-
This is a man who controls his
LondonEssex lawn mower from Hong Kong by app. It's pretty obvious that he should also be able to control the courts. -
Yeah it does sound pretty partisan.
You seem to be conflating leaving the Union with remaining in the EU - it's the other way around leaving = leaving, remain = remain. Changing the status quo will always be harder and met with greater resistance.
The remain strategy was almost exactly the same - safer in the EU, safer in the Union (or project fear if you prefer). Yes the UK Govt effectively used its resources to push the Union, but it did the same in the for Brexit, and in IndyRef1 the Scottish Govt also did the same. Because it "worked before" is one of the reasons for a weak remain campaign.
The Indy side laid out pretty detailed plans for people to weigh up, so I don't think it's a stretch to say people were better informed.
Admittedly the result was fairly close 55.3% Vs. 44.7%, but importantly not only was it the highest turnout ever in the UK (84% vs 72%), it included 16&17yo.
Out of interest, do you have any basis for the Cambridge Analytica claim? The only things I've found are some rumours that they tried to pitch for business. So would be curious to read more.
-
This is interesting:
Jolyon Maugham QC, whose Good Law Project funded the legal challenge, said: “Our understanding is that unless the supreme court grants an order in the meantime, parliament is unsuspended with immediate effect.
Let's see if the Supreme Court issues such an order and whether in the absence of one Parliament will start to sit again.
-
Unionism needs to have a word with itself. Against the backstop, and yes, it is just one poll.
The BelTel poll showed people did not generally have a problem with the backstop so there is quite a bit of difference there.
No age correlation with unionist views but note that over 65s are more likely to be against unification with ROI.
So I wonder if the 65+ are more likely to be hardline unionists. Young people in NI are much more flexible in their views and more likely to declare themselves as "other" and "we will do what is best for NI"
-
My favourite moment from the independence referendum is still this:
-
I’m going on the Lord Young piece where he infers the reason and therefore the lie rather than categorically states it. You don’t need to be a lawyer to read that, even someone in IT can comprehend that. But as already said, this is a bit moot since the Supreme Court already said they will look at it and have set a date for next week, therefore the Scottish courts have had their say and that will be taken into consideration by the Supreme Court and you would expect them to have to explicitly cover the judgements made if they overrule them.
Even if they rule it unlawful there will not be an immediate return since they always break for party conference season so the upshot is they might come back a little bit earlier and without a queens speech for a resumption of the current session.
-
The point is, if your outraged by the abuses of Vote Leave and the way the Tories have handled Brexit, you should ultimately be just as outraged by the way Better Together conducted themselves: much of it was anti democratic and even if it can't be proven that Cambridge Analytica was involved and contracted (the only reason we know what happened with Brexit is because of a whistle blower, and even then it's hardly been pursued by anyone other than a couple of journalists), it's known that they had meetings with them, and regardless of that they definitely broke purdah with campaign activities and their 'vow' of what would be a federalised arrangement for Scotland (that was published on the front page of all major newspapers in the days before the actual referendum) was immediately torn up a matter of hours after the referendum result.
Pointing to participation rates or turnout doesn't change any of that, and is a poor excuse for what amounts to some very shady and questionable behaviour by Cameron and the Unionist parties, and what you say about 'changing the status quo will always be harder' really isn't much of an explanation.
-
I hope outraged Remain voters give pause to mull over how much thought they gave to it at the time.
I was genuinely relieved Scotland didn't leave, really just for my own selfish reason of not wanting you to leave us to nasty tory governments forever.
But from an outsiders perspective its interesting the parallels you draw between the UK government and the Vote leave. It did seam like there were allot of massive questions around what currency you would use and ongoing EU membership which never seamed to really be answered by the pro independents side, a bit like trust me easiest trade deal in history
-
Full text of the Court of Session summary. The Guardian journalist made some bits bold, which didn't survive copying-and-pasting. The link to it is below the text.
Full text of official summary of Scottish court's decision
If you have been trying to download the summary of the court’s judgment, you may have had problems. The Judicial Office for Scotland website seems to have having trouble coping with all the interest.
So here it is. This is not the full judgment; just a summary issued to the media. There is no bold text in the original. I have inserted it to highlight the key sentences and paragraphs in the summary.
"The Inner House of the Court of Session has ruled that the Prime Minister’s advice to HM the Queen that the United Kingdom Parliament should be prorogued from a day between 9 and 12 September until 14 October was unlawful because it had the purpose of stymying Parliament.
A petition for judicial review was raised by 79 petitioners, 78 of whom are parliamentarians at Westminster, on 31 July 2019, seeking inter alia declarator that it would be unlawful for the UK Government to advise HM the Queen to prorogue the UK Parliament with a view to preventing sufficient time for proper consideration of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union (Brexit).
A substantive hearing was fixed for Friday, 6 September, but on 28 August, on the advice of the Prime Minister, HM the Queen promulgated an Order in Council proroguing Parliament on a day between 9 and 12 September until 14 October. The Lord Ordinary (the judge hearing the case at first instance) refused to grant interim orders preventing the prorogation, but brought the substantive hearing forward to Tuesday, 3 September. On the eve of the hearing, in obedience of its duty of candour, the respondent lodged some partially redacted documents exhibiting some of the Government’s deliberations regarding prorogation, going back to 15 August.
The Lord Ordinary dismissed the petition. He found that the PM’s advice to HM the Queen on prorogation was, as a matter of high policy and political judgment, non-justiciable; the decision to proffer the advice was not able to be assessed against legal standards by the courts.
The reclaiming motion (appeal) was heard by the First Division of the Court of Session over 5 and 6 September. Parliament was prorogued in the early hours of Tuesday, 10 September.
All three First Division judges have decided that the PM’s advice to the HM the Queen is justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliament and that it, and what has followed from it, is unlawful.
The Lord President, Lord Carloway, decided that although advice to HM the Queen on the exercise of the royal prerogative of prorogating Parliament was not reviewable on the normal grounds of judicial review, it would nevertheless be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, which was a central pillar of the good governance principle enshrined in the constitution; this followed from the principles of democracy and the rule of law. The circumstances in which the advice was proffered and the content of the documents produced by the respondent demonstrated that this was the true reason for the prorogation.
Lord Brodie considered that whereas when the petition was raised the question was unlikely to have been justiciable, the particular prorogation that had occurred, as a tactic to frustrate Parliament, could legitimately be established as unlawful. This was an egregious case of a clear failure to comply with generally accepted standards of behaviour of public authorities. It was to be inferred that the principal reasons for the prorogation were to prevent or impede Parliament holding the executive to account and legislating with regard to Brexit, and to allow the executive to pursue a policy of a no deal Brexit without further Parliamentary interference.
Lord Drummond Young determined that the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised. It was incumbent on the UK Government to show a valid reason for the prorogation, having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action. The circumstances, particularly the length of the prorogation, showed that the purpose was to prevent such scrutiny. The documents provided showed no other explanation for this. The only inference that could be drawn was that the UK Government and the Prime Minister wished to restrict Parliament.
The Court also decided that it should not require disclosure of the unredacted versions of the documents lodged by the respondent.
The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister’s advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect."
-
Yes, but your own selfish reasons aside, you still seem to be pointing to massive unanswered questions as a kind of ultimate explanation.
I agree, there was and still are questions about currency etc, but the collective media response to the issue with only one fledgling newspaper being pro independence, and the full weight of the BBC propaganda machine pumping out 'reports' that were (and still are) as duplicitous as any Soviet organisation and again, on a par with how Brexit is being handled now, really didn't give anyone a chance to hear these issues out and give them fair consideration.
Still, what we're seeing is the BBC ignoring any kind of fair reporting on independence, be it record breaking marches, poll data or anything else, and we still have the same daily hatchet jobs on the SNP and Sturgeon by all the main newspapers. It's a disgrace.
-
Which I suppose Ramsay's use of an insulting (actually racist) term reserved for Scots again makes my point for me:
If he'd said Paki or Yid or similar none of you would stand for it, but the only people on here that do challenge it are Scots and it goes unremarked on by anyone else.
Underlines just how fair and equal the relationship between nations actually is and how entrenched English colonial mindsets still are. Brexit has been a blessing for the independence movement, as is Boris, and as are jingoistic turds like Ramsaye and Katy Hopkins and Piers Morgan who use the phrase regularly.
-
From my point of view I think that Scotland should leave, but I hope they don't and we should remain in Europe and hope we do, reasoning is basically the same, the UK/England will be worse off out of the EU and/or without Scotland, only difference is Scotland might be better off out of the UK, EUwise everyone is worse off with a split.
-
@Ramsaye -do you understand that the term 'sweaties' is xenophobic verbal abuse?
-
UK to split up and be replaced by countries with a fucking written constitution.
... and any mention of measures not in the metric system gets you shipped to a gulag in the Falklands.
-
what you say about 'changing the status quo will always be harder' really isn't much of an explanation.
Sorry I should have been clearer. A radical shift in the status quo will inevitably be met with more resistance and vice versa - hence the lack of objections.
Re purdah, few remainers complain about quasi-use of Govt funds to back the remain campaign, so it's pretty consistent cognitive dissonance. Regardless in IF1 I think, arguably broke purdah is a more actuate than definitely.
-
"sweaties" surely against forum rules...
-
I don't vote.
-
The government produced a booklet. If advised to vote Remain cos of Facts and Economy and Studies and Stuff.
Was a similar booklet printed for the voting reform referendum? [that one didn't apply to NI]
If so, was there an advice in it?Because it sounded to me like the government had to produce a booklet for the referendum, but maybe it was not really above board what they did.
-
It's not cognitive dissonance. It's dishonesty and rule breaking. Re: Boris's Bus and the objective lies written on it: the "vow" (made during purdah with input and permission of government) was blazed accross all national newspapers because they saw the poll results were so close and shat the bed. It was all totally unbinding, unsubstantiated rubbish that they had no intention of fulfilling designed to sway voters who were leaning towards Yes and upset with how the union was being ran.
Oliver Schick
hugo7
JWestland
Ramsaye
HousecatHST
i_am_lono
snottyotter
playswellwithotters
starfish&coffee
cozzzzzzzz
mashton
kl-
Post a reply
About
EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath
Posted by
Maybe, but did Rees lie, too? I think we should be told.