|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 6, 2023 9:48:59 GMT
then you must also believe that it must be honoured in other respects, including the requirement that the union with England must also be preserved for all time. Strangely (or maybe not) you have chosen just to ignore that inconvenient point rather than address it. That’s what comes from buying into and pursuing false and twisted narratives. Having extracted your tacit agreement of your error regarding an imaginary entity called uk law , moving on , this is an interesting quote above.
The answer is no i dont.
The treaty of union 1707 is a treaty between two former independent states of the time......the kingdom of scotland and the three nation kingdom of England. There isnt a treaty in history that either of the founding signatories cannot withdraw from if its no longer compatible.
Your attempt at poor logic above that states if the law of scotland is preserved , so must the union be is false.
The proper logic is that while scotland is in the union , the very treaty your country signed up to was that scots law must be preserved , and could not be ended. If you want to end scots law in the yookay, you end the treaty of union........
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jan 6, 2023 10:34:37 GMT
Hope you've had a good Hogmanay Morayloon, Happy New Year. A quiet one thanks. Yourself? Has the contents of that bottle of Glen Moray been drunk? Still got some of the bottle and another for when its finished.  |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jan 6, 2023 10:35:46 GMT
The treaty of union 1707 is a treaty between two former independent states of the time......the kingdom of scotland and the three nation kingdom of England. There isnt a treaty in history that either of the founding signatories cannot withdraw from if its no longer compatible. You accept Scotland is a state. Good. The UK is a sovereign country with four constituent states. |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 6, 2023 16:23:52 GMT
The treaty of union 1707 is a treaty between two former independent states of the time......the kingdom of scotland and the three nation kingdom of England. There isnt a treaty in history that either of the founding signatories cannot withdraw from if its no longer compatible. You accept Scotland is a state. Good. The UK is a sovereign country with four constituent states. Hi vinny Since you won't answer my question why you are so emotionally desperate that scotland stays in the UK, I'll give you an easier one. Although it doesn't let you off not answering that one. I note you have gone again with hair splitting definitions of what scotland and the uk are. So does that mean that you think scotland leaving the uk is impossible? |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jan 6, 2023 17:48:51 GMT
No, I'm just defending the 2m+ voters in Scotland who do not support the Trump like bad losers of the SNP.
|
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 7, 2023 2:58:59 GMT
No, I'm just defending the 2m+ voters in Scotland who do not support the Trump like bad losers of the SNP. Hi vinny Thanks for that answer, although from my experience no voter or voters in Scotland need defending. Now you've answered that, how about answering the original. Why is it such a personal thing to you? |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 7, 2023 4:42:41 GMT
then you must also believe that it must be honoured in other respects, including the requirement that the union with England must also be preserved for all time. Strangely (or maybe not) you have chosen just to ignore that inconvenient point rather than address it. That’s what comes from buying into and pursuing false and twisted narratives. Having extracted your tacit agreement of your error regarding an imaginary entity called uk law , moving on , this is an interesting quote above.
The answer is no i dont.
The treaty of union 1707 is a treaty between two former independent states of the time......the kingdom of scotland and the three nation kingdom of England. There isnt a treaty in history that either of the founding signatories cannot withdraw from if its no longer compatible.
Your attempt at poor logic above that states if the law of scotland is preserved , so must the union be is false.
The proper logic is that while scotland is in the union , the very treaty your country signed up to was that scots law must be preserved , and could not be ended. If you want to end scots law in the yookay, you end the treaty of union........
You haven’t extracted any agreement from me, tacit or otherwise. Unless you are claiming that the source that I provided you a link to is wrong, and can prove it to be wrong, then we are apparently at an impasse. Just repeatedly declaring it to be wrong is not evidence that it is wrong btw. In truth, I would like to tidy this one up in a non-adversarial way if we could. Like you, I have always understood the 3 legal systems principle, but there is validity in referring to UK law based upon that link. I don’t believe or take it to mean that UK law is a 4th legal system but, rather, that it is the term employed to describe those laws which apply equally to all parts of the UK and which therefore “overarch” the 3 separate legal systems eg. most (but not all) taxation laws. When it comes to treaties being non-binding, I think we are in general agreement. There is no treaty that signatories cannot withdraw from at any point during its period of currency. Therefore, from the time that the Treaty of Union was signed by both parties in the summer of 1706 until the Acts of Union were passed and implemented in 1707, either party to that treaty could have withdrawn. Indeed, as I know you will be aware, there was real potential that Scotland would do precisely that. However, with the implementation of the Acts of Union in 1707, the short-lived Treaty of Union expired and the 2 parties to that treaty were dissolved and merged into a single entity. As a result, should any part of that entity seek to break away and go it alone (an obvious example being Scotland - either in part of in whole) then, particularly given that the parties to the Acts of Union no longer exist, it can only do so with the agreement of the entity that emerged from the 1707 Act of Union (or, rather, the subsequent 1800 Act of Union) to which it belongs ie. the UK. That’s why SNP ScotGov cannot just withdraw Scotland from the UK and set up a new independent country. Indeed, as the recent Supreme Court ruling clearly demonstrates, they can’t even canvas the view of the Scottish population on this matter without the agreement of the UK. As for Scots Law, just as the UK Parliament has the power to vary the terms of the Acts of Union to allow part of its territory to leave, so, logically, does it have the power to vary any of the other terms of those Acts of Union, including the commitment to preserving Scots Law. This could be done while still preserving the territorial integrity of the UK, if the UK Parliament was so minded. However, your argue that the provision in the Acts of Union that preserves Scots Law for all time must be upheld. If you believe that provision must be upheld, it would be inconsistent for you not to also argue that all other provisions therein must be upheld, including the one that unites Scotland with England into a single entity for all tIme. Finally, can you clarify what the three nations within the Kingdom of England were that became part of Great Britain in 1707. I can only think of two. |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 7, 2023 9:25:20 GMT
Having extracted your tacit agreement of your error regarding an imaginary entity called uk law , moving on , this is an interesting quote above.
The answer is no i dont.
The treaty of union 1707 is a treaty between two former independent states of the time......the kingdom of scotland and the three nation kingdom of England. There isnt a treaty in history that either of the founding signatories cannot withdraw from if its no longer compatible.
Your attempt at poor logic above that states if the law of scotland is preserved , so must the union be is false.
The proper logic is that while scotland is in the union , the very treaty your country signed up to was that scots law must be preserved , and could not be ended. If you want to end scots law in the yookay, you end the treaty of union........
You haven’t extracted any agreement from me, tacit or otherwise. Unless you are claiming that the source that I provided you a link to is wrong, and can prove it to be wrong, then we are apparently at an impasse. Just repeatedly declaring it to be wrong is not evidence that it is wrong btw. In truth, I would like to tidy this one up in a non-adversarial way if we could. Like you, I have always understood the 3 legal systems principle, but there is validity in referring to UK law based upon that link. I don’t believe or take it to mean that UK law is a 4th legal system but, rather, that it is the term employed to describe those laws which apply equally to all parts of the UK and which therefore “overarch” the 3 separate legal systems eg. most (but not all) taxation laws. When it comes to treaties being non-binding, I think we are in general agreement. There is no treaty that signatories cannot withdraw from at any point during its period of currency. Therefore, from the time that the Treaty of Union was signed by both parties in the summer of 1706 until the Acts of Union were passed and implemented in 1707, either party to that treaty could have withdrawn. Indeed, as I know you will be aware, there was real potential that Scotland would do precisely that. However, with the implementation of the Acts of Union in 1707, the short-lived Treaty of Union expired and the 2 parties to that treaty were dissolved and merged into a single entity. As a result, should any part of that entity seek to break away and go it alone (an obvious example being Scotland - either in part of in whole) then, particularly given that the parties to the Acts of Union no longer exist, it can only do so with the agreement of the entity that emerged from the 1707 Act of Union (or, rather, the subsequent 1800 Act of Union) to which it belongs ie. the UK. That’s why SNP ScotGov cannot just withdraw Scotland from the UK and set up a new independent country. Indeed, as the recent Supreme Court ruling clearly demonstrates, they can’t even canvas the view of the Scottish population on this matter without the agreement of the UK. As for Scots Law, just as the UK Parliament has the power to vary the terms of the Acts of Union to allow part of its territory to leave, so, logically, does it have the power to vary any of the other terms of those Acts of Union, including the commitment to preserving Scots Law. This could be done while still preserving the territorial integrity of the UK, if the UK Parliament was so minded. However, your argue that the provision in the Acts of Union that preserves Scots Law for all time must be upheld. If you believe that provision must be upheld, it would be inconsistent for you not to also argue that all other provisions therein must be upheld, including the one that unites Scotland with England into a single entity for all tIme. Finally, can you clarify what the three nations within the Kingdom of England were that became part of Great Britain in 1707. I can only think of two. I am still waiting on a answer what jurisdiction takes you to court on your UK law. Would you care to point out a UK court. Would you care to point to a UK prison. Would you care to point to a UK Police officer. Because what you are saying if you fall foul of the law in Scotland you can be tried in England. Let me give the technical expression.. NO Example please.. I am all ears |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 7, 2023 9:45:14 GMT
Having extracted your tacit agreement of your error regarding an imaginary entity called uk law , moving on , this is an interesting quote above.
The answer is no i dont.
The treaty of union 1707 is a treaty between two former independent states of the time......the kingdom of scotland and the three nation kingdom of England. There isnt a treaty in history that either of the founding signatories cannot withdraw from if its no longer compatible.
Your attempt at poor logic above that states if the law of scotland is preserved , so must the union be is false.
The proper logic is that while scotland is in the union , the very treaty your country signed up to was that scots law must be preserved , and could not be ended. If you want to end scots law in the yookay, you end the treaty of union........
You haven’t extracted any agreement from me, tacit or otherwise. Unless you are claiming that the source that I provided you a link to is wrong, and can prove it to be wrong, then we are apparently at an impasse. Just repeatedly declaring it to be wrong is not evidence that it is wrong btw. In truth, I would like to tidy this one up in a non-adversarial way if we could. Like you, I have always understood the 3 legal systems principle, but there is validity in referring to UK law based upon that link. I don’t believe or take it to mean that UK law is a 4th legal system but, rather, that it is the term employed to describe those laws which apply equally to all parts of the UK and which therefore “overarch” the 3 separate legal systems eg. most (but not all) taxation laws. When it comes to treaties being non-binding, I think we are in general agreement. There is no treaty that signatories cannot withdraw from at any point during its period of currency. Therefore, from the time that the Treaty of Union was signed by both parties in the summer of 1706 until the Acts of Union were passed and implemented in 1707, either party to that treaty could have withdrawn. Indeed, as I know you will be aware, there was real potential that Scotland would do precisely that. However, with the implementation of the Acts of Union in 1707, the short-lived Treaty of Union expired and the 2 parties to that treaty were dissolved and merged into a single entity. As a result, should any part of that entity seek to break away and go it alone (an obvious example being Scotland - either in part of in whole) then, particularly given that the parties to the Acts of Union no longer exist, it can only do so with the agreement of the entity that emerged from the 1707 Act of Union (or, rather, the subsequent 1800 Act of Union) to which it belongs ie. the UK. That’s why SNP ScotGov cannot just withdraw Scotland from the UK and set up a new independent country. Indeed, as the recent Supreme Court ruling clearly demonstrates, they can’t even canvas the view of the Scottish population on this matter without the agreement of the UK. As for Scots Law, just as the UK Parliament has the power to vary the terms of the Acts of Union to allow part of its territory to leave, so, logically, does it have the power to vary any of the other terms of those Acts of Union, including the commitment to preserving Scots Law. This could be done while still preserving the territorial integrity of the UK, if the UK Parliament was so minded. However, your argue that the provision in the Acts of Union that preserves Scots Law for all time must be upheld. If you believe that provision must be upheld, it would be inconsistent for you not to also argue that all other provisions therein must be upheld, including the one that unites Scotland with England into a single entity for all tIme. Finally, can you clarify what the three nations within the Kingdom of England were that became part of Great Britain in 1707. I can only think of two. Hi happyjack I'm not a lawyer so cannot really say whether your interpretation is correct but from what I know of the constitution, it looks that it could be. I don't normally get involved in these types of arguments as they're pretty pointless. It does show a possible weakness of the uk constitutional arrangements, however. Westminster is far too powerful. It seems to me that it can do anything it likes. The ruling of the supreme Court seems to back that up. The power to decide any or no mechanism for any part of the UK to change the constitution lies solely with Westminster. Which creates a huge imbalance of power in favour of the nation that has the most people and MPs. That shouldn't be the case. That imbalance of power should only be in deciding the government. I'm speaking morally, not legally. For example let's suppose that the union hadn't happened and what comprises the rest of the uk was a country and Scotland was independent. There is a desire on both sides for Scotland to join and negotiations ate taking place. If I represented the Scottish side, I think a crucial question I would pose is that what would happen if 20, 50, 300 or 2000 years down the road, the people in scotland wanted to leave? I suggest that if the answer came back along the lines of the current constitutional arrangements, ,then I'd politely tell the other side to stick the union where the sun don't shine, |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 7, 2023 10:28:02 GMT
It seems to me that it can do anything it likes. The ruling of the supreme Court seems to back that up. The UK Supreme court only deals in civil law regarding Scotland. And with the set up of the UK it is not a bad thing. Much like the ECJ. It interprets law and on any given case its finding are supreme. It does not change law. It has no say in Scottish criminal law. If you are told after a civil case to pay £100,000 to the Inland Revenue. You take it to the Supreme Court. If it says you do not have to pay that money. That is the end of the matter. In short it can change the finding of a lower court. What it cannot do or has the power is to change the law. That is the lies spewed by Bojoke and Farage on the ECJ. Lying through there teeth the ECJ changes English law. That fanny was swallowed hook line and sinker. The SNP should have went down the Bill of Rights road, instead of competence to hold a indy ref. But at least it is now clear. The Union is not voluntary. It cost the Uk tax payer £700,000 to prove what was already clear. But the Unionist can no longer use that tripe. But what the hell it is only time. The Union is finished. . |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 7, 2023 10:47:48 GMT
Jaydee, you said “I am still waiting on a answer what jurisdiction takes you to court on your UK law. Would you care to point out a UK court. Would you care to point to a UK prison. Would you care to point to a UK Police officer. Because what you are saying if you fall foul of the law in Scotland you can be tried in England. Let me give the technical expression.. NO Example please.. I am all ears”No, I am not saying that at all. Try having another read of what I have said and see if you can grasp it. And as for the list of things that you ask me to point out, notwithstanding that none of that stuff is relevant to the point, how can I do any of that when you say “ NO Example please”? |
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Jan 7, 2023 11:09:34 GMT
Jaydee, you said “I am still waiting on a answer what jurisdiction takes you to court on your UK law. Would you care to point out a UK court. Would you care to point to a UK prison. Would you care to point to a UK Police officer. Because what you are saying if you fall foul of the law in Scotland you can be tried in England. Let me give the technical expression.. NO Example please.. I am all ears”No, I am not saying that at all. Try having another read of what I have said and see if you can grasp it. And as for the list of things that you ask me to point out, notwithstanding that none of that stuff is relevant to the point, how can I do any of that when you say “ NO Example please”? No. Not quite correct. That is exactly what you are saying. Not that I needed . But I had another read. And I grasped the same conclusion. So perhaps you can tell me how you say there is a UK law in one breath. Then say. That is not what I am saying in the next. If you ever watched the old westerns. The Indians used to say.. Paleface speak with forked tongue.. So what are you now saying. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Jan 7, 2023 11:44:25 GMT
It seems to me that it can do anything it likes. The ruling of the supreme Court seems to back that up. The Union is not voluntary. It cost the Uk tax payer £700,000 to prove what was already clear. But the Unionist can no longer use that tripe. But what the hell it is only time. The Union is finished. . The only thing about the union that was or ever has been voluntary was the decision to enter into it in 1707 (and yes, I know all about the coercion and bribery that took place but legally both England and Scotland wound themselves up and entered into the union voluntarily). Far too many politicians over recent decades in particular have been afraid to say this, and to explain the realities of Scotland’s place in the UK, but have instead offered up mealy mouthed appeasement and all sorts of intelligence insulting platitudes to becalm the growth of nationalism in Scotland. This approach, together with very effective ongoing grievance-creation and grievance-stirring by the nationalist parties (the SNP in particular, obviously) has had exactly the opposite effect, however. It has created a false impression of Scotland’s rights, entitlements and position, resulting in many Scots having totally inaccurate and unrealistic expectations of how Scotland should be treated. As a result, many Scots now hold a seriously heightened sensitivity to, and display an OTT reaction towards, the perceived slights (the majority more fabricated than real in my view) that come Scotland’s way. The result is the kind of attitude and beliefs that we see from a number of members on this forum, and a seriously damaging and seemingly unresolvable divide between the Scottish people. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 7, 2023 11:53:53 GMT
The treaty of union 1707 is a treaty between two former independent states of the time......the kingdom of scotland and the three nation kingdom of England. There isnt a treaty in history that either of the founding signatories cannot withdraw from if its no longer compatible. You accept Scotland is a state. Good. The UK is a sovereign country with four constituent states. deary me. Why is everyone arguing semantics on here today? |
|
|
|
Post by om15 on Jan 7, 2023 11:55:09 GMT
I agree with that sentiment.
The SNP can't fill in potholes, educate their children, provide medical care, operate ferries, provide open governance, or be fiscally competent, BUT, they are superb at creating grievance, misleading their citizens with propaganda that Goebbels would envy, and creating a seething hotbed of nationalism which in fact completely overlooks their true position and divides their population.
I suspect the only answer is separation, but whilst there is still oil revenue to be had Westminster will not allow that to happen. But one day it will, in a hundred years time or so.
|
|
