in that country?
C McK
Complain about this comment
#71 - "It is revealing that those british posters on this site feel compelled to take opportunity to vent their spleen on all things Scottish and try to reaffirm the uk's right to stamp its power on Scotland."
The vitriol and ignorance on display highlights that this goes way beyond disagreeing with an SNP government but that, at heart, these idiots truly believe Scots and all things Scottish are actually inferior and need the "guiding hand of England" to keep us on the straight and narrow (and even legal, in this case). As an example of the infamous Scottish cringe, they take some beating.
Complain about this comment
69. JRMacClure
Hi JR. Have done so for some time now (just Google it - [other search engines are available]).
'Naughty but nice' is how I describe it!
Complain about this comment
--You really don't understand either international law or the UK/English doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty do you?--
I am definitely more concerned, and interested, in democratic procedure as opposed to bureaucratic procedure.
The former concerns the democratic direction of society, which I personally believe is quite important, while the latter concerns those people who willingly spend their entire lives blindly obeying orders.
Complain about this comment
Yet again. Where Britain is concerned we're about to take it where the sun don't shine.
Cameron phone plea over EU budget
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11641023
The Europeans don't like us, they never have.
Giving money to people who don't like you is as dumb as it gets, it just doesn't get any dumber than that.
However, after a democratic vote affirming our commitment to Europe I would be happy to sit back and watch us being beaten with sticks of our own choosing.
But I want that vote, I don't even care which way we vote.
Complain about this comment
74 "Yet again. Where britain is concerned we're about to take it where the sun don't shine. The Europeans don't like us, they never have."
Hum ho – do you brits wonder why?
Scots get on well with our European cousins and partners. No matter which country, providing you can get across quickly that you are Scottish (same applies to Irish and Welsh) – a door of friendship opens and the sun does shine, brightly.
A pleasant atmosphere materialises, a meal is served with courtesy, a direction is given detail and a goodbye has warmth to it. People are open to telling you what they think of Scotland, asking you to fill their gaps in knowledge and asking you what you think of their country, etc.
Are you surprised that you brits are made to feel unwelcome? Imagine for a moment, the perception the majority of European peoples have of you brits.
Warlike, belligerent, blindly follow US out of craving for a special relationship and contempt for those on the continent whom you rejoice in celebrating past victories over and over – ad nausea……….
The European Union is where Scotland’s future, lies as an independent country, an equal amongst other nations. Part of that future includes having the very best of relationships with a new England who has cast off the handicap of union.
C McK
Complain about this comment
morning , good post calum, fully agree ,I once went on a back packing trip round Europe with some mates every one else had union jacks on their back packs whilst I refused and had a St Andrews cross on mine just by that act I had a better time, more people wanted to talk to me and find out about my country and why I had chosen to visit theirs. whilst the rest had far fewer Europeans interested in where they came from and why they had chosen to visit their country.
little englanders don't do themselves many favours do they!!
Sid
Complain about this comment
#75
I was all for the EU when it just a trading block.
Now we are living under a dictatorship with our laws being passed by faceless beaureaucrats behind closed doors whom nobody knows and nobody has a chance to challenge.
Sadly our politicians go along with it as the EU baits them with promises of highly paid non jobs when they are finished shafting the country.
It's time to wrest control back to the people and at least give them the chance to have their say.
The EU was dreamt up after the war by ex Nazis who continued to dream of a European dictatorial super state.
People say that we won the war.
I don't think so.
Complain about this comment
I think there is an aspect of the Cadder v HMA case which begs further debate, and it is not something I have seen mentioned thus far. It concerns the anomalous position of the Lord Advocate as a member of the scottish government. It is only by virtue of this fact that the Cadder case could reach the Supreme Court. The Lord Advocate as a member of the scottish government is bound to act in a manner compatible with the ECHR. It was not anticipated when the Scotland Act was promulgated that this would lead to as many challenges as it has. However, the result may be in the end that Scots Law has been saved the embarrassment of a rebuke by the strasbourg court. Nevertheless, perhaps it is time to debate whether the Lord Advocate should really be a member of the scottish government at all?
It is worth remembering that the two leading judgements in the Supreme Court were delivered by two scottish judges of outstanding calibre, who had both served as Lord Justice-General, and in Lord Rodger's case also as Lord Advocate. This was a decision made by eminent Scottish lawyers. It was not an instance of Scots law being subordinated by a "foreign court".
The decision in McLean v HMA was frankly an embarrassing retrogade decision, and I applaud the Supreme Court for overruling it. I do not see why the recognition of this right new right to consult a lawyer as detention begins to be a backward step. It provides an important check, and we should be proud to have a legal system that is jealous of the human rights accorded to its citizens. It would be very worrying if - as some have suggested - that the Cadder case could lead to a move away from the requirement for corroboration, or the protection a citizen enjoys from having his silence at police interview construed against him at trial. That would truly be a worrying course of events.
Complain about this comment
Sid - As a back packer myself, the St Andrews Cross on your rucksack is a vital part of equipment for any journey. Be it Argentina, Nepal or the US.
For an individual, emphasising you are Scottish abroad is key to having an enjoyable time, this expression is a door opener to local peoples, culture and hospitality.
This would be true of an independent Scotland on the international scene. The absurd suggestion that the uk looks after Scotland's concerns or that others would shun us, is laughable. How is it, in Scotland's interest to be associated with the uk, the illegal wars and belligerence towards neighbours, etc?
Do you think Scotland would come last in the Eurovision Song Contest?
C McK
Complain about this comment
Brian,
A Police friend has told me that the Supreme Court did not take in to account a fundamental difference in police procedures used in Scotland and England. In England a suspect is warned that failure to answer any questions will be used against them in any subsequent prosecution. In Scotland a suspect has the right to remain silent and is told that this right exists and this cannot be reported in court. English police procedures during preliminary questioning are much nore aggressive as a result of there not being a right to remain silent so it is therefore appropriate that a lawyer is present. Even although it was Lord Hope that read the findings of the English based Supreme Court I can see no justification for its interference in the Scottish Criminal System.
Complain about this comment
66. oldnat: "English/UK constitutional law gives no sovereignty to the people. Sovereignty lies with "the Queen in Parliament". That they happen to allow UK citizens to vote for which set of politicians is to exercise sovereignty is simply a decision they made - and could rescind."
The amazing thing is that the nationalists genuinely believe this.
75. Try humming 'Amazing Grace' while you read this post.
Complain about this comment
Hamstrung by SNP refusal to allow universities to charge tuition fees, leading to an increasing funding gap between Scottish and English universities, Scottish universities are apparently planning to ask for 'graduate contributions' to assist maintain standards and remain competitive.
"Urgent action is now required. A fair graduate contribution scheme...should be introduced in Scotland as soon as possible," Universities Scotland admits in a report released in Edinburgh today.
Complain about this comment
Jeezo...........are there some fellow bloggers who don't do anything but blogg or rant at each other for most of the day? If I'm lucky I get 12 minutes during my lunch....anyways on my favourite subject of former HM resident of whaterver pokey Bar-L or sunny Greenock or whatever, I just like reminding some folk that I and perhaps a great many others have not let it slip our minds. Quite simply this decision made a whole mockery of whatever great and wonderful legal system we Scots are supposed to enjoy! Interestingly if and its a big if? this little corner of the UK ever gets the wish that some of these bloggers are passionate about, I'm quite sure those south of the border will throw hundreds of curve balls for decades in order to thwart any real independance! Ironically they'll be the legal captains of industry!
Complain about this comment
83.
"I'm quite sure those south of the border will throw hundreds of curve balls for decades in order to thwart any real independance!"
Proof???
Or perhaps just another vacuous anglo-unionist scaremongering assertion?
Or perhaps that's what's happening now?
Complain about this comment
81. At 12:15pm on 28 Oct 2010, Reluctant-Expat wrote:
The amazing thing is that the nationalists genuinely believe this.
Its strange how you leap to insult people but fail to challenge the issue.
If it is wrong - correct it.
I look forward to you posting a reference to the UK legislation that shows sovereignty derives from the people or 'citizens' of the UK.
Complain about this comment
74. ady
"Giving money to people who don't like you is as dumb as it gets, it just doesn't get any dumber than that.
"
Now that is a fascinating point. I wonder why the "Brits" should think about it.
Complain about this comment
81. Don't you have even the most basic comprehension of the constitution which you so strongly defend?
Parliament means ... the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons: these three bodies acting together may be aptly described as the "King in Parliament", and constitute Parliament. The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty mean neither more nor less than this, namely that Parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever: and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.
from An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, by AV Dicey (1915). AV Dicey was one of the leading constitutional lawyers of his day, and his work is still one of the standard texts of British constitutional theory. Note that there is no mention here of popular sovereignty, nor of the precise constitutional status of Scotland or the Scottish people.
Perhaps if you actually understood what passes for a constitution in the UK you might come to realise just why so many of us are unhappy with it.
Complain about this comment
83. redrobb
"Quite simply this decision made a whole mockery of whatever great and wonderful legal system we Scots are supposed to enjoy! "
Ah, yes. That oh-so-safe conviction. Or not...
http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/view_petition.asp?PetitionID=417
Name of Petition: Justice for Megrahi
Raised by: Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black QC, Mr Robert Forrester, Father Patrick Keegans and Mr Iain McKie on behalf of Justice for Megrahi
This petition for the Scottish government to look into the conviction and the bribery and coercion involved in it is open for a few more days. I urge anyone concerned with justice to sign it.
Complain about this comment
Kenny MacAskill: "It was my decision that Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, convicted in 2001 for the Lockerbie bombing, now terminally ill with prostate cancer, be released on compassionate grounds and allowed to return to Libya to die."
Kenny MacAskill: "I knew it was a decision that wouldn't please everybody. There's no way that I could square the circle. But a decision had to be made and it had to be made by me. I believe it was the right decision, for the right reasons. That's supported by the people of Scotland, who do believe that the decision should be made by Scotland, by their justice secretary, and on our grounds.
It was a decision I took without consideration of political, economic or diplomatic matters."
Complain about this comment
Another reason for Independence - competent Government.
By and large, Scottish Governments since 2000 have been competent (in other words, what they try to do generally works - whether or not you like what they are trying to do).
Westminster, however, is a very different story.
Would that this story was unusual - but it isn't.
http://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2010/10/28/child-benefit-cut-unenforceable-treasury-in-a-flap/?mod=rss_WSJBlog
A Treasury source says the policy is “unenforceable” and likely to be ditched before its scheduled introduction in 2013. Another source at the heart of government says the expectation is that it will eventually not happen. Elsewhere I hear that it is “panic stations in the Treasury.”
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS