|
|
Post by happyjack on Feb 8, 2024 11:25:06 GMT
No, there are “ in no other words” about it despite your attempts to fabricate something here. I am insinuating nothing, wild or otherwise, about Scotland and I have no particular wishes one way or the other, despite what you desperately wish to attribute to me. read the thread. I gave you a synopsis of the run up to your lame intervention , reading what Ripley said , and your wild unprovable claims about the Scottish peoples sovereignty. Yet again , when asked to prove what you have written , you go on to fill the thread with bullshit and innuendo and numerous diversions. Is the current uk parliament a continuation of the old English parliament in practice , with the name plaque merely changed , in which mroayloon is correct about us being held prisoner by a foreign parliament via some shotgun marriage, or was it a new parliament as lord copper said in his famous 1953 ruling which inherited both English and Scottish constitutional practices in which case the uk parliament cannot be sovereign over the Scottish people ? Which is it? It can t be both? Neither, actually. The current UK parliament is not a continuation of the old English parliament albeit that it adopted and displays all of the characteristics of that old parliament - and parliament is sovereign in the UK despite your obsession with Lord Cooper’s comment. His comment was a deviation from the general consensus among the judiciary and the Scottish courts, both before and after his comments, have recognised that parliamentary sovereignty is a valid principle in Scotland. There are plenty of alternative comments from equally as prestigious sources as Lord Cooper that you could post but, unsurprisingly, ignore e.g.Lord Anderson stated that “ the Constitution of Scotland is the same as that of England since 1707”. However we got there and when we got there doesn’t matter, only where we are at which is that Parliament is sovereign throughout the UK. as even our SNP SG acknowledges. That is just how it is and, as I said above, no amount of huffing and puffing or self-demeaning gratuitous mud-slinging from you is going to change that. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 8, 2024 13:23:46 GMT
read the thread. I gave you a synopsis of the run up to your lame intervention , reading what Ripley said , and your wild unprovable claims about the Scottish peoples sovereignty. Yet again , when asked to prove what you have written , you go on to fill the thread with bullshit and innuendo and numerous diversions. Is the current uk parliament a continuation of the old English parliament in practice , with the name plaque merely changed , in which mroayloon is correct about us being held prisoner by a foreign parliament via some shotgun marriage, or was it a new parliament as lord copper said in his famous 1953 ruling which inherited both English and Scottish constitutional practices in which case the uk parliament cannot be sovereign over the Scottish people ? Which is it? It can t be both? The current UK parliament is not a continuation of the old English parliament albeit that it adopted and displays all of the characteristics of that old parliament - and parliament is sovereign in the UK. That’s just how it is and, as I said above, no amount of huffing and puffing from you is going to change that. I haven't asked any of that. I direct you to my previous question , which is to do with your earlier implication (as yet unproven) to Ripley over the Scottish peoples sovereignty. ok, more of happyjacks wishful thinking. Can you prove this please? In a perfectly reasonable manner , im asking you once agin to prove your contentions , im not asking for your wild opinions on what you think . There's no huffing and puffing. Im perfectly relaxed knowing your previous form for being a unionist bullshitter who can't back up what he claims. over to you? |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Feb 8, 2024 13:46:19 GMT
Yes you have. You literally asked me “ Is the current uk parliament a continuation of the old English parliament in practice , with the name plaque merely changed … or was it a new parliament … in which case the uk parliament cannot be sovereign”.
As I have already said, the proof is there in front of your eyes whenever you watch parliamentary proceedings.
The proof of my contention is in the weight of legal consensus and legal behaviour, backed up by the comments and the behaviours of informed and interested parties such as SNP SG. Go and do your research.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 8, 2024 13:50:20 GMT
Yes you have. You literally asked me “ Is the current uk parliament a continuation of the old English parliament in practice , with the name plaque merely changed” In your opinion. So you agree with moray on this point scotland is being held prisoner? in relation to the point raised , where is the proof? over to you? where? examples please? |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 8, 2024 13:51:34 GMT
I have . You clearly haven't done yours , hence why you can only offer happyjacks worthless opinion , rather than any sort of factual proof . |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Feb 8, 2024 13:59:33 GMT
I have already clearly stated that I do not agree with morayloon.
I have already pointed you at the proof.
Do your own research. There is plenty out there if you are willing to spend time looking into it. If you do then you might want to start with Lord Anderson’s comment that “ the Constitution of Scotland is the same as that of England since 1707”. While you are doing that you might even come across something more to back up your claim other than the comment from Lord Cooper that you repeatedly rely upon. As you will discover (if you are not already aware but choose to ignore for fear of damaging your claim) his comment was a deviation from the general consensus among the judiciary and the Scottish courts, both before and after his comments, have recognised that parliamentary sovereignty is a valid principle in Scotland
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 8, 2024 14:12:12 GMT
I have already clearly stated that I do not agree with morayloon. Fair enough. So the new uk parliament then cannot restrict the Scottish peoples sovereignty no? If it can , then moray is right , and you agree with him tacitly , if it can't , then we agree and move on . you haven't. Im directly asking you where the new uk parliament , from 1707 onwards , has the power to stop a simple vote of the sovereign Scottish people if we wish to end the treaty of union. Heres what you said to Ripley... ive asked you numerous times throughout this thread to prove your implication . so far , you've ignored me , attempted to bluster your way out of proving it , or squealed about it being on the telly and some other vague rubbish about legal consensus and behaviour. Ive not seen anything on the telly regarding what you imply , nor read anything in legal terms which says what you imply. back to you once more happy. We dont want to hear anymore cop outs, or anymore excuses , where is your proof. If you can't prove anything , we can add this latest bullshit to the long list of previous nonsensical claims you have made over the years , as happy jack tells yet more corkers . ....and dismiss accordingly along with the rest............ |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Feb 8, 2024 16:04:50 GMT
The UK parliament cannot restrict the Scottish people’s sovereignty because there is no Scottish people’s sovereignty to restrict as parliament is sovereign. And I do not agree with morayloon in any shape, way or form on this matter, neither expressly nor tacitly. Scotland is not being held captive in the UK and the UK is not poisonous. You didn’t ask me that. You asked about the GB/UK parliament adopting the old English parliament’s characteristics and the answer to that is that the GB parliament did and the UK still parliament does - as you can witness by observing the UK parliament in action. What better evidence than you own eyes and ears? As you do all too often, you misrepresent what people say to try to make a spurious point. I did ask that question of Ripley but the extract that you try to associate with that question is from another post but those words are not my words but those of the SNP Scottish Government. As for you asking “where the new uk parliament , from 1707 onwards , has the power to stop a simple vote of the sovereign Scottish people if we wish to end the treaty of union” the answer is that it has the power because sovereignty lies with parliament. I have told you almost as many times to do your research. It is a time-consuming job as there is plenty of commentary out there so I am not going to do it for you, but it is an interesting journey and ultimately worth the effort if only that it will finally open you eyes to the reality of where sovereignty lies., if you are genuinely interested in that. I have put in the hours on this one and I am not going to do it again just to save you the effort. Having done so, and while acknowledging that there are some idiosyncratic elements at play, I am confident that parliament is sovereign. Most of the challenges to the view that parliament is sovereign that I found came in the form of the Indy supporting propaganda from the type of zealot organisations that you pointed Ripley at above but these are hardly authoritative sources or competent arguments, just mere ramblings with little or no substance. As I say, you need to do some wide reading on this subject if you are seriously looking to understand things rather than just engage in petty spats on here and elsewhere.. if you are genuinely interested then here is a random example of the type of thing that you will find. Good luck on your research. publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5802/ldselect/ldconst/142/14206.htm |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 8, 2024 16:21:15 GMT
The UK parliament cannot restrict the Scottish people’s sovereignty because there is no Scottish people’s sovereignty to restrict as parliament is sovereign. yawn. Can you prove it? As for the rest , I didnt get beyond the first line of your latest pile of horse manure. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 8, 2024 16:23:43 GMT
As you do all too often, you misrepresent what people say to try to make a spurious point. I will reply to this point though. I haven't misrepresented you on anything. I actually quoted and highlighted what you said to Ripley , and simply asked you politely to prove what you were implying. Further posts on , and no proof as yet , so we can dismiss the nonsense you talk as mere gibbering unionist froth without an ounce of credibility. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Feb 8, 2024 16:34:07 GMT
No you didn’t. What you did was what I describe in my last post which was to misrepresent what I said for the reasons that I have already provided.
And you can dismiss it as whatever you choose but it doesn’t take anything away from the point that parliament is sovereign in Scotland and throughout the UK.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 8, 2024 16:36:57 GMT
No you didn’t. What you did was what I describe in my last post which was to misrepresent what I said for the reasons that I have already provided. And you can dismiss it as whatever you choose but it doesn’t take anything away from the point that parliament is sovereign. ...and because you can't prove what you have implied numerous times , you engage in banal last wordism and puerile diversions . Im sure Ripley is wise enough to ignore the rubbish you spout and do his own research. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Feb 8, 2024 16:38:54 GMT
Ripley must do whatever she wants but you misrepresented me and I have every right to point that out and to give you the chance to apologise and to correct yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 8, 2024 17:06:03 GMT
poor auld happy. Really doesn't like anyone questioning his guff.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Feb 9, 2024 14:14:57 GMT
The UK parliament cannot restrict the Scottish people’s sovereignty because there is no Scottish people’s sovereignty to restrict as parliament is sovereign. yawn. Can you prove it? As for the rest , I didnt get beyond the first line of your latest pile of horse manure. It is rather too convenient and lacking in credibility for you to claim that you “ didn’t get beyond the first line of your[my] latest pile of horse manure” thus allowing you to dodge addressing the attachment to my post above and to escape being seen to accept that parliament is sovereign in and throughout the UK. However, if you are still seriously going to try to desperately argue otherwise, perhaps you can explain why all of the points in the attachment are horse manure and guff - and, of course, given your earlier comments about evidence, it goes without saying that you will substantiate whatever elements of the attached you challenge with competent supporting evidence. |
|
