Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What is wrong with the European Court of Human Rights, exactly?

 welshhoppo wrote:

Oh wait, it can. It can also override any laws that Scotland wishes to make.

Yet it doesn't. For all the talk of Scotland not being able to apparently do anything why does Westminster allow the Scottish government to operate, it did after all take 2 referenda to get off the ground in the first place?

Also, ECHR is involved in Stormont AFAIK.

Orlanth, welshhoppo, you may or may not be aware that under the Act of Union, Scots law is separate and independent from the rest of the UK.

If Westminster rides roughshod over this with ECHR, then its easy ammunition for the SNP to fight back with and allows the SNP to say to Scotland that the Tories are not serious about the United Kingdom.

As for newspaper sources, Orlanth, there were a few articles about it last year, but they died down in the election run up, but now talk has re-surfaced due to Gove's appointment at the justice department.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
Also, ECHR is involved in Stormont AFAIK.

Exactly. I'm pretty sure it is heavily embedded in the various Northern Ireland peace process treaties, so if Westminster wants to start unpicking this...

As I say, it's going to be messy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Is Scotland votes out and the islands vote to remain in the UK the oil fields will no longer be exclusively Scottish.

I looked into this during the referendum. If Scotland goes independent, then Shetland would be an enclave under international law, and the Shetland territorial waters would only extend out about 3 miles...

not enough to reach the oil fields...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Orlanth, welshhoppo, you may or may not be aware that under the Act of Union, Scots law is separate and independent from the rest of the UK.
If Westminster rides roughshod over this with ECHR, then its easy ammunition for the SNP to fight back with and allows the SNP to say to Scotland that the Tories are not serious about the United Kingdom.
As for newspaper sources, Orlanth, there were a few articles about it last year, but they died down in the election run up, but now talk has re-surfaced due to Gove's appointment at the justice department.

Talk has resurfaced has it. Which bar stool? Because I dont see it in the press reports on Google.
I don't disbelieve the policy but if you want to discuss with the grown up you need to be able to find quotes.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Also, ECHR is involved in Stormont AFAIK.

Exactly. I'm pretty sure it is heavily embedded in the various Northern Ireland peace process treaties, so if Westminster wants to start unpicking this...
As I say, it's going to be messy..

Exceptions can be made for the NI peace process.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Is Scotland votes out and the islands vote to remain in the UK the oil fields will no longer be exclusively Scottish.

I looked into this during the referendum. If Scotland goes independent, then Shetland would be an enclave under international law, and the Shetland territorial waters would only extend out about 3 miles...

not enough to reach the oil fields...

That would apply if Sheltand went independent from a pre-existing independent Scotland, but that isnt what happens, you get UK waters becoming Scottish waters, so they would be divided.
As it currently stands there are no Scottish territorial waters, only UK territorial waters.
So the northern isles/UK get full share.

Anyway this is just a hypothetical, the UK will not allow iScotland now. You had your shot, you lost. Now we demand full consultation for the UK's future by all the UK. End of discussion.

As much as I hate saying people are completely wrong, you are completely wrong.

The Scottish Parliament was created by an Act of the Westminster Parliament. Under Parliamentary Supremacy Westminster cannot bind its successors. The Scotland Act is an act of Parliament, and Parliament has the power to repeal any act.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
What is wrong with the European Court of Human Rights, exactly?

The ECHR is the convention on Human rights, your thinking of the ECtHR, which is the Court.

Basically, the ECHR creates all sorts of circumstances that some people might not like. There isn't anything wrong with it, but it sometimes creates awkward situations for the goverment.

 Orlanth wrote:
End of discussion.

Don't be so naive, there is no way that this discussion will be over for decades. Westminster can't simply kill this; not if they actually believe in democracy of course, or at least want to wider world to think that they believe in democracy. Its Irish home rule all over again. The only way that Westminster and the rUK can deal with the issue of Scottish independence is to try and appeal to Scottish voters and that is something seems as unlikely as ever.

Scotland will keep the ECHR, irrespective of whatever manged horror Dave's little minions vomit out.link

 Da Boss wrote:
What is wrong with the European Court of Human Rights, exactly?

A lot of overruling of UK law the UK dont like.
Criminals in prison have gone to the European Court demanding the vote, which is against our laws, Strasbourg backed them, so HM Gov decided to ignore it. IIRC that was the final straw.
The ECHR was used to prevent us deporting this charming fellow for best part of a decade:



Yet did nothing to save this fellow:



It doesn't however do much to actually support human rights oddly enough, you need a politicised cause to get the funding/legal aid to go to the court, so a lot of real rights issues get ignored while scum get expensive lawyers to dance around our judicial processes.
Getting rid of the ECHR is a fairly popular move because of the sorts of cases the ECHR has been interfering with.

 welshhoppo wrote:
The Scotland Act is an act of Parliament, and Parliament has the power to repeal any act.

That's as likely as the queen dissolving parliament.

But it's still likely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or rather possible.

 welshhoppo wrote:

Or rather possible.

So is the queen dissolving parliament, she can even dismiss the prime minster. She won't though because we don't live in a banana republic.

 Da Boss wrote:
What is wrong with the European Court of Human Rights, exactly?

Funny thing about human rights is that they change every 2 years and they can be used to justify anything. The original ones though are quite consistent and reasonable, the problem is just that which things are then human rights, as there is no clear definition.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
End of discussion.

Don't be so naive, there is no way that this discussion will be over for decades.

Its not nainve to suggest that while the SNP will constantly howl for it the UK can constantly defer it.
There was a referendum, job done, game over, you lost.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

Westminster can't simply kill this; not if they actually believe in democracy of course, or at least want to wider world to think that they believe in democracy.

Refer to previous statement, referendum was allowed and agreed. Accept the results.
Also accept that flat fact that the whole UK now has a right to be consulted over its future.
Scotland agreed it would remain in the UK so this is a UK matter.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

Its Irish home rule all over again.

No it isnt. Ireland didnt have Home rule Scotland has, it is home. It;'s an integral part of the UK , not a colonial situation.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

The only way that Westminster and the rUK can deal with the issue of Scottish independence is to try and appeal to Scottish voters and that is something seems as unlikely as ever.

Sorry not interested in special snowflake Scotland, we need to focus on the whole UK not giving into demands of a portion of the UK populace at the expense of the rest.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

Scotland will keep the ECHR, irrespective of whatever manged horror Dave produces.link

No problem.
It's very unpopular, when terrorists get their special treatment in Scotland but not in the rest of the UK the people will likely demand otherwise.
It also means that special snowflake terrorists will get Strasbourg ruling for compo that the Scottish parliament pays, not HM Treasury.

UK Bill of Rights is a much better idea, which will not apply north of the border, for now.
Also this isnt a problem, Scottish law differs from UK law on a number of issues, it always has. It causes less problems than people make out.

Oh NOES Cameron will repeal laws!!!! Why care? Scotland has separate judicial processes and laws, and has done so since before the Scottish parliament. This goes both ways, Scottish Sheriffs courts have powers they dont have in England. Yet people in a Scottish court cannot have guilt assumed if they maintain the right to silence during questioning.
I have known cases where Scottish police game to England to interview a suspect over an accusation made in Scotland. The defendant was questioned in an English police station under Scottish law, and was advised over the phone by a Scottish lawyer provided for him.
Things went smoothly.

The UK has no problems with Scotland pursing its own legal standards, it has happened for decades without problems. You are making an issue that isn't there.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

Or rather possible.

So is the queen dissolving parliament, she can even dismiss the prime minster. She won't though because we don't live in a banana republic.

Actually the Queen dissolves every Parliament, and she once dismissed the Prime Minister of Australia by proxy.

 Orlanth wrote:

There was a referendum, job done, game over, you lost.

For now.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

Or rather possible.

So is the queen dissolving parliament, she can even dismiss the prime minster. She won't though because we don't live in a banana republic.

Those powers partly went away when fixed session parliaments came in. But HM can still disband the government.
Downgrading the monarchs power was necessary for New Labour. Blair wanted rid of the monarchy's powers because it interfered with his intention to govern without accountability.
Its still quiet policy today for Labour.

HM's power to dissolve parliament is a value stopgap that prevents us from having a junta in the UK, a fact republicans overlook.
The only time the Queen will interfere is if the government of the day decides to overstep its authority.
The military is loyal to the monarch above the politicians, both titularly and in reality. Though again in the last decade moves were made to separate this allegiance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

There was a referendum, job done, game over, you lost.

For now.

For the minimum of a generation.

consider your demeanour Orlanth, you're dancing on the line of rule 1 here

 Orlanth wrote:
But HM can still disband the government.

Which was my point. However, she has the power to do something extremely undemocratic, just like the dissolution of the Scottish parliament would be, but she won't.

 motyak wrote:
consider your demeanour Orlanth, you're dancing on the line of rule 1 here

I am curious as to what the problem is. Have read over my recent posts they seem ok.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
But HM can still disband the government.

Which was my point. However, she has the power to do something extremely undemocratic, just like the dissolution of the Scottish parliament would be, but she won't.

You misread this. Her Majesty can remove a government when it does something undemocratic. This automatically calls a new election.

One fun fact I've just learnt, The SNP are asking for their privileges as the third party now.
It was a Lib-Dem perk, including nice offices, and seats on important committees, but as the LD have only 8 seats to the SNP's 56, they don't really qualify any more.
I think they should get it too, fair's fair, they are the third party now after all

 marv335 wrote:
One fun fact I've just learnt, The SNP are asking for their privileges as the third party now.
It was a Lib-Dem perk, including nice offices, and seats on important committees, but as the LD have only 8 seats to the SNP's 56, they don't really qualify any more.
I think they should get it too, fair's fair, they are the third party now after all

I'd agree with that, Wikipedia says they are the 3rd party. Wikipedia is the law.

Never mind Wikipedia, the election results say they are the third party.

Conservative Party; 331
Labour party; 232
SNP; 56
Lib -Dem; 8
UKIP; 1
Everyone else; 22

They have the numbers, they should get the perks.

 marv335 wrote:
One fun fact I've just learnt, The SNP are asking for their privileges as the third party now.
It was a Lib-Dem perk, including nice offices, and seats on important committees, but as the LD have only 8 seats to the SNP's 56, they don't really qualify any more.
I think they should get it too, fair's fair, they are the third party now after all

Its not a problem, SNP are exercising their right. and they shopuld get whats coming to them including committee seats.
Though moving the Lib Dems out of their offices wont do, also Lib Dems will still have access to committee seats, just fewer of them.

Interestingly as UKIP now have their own MP they are no longer a fringe party, and also unlock a range of benefits.

In regard to the UKIP this is a good thing. The exposure will lead them to being regarded as crackpots faster and lead to their demise as a party.

 Bullockist wrote:
In regard to the UKIP this is a good thing. The exposure will lead them to being regarded as crackpots faster and lead to their demise as a party.

That exposure is not in short supply.

However guaranteed access will give UKIP an undeniable platform to demonstrate that much of the media view of them is partisan.

 Orlanth wrote:

 marv335 wrote:
One fun fact I've just learnt, The SNP are asking for their privileges as the third party now.
It was a Lib-Dem perk, including nice offices, and seats on important committees, but as the LD have only 8 seats to the SNP's 56, they don't really qualify any more.
I think they should get it too, fair's fair, they are the third party now after all

Its not a problem, SNP are exercising their right. and they should get what's coming to them including committee seats.
Though moving the Lib Dems out of their offices won't do, also Lib Dems will still have access to committee seats, just fewer of them.

Interestingly as UKIP now have their own MP they are no longer a fringe party, and also unlock a range of benefits.

Actually the offices the Lib Dems have are in an area of Westminster that traditionally go to the third party, it's in the "Irish Corridor"
Plus the whips office next to the Conservative and Labour whips office.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
In regard to the UKIP this is a good thing. The exposure will lead them to being regarded as crackpots faster and lead to their demise as a party.

That exposure is not in short supply.

However guaranteed access will give UKIP an undeniable platform to demonstrate that much of the media view of them is partisan.

"Hi UKIP, despite your best attempts you seem to be struggling to hang yourself with that bit of string. Here, have a nice length of rope"

Partisan? Who needs to be partisan when you have candidates like this:

Candidate suspended for making racist comment and threatens to shoot opponent.
http://news.sky.com/story/1478269/ukip-suspends-candidate-for-abhorrent-views

Candidate suspended for making anti semetic and racist comments
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-ukip-candidate-jack-sen-suspended-over-antisemitic-tweets-10220370.html

Candidate suspended for making sexist, racist and violent comments
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/ukip-candidate-john-leathley-apologises-after-saying-female-journalist-needs-a-shg-10228028.html

And thats just in the last week. Yes, it was a particularly busy and high profile week for politics, but also the week when every politician should be aware they need to watch every single word they say. UKIP have had to suspend people left right and center. It may not be the parties intention to have people with these views, but they do attract those people to stand for them and vote for them.

 Orlanth wrote:

 motyak wrote:
consider your demeanour Orlanth, you're dancing on the line of rule 1 here

I am curious as to what the problem is. Have read over my recent posts they seem ok..

if you want to discuss with the grown up you need to be able to find quotes.

Comments like this add nothing to the discussion and serve only to insult other posters.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32685844

Galloway to challenge his result in court.

It's undeniable that another referendum on Scotland could be held. I don't think it is justified by the current SNP election success, though. First, this was a general election, not a referendum on having a referendum, second, the SNP only got half the available votes. They are not overwhelmingly popular, they just benefited from FPTP.

Finally it obviously is impractical to have a referendum every couple of years. I think the issue should be shelved for 10 years perhaps and this would be a good rule for any referendum issue including the EU and proposals for PR.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's undeniable that another referendum on Scotland could be held. I don't think it is justified by the current SNP election success, though. First, this was a general election, not a referendum on having a referendum, second, the SNP only got half the available votes. They are not overwhelmingly popular, they just benefited from FPTP.

Finally it obviously is impractical to have a referendum every couple of years. I think the issue should be shelved for 10 years perhaps and this would be a good rule for any referendum issue including the EU and proposals for PR.

I agree, a referendum should stand for a good length of time, unless something drastic changes. You can't just keep having referendums until you get the result you want, on any of these issues. They are expensive and, at least in the case of the EU and Scotland, cause all sorts of economic instability. The SNP does not show some massive change, just that a small number of people voted SNP but didn't vote for independence, possibly because they felt independence was not a good thing but did want more power for Scotland. The gap between Yes votes and SNP voters was very small.

However, I doubt the SNP will push for a new referendum now. They will wait to see how the EU vote goes and keep pushing for more. Every time Scotland gets something it will be "Look what we have done for you" and every time they ask for something (no matter how outlandish) it will be "Look at the evil Westminster! Oppressing us again" and try and build on the support they have. Just the same as any other party does, but with a less nebulous voter base, making it a little easier to define what to claim and what to attack. The government will have a big headache with this as it also makes it much harder to spin. I can see it getting very dirty from both sides.

 reds8n wrote:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32685844

Galloway to challenge his result in court.

I can't say I'm surprised.