|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 9, 2024 15:10:24 GMT
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. all I politely asked was could you prove the uk parliament sovereignty takes precedence over the sovereignty of the Scottish people ? Thats all I asked. A simple link , or other pieces of proof would suffice. we both know you are yet again talking out your rear end . If you can provide proof I will debate further. If all you are going to do is waffle , and try and bluster with your usual bullshit , then it will be returned in kind. over to you happy. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Feb 9, 2024 17:25:03 GMT
You have your proof in the form of the attachment in my post above. Parliament is sovereign throughout the UK ergo the Scottish people are not (and cannot be) sovereign. The attachment clearly spells that out (and even includes Scottish specific examples making it clear that UK’s parliament is sovereign) with no wriggle room for you to work with.
That being the case, there really is nothing left to “debate” (you flatter yourself if you think that is what you do btw) because the case is proven beyond doubt in the attachment. The only thing that is not beyond doubt here is your humility and therefore your willingness to acknowledge that you are wrong.
And if you think that you do anything politely then you are seriously mistaken. Just have a look back at the default antagonism, mud-slinging and general Ned-like behaviour you adopted through most of your responses to me if you think otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 10, 2024 14:59:50 GMT
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. yep . you posted an attachment where the English parliament claims to be sovereign. Thats right. Where does it address the discussion at hand ? King Charles claims to be Duke of normandy , despite the last Duke of normandy having his head lopped off 2 centuries ago. There is happy jacks claims , and then there is planet earth and the real world. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Feb 10, 2024 17:59:07 GMT
Aren't the Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey the remains of Britain's Normandy possessions and, as such, are crown dependencies under the sovereignty of neither Great-Britain nor France, but directly of King Charles as Duke of Normandy...?
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 10, 2024 19:28:01 GMT
Britain never had any normandy possessions , and I suppose holding 75 square miles of an old duchy your king claims as Duke that is nearly 12 000 square miles in size shows the truth of my point about fantastical claims in a fantasy universe that has no reflection on reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Feb 11, 2024 1:42:28 GMT
Are you really agreeing with the proposition that Scotland is being held captive in the poisonous UK? With 59 MPs how on earth is there any chance of a majority in a parliament comprising mostly English MPs. The situation will be even worse with the new boundaries coming into play for this year's election. 10 more constituencies for England, 2 less for Scotland. For you to say that England will determine Scotland's future is ridiculous. It is the Scottish people who will decide our country's constitutional future. You started off, in the old Forum, by stating that you were neutral on the Independence issue, that you could be persuaded to vote YES. However, with every subsequent post, you were unable to hide your raving Ultra-Unionist tendencies. No, I am not agreeing with the proposition that Scotland is being held captive in the poisonous UK because (1) Scotland is not being held captive in anything other than politcal and constitutional limbo due to the losers of the 2014 referendum disrespecting the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people, and (2) the UK, for all its faults and despite its arrangements being in need of a serious overhaul, is not poisonous although its government and governing party over the past 5 years or so have been poisonous in my view. How on earth is there not a chance of a majority in a parliament comprising mostly English MPs? After all, a parliament of mostly English MPs sanctioned the 2014 referendum and that same parliament of mostly English MPs would have honoured a YES vote and legislated for Scotland's independence had YES prevailed. I have not said that England will determine Scotland's future; it would be ridiculous for me to do so, although much less ridiculous than your statement that the Scottish people will decide on the UK's constitutional future (the UK being our country, after all). We will, of course, have our fair say in the matter, just as we did with Brexit, when every vote cast in the 2016 referendum, no matter where in the country, quite rightly counted every bit as much as every other vote. However, I do say that as parliament is sovereign then Scotland can only ever become independent with the approval of parliament. I started off in the old forum saying that I was a NO voter capable of being won over to the YES camp through it being demonstrated that there is a good economic case for an independent Scotland I.e. that it would be economically better off in the long term and would suffer negligible to low level economic damage in the short and mid term whilst getting there. Nobody has ever been able to come any where close to demonstrating that so I remain a NO voter capable of being won over to the YES camp through that same route (albeit I am becoming increasingly convinced that as no-one can present a credible economic case for independence then there is no credible economic case for independence - and that this is the fatal flaw in the independence proposal). Scotland is being held captive! With 59 MPs, soon to be 57, against 543 (soon to be 553) English MPs, there is no way that Scotland could triumph - The Smith amendments are a case in point. The UK is a State (it certainly is in a state!) which comprises 4 countries, and England does force it's will on the other 4 countries. Brexit being a prime example (although in that instance, Wales did vote Leave and got what it wanted) The Houses of Parliament had little say on IndyRef. They were met with a fait accompli. The deciding factor was the Edinburgh Agreement which granted the Section 30 order. Neither House, nor the Scottish Parliament could amend the order. The main reason Cameron was happy to go along with Salmond's call for a Referendum was the belief that the cause of Independence would suffer a crippling defeat. It didn't. In 2014, if YES had won, the UKs constitution would have changed as a result of Scotland voting to leave. The simple fact that the UK would have lost 32% of its land mass meant alterations would have had to take place. Anyway, I didn't say Scotland would decide the UKs constitutional future. I said 'our country's constitutional future' your failure to understand English is astounding, but only to be expected given previous comments! 62% of Scots voted to Remain. It is galling for you Ultra Unionists to admit that Scotland (62-38) & NI (55.8-44.2) voted Remain by bigger margins than either the UK (51.9-48.1) or England (53.4-46.6) voted Leave. The Brexit results will play a meaningful role in this year's campaign. If the SNP run with it that is. The fact that they did not push the case in 2017 or 2019 does not bode well for YESSers. Yes you came onto the old Forum spouting how you could be persuaded to back YES. However, your posts from then on revealed your true position in relation to Independence. Your whole dismissal of anything remotely supportive of Scotland's future as an Independent state, and your failure to read linked to articles, because they were "nationalist propaganda outlets", was both revealing and breathtaking. As for economics, The SNP at least produced a book detailing its vision of a future independent Scotland. Compare this with the complete lack of info during the Brexit campaign. The SNP put the work in! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2024 9:18:05 GMT
When did the Union, which was democratically elected for by Scotland a mere decade ago, become war and captivity?
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 11, 2024 9:52:43 GMT
When did the Union, which was democratically elected for by Scotland a mere decade ago, become war and captivity? When you took scotland out the eu against the popular vote...... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2024 12:04:22 GMT
When did the Union, which was democratically elected for by Scotland a mere decade ago, become war and captivity? When you took scotland out the eu against the popular vote...... Scotland forced the Union onto England a mere decade ago. The UK entered and left the EU democratically relying on the same direct democracy method (neither Scotland nor England were EU members). Snats wage war and cry about being held captive.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 11, 2024 18:30:10 GMT
When you took scotland out the eu against the popular vote...... Scotland forced the Union onto England a mere decade ago.
Proof please? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2024 5:59:37 GMT
Ah, he wants proof that Scotland voted for the Union which forced this union onto England. Something that has never been offered to England. Maybe he wants proof that grass is green, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Feb 12, 2024 17:09:01 GMT
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. yep . you posted an attachment where the English parliament claims to be sovereign. Thats right. Where does it address the discussion at hand ? King Charles claims to be Duke of normandy , despite the last Duke of normandy having his head lopped off 2 centuries ago. There is happy jacks claims , and then there is planet earth and the real world. In other words, Thomas is unable to counter anything in the link above, now realises (despite his emotional barrier to accepting inconvenient truths) that the UK parliament is sovereign throughout the UK, manages to do so despite him having such a poor grasp on constitutional matters that he thinks that there is an English parliament, but lacks the humility or integrity to acknowledge any of that to be the case, so instead slings more mud in my direction for want of having anything credible to say. You can lead a donkey to water but you can’t make it drink, right enough! As for the real world on planet Earth that Thomas mentions, the reality of that real world is that parliament is sovereign throughout the UK. This has been the constitutional position since the UK came into existence, and is not only a core constitutional fact accepted by the UK’s institutions ( including its legal, political and governmental institutions) but is a core constitutional fact embedded in the UK’s protocols, processes and procedures - including those in the Scottish part of the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Feb 12, 2024 19:09:54 GMT
No, I am not agreeing with the proposition that Scotland is being held captive in the poisonous UK because (1) Scotland is not being held captive in anything other than politcal and constitutional limbo due to the losers of the 2014 referendum disrespecting the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people, and (2) the UK, for all its faults and despite its arrangements being in need of a serious overhaul, is not poisonous although its government and governing party over the past 5 years or so have been poisonous in my view. How on earth is there not a chance of a majority in a parliament comprising mostly English MPs? After all, a parliament of mostly English MPs sanctioned the 2014 referendum and that same parliament of mostly English MPs would have honoured a YES vote and legislated for Scotland's independence had YES prevailed. I have not said that England will determine Scotland's future; it would be ridiculous for me to do so, although much less ridiculous than your statement that the Scottish people will decide on the UK's constitutional future (the UK being our country, after all). We will, of course, have our fair say in the matter, just as we did with Brexit, when every vote cast in the 2016 referendum, no matter where in the country, quite rightly counted every bit as much as every other vote. However, I do say that as parliament is sovereign then Scotland can only ever become independent with the approval of parliament. I started off in the old forum saying that I was a NO voter capable of being won over to the YES camp through it being demonstrated that there is a good economic case for an independent Scotland I.e. that it would be economically better off in the long term and would suffer negligible to low level economic damage in the short and mid term whilst getting there. Nobody has ever been able to come any where close to demonstrating that so I remain a NO voter capable of being won over to the YES camp through that same route (albeit I am becoming increasingly convinced that as no-one can present a credible economic case for independence then there is no credible economic case for independence - and that this is the fatal flaw in the independence proposal). Scotland is being held captive! With 59 MPs, soon to be 57, against 543 (soon to be 553) English MPs, there is no way that Scotland could triumph - The Smith amendments are a case in point. The UK is a State (it certainly is in a state!) which comprises 4 countries, and England does force it's will on the other 4 countries. Brexit being a prime example (although in that instance, Wales did vote Leave and got what it wanted) The Houses of Parliament had little say on IndyRef. They were met with a fait accompli. The deciding factor was the Edinburgh Agreement which granted the Section 30 order. Neither House, nor the Scottish Parliament could amend the order. The main reason Cameron was happy to go along with Salmond's call for a Referendum was the belief that the cause of Independence would suffer a crippling defeat. It didn't. In 2014, if YES had won, the UKs constitution would have changed as a result of Scotland voting to leave. The simple fact that the UK would have lost 32% of its land mass meant alterations would have had to take place. Anyway, I didn't say Scotland would decide the UKs constitutional future. I said 'our country's constitutional future' your failure to understand English is astounding, but only to be expected given previous comments! 62% of Scots voted to Remain. It is galling for you Ultra Unionists to admit that Scotland (62-38) & NI (55.8-44.2) voted Remain by bigger margins than either the UK (51.9-48.1) or England (53.4-46.6) voted Leave. The Brexit results will play a meaningful role in this year's campaign. If the SNP run with it that is. The fact that they did not push the case in 2017 or 2019 does not bode well for YESSers. Yes you came onto the old Forum spouting how you could be persuaded to back YES. However, your posts from then on revealed your true position in relation to Independence. Your whole dismissal of anything remotely supportive of Scotland's future as an Independent state, and your failure to read linked to articles, because they were "nationalist propaganda outlets", was both revealing and breathtaking. As for economics, The SNP at least produced a book detailing its vision of a future independent Scotland. Compare this with the complete lack of info during the Brexit campaign. The SNP put the work in! Scotland is not being held captive in the UK not least because we have had recent confirmation that the Scottish people want to be in the UK. Even if that wasn’t the case, there is a clear constitutional route for Scotland to exit the UK, one that has been partially travelled down before and can be again. The UK is a state, that is true, but it is also a country. The two are not mutually exclusive and, indeed, the world is full of examples of territories that are both states and countries. Being a state and a country, there obviously cannot be countries contained within the UK and, indeed, there are not. There are, however, several territories within the UK that are nations and which were once , but no longer are, countries, including Scotland. None of these nations forces its will upon any of the other nations of the UK; not only is there no provision for that under our constitutional arrangements but there is no such thing as shared national will in any of the UK’s constituent nations. Rather, across the whole UK, each individual is free to hold, express and vote according to his or her personal opinion so, if any will is imposed upon us all, it is the individual will of the millions of UK citizens expressed through the individual and varied party political choices that they opt for that is imposed on us. Even then, that will is corrupted by the undemocratic FPTP system to such an extent that we end up with parliaments and governments that are significantly unrepresentative of the supposedly democratic process and which do not represent the majority view of the people of any of our nations or of our country as a whole.. However, that is a problem across the country and not something unique to the Scottish part of our country. Parliament absolutely played a major and crucial part in the Indyref process. Not only did it facilitate the government that granted the Section 30 order but it sanctioned that decision allowing it to be implemented. On that basis alone, there is no reason other than anti-UK paranoia, for anybody to think that it would not also have legislated for independence had we voted YES in 2014. Of course the UK’s constitution would have changed if the indyref had delivered a different result. I am not sure what prompted you to make that statement, however. As you should know, the UK’s constitution is in a constant state of flux, adjusting itself to absorb changes in circumstances as they arise so of course it would have changed. You said that Scotland’s people will decide our country’s constitutional future which, as our country is the UK, means that you effectively said that Scotland’s people will decide the UK’s constitutional future. As we have established in previous exchanges, my grasp of English is at least the equal of yours. The problem, therefore, is not my inability to understand English but your inability to grasp constitutional realities. I don’t know if what you describe is galling for Ultra Unionists, perhaps it is. Asc I am not a unionist (ultra or otherwise) I can only say that I have no difficulty acknowledging the figures that you state above. Facts are facts, after all, and only a fool or a bigot would deny facts. As we have seen in various posts above it is not me but others on here who are fact denying fools and/or bigots. That said, however, the only constitutionally appropriate response to the figures you provide is “so what”? I don’t dismiss everything remotely supportive of Scotland’s future as an independent state - only the lies and misrepresentations that regularly crop up including the reality-denying economic and fiscal inventions and vacuous sophistry and the ongoing campaign of fabricated false grievances and outright falsehoods that Indy supporters all too willingly lap up and promote. As for failure to read articles, you are the one who routinely describes each and every publication bar those that support independence as unionist rags, and you are the one who does so despite previously admitting to not reading them. I am sure that you know what that makes you without me having to spell it out. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 13, 2024 9:02:03 GMT
yep . you posted an attachment where the English parliament claims to be sovereign. Thats right. Where does it address the discussion at hand ? King Charles claims to be Duke of normandy , despite the last Duke of normandy having his head lopped off 2 centuries ago. There is happy jacks claims , and then there is planet earth and the real world. In other words, Thomas is unable to counter anything in the link above, now realises (despite his emotional barrier to accepting inconvenient truths) that the UK parliament is sovereign throughout the UK, manages to do so despite him having such a poor grasp on constitutional matters that he thinks that there is an English parliament, but lacks the humility or integrity to acknowledge any of that to be the case, so instead slings more mud in my direction for want of having anything credible to say. You can lead a donkey to water but you can’t make it drink, right enough! As for the real world on planet Earth that Thomas mentions, the reality of that real world is that parliament is sovereign throughout the UK. This has been the constitutional position since the UK came into existence, and is not only a core constitutional fact accepted by the UK’s institutions ( including its legal, political and governmental institutions) but is a core constitutional fact embedded in the UK’s protocols, processes and procedures - including those in the Scottish part of the UK. Here is the labour parties former first minister carwyn jones . Now I know carwyn jones , as a mere politician , doesn't know as much about Scottish constitutional law as you do happy , but in this clip , he clearly talks about Westminster sovereignty not applying to scotland , and how in two legal cases , 1953 and 1975 , Scottish court would strike down uk legislation they felt over rode that fact. twitter.com/indyscotnews/status/1220024946656718848 |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 13, 2024 9:11:17 GMT
Former First Minister asks whether the UK parliament is really sovereign A former First Minister of Wales has questioned whether the UK parliament is really sovereign. Carwyn Jones, who is a Professor in the Department of Law and Criminology at Aberystwyth University, argued on the blog of the United Kingdom Constitutional Law Association (UKCLA), that the principle of parliamentary sovereignty does not have the “status of settled law.” The former Senedd member for Bridgend says that it is merely a “convention” which the courts could decide to ignore if they wished, and its absolute nature is an issue that “still rests tantalisingly unsettled.” “It seems to me that parliamentary sovereignty, like so much else in our constitution, is a convention. If the courts decided that they no longer wished to respect it in its entirety or at all, there would be no barrier to them in doing so. He said: “The Scottish courts seem however to take a different view.” He quoted the judgement of Lord Cooper of Culross, the Lord President in the case of McCormick v Lord Advocate (1953 SC 396). ‘English principle’ The judgement says: “The principle of unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctly English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. “The Lord Advocate conceded that the Parliament of the United Kingdom could not repeal or alter certain fundamental and essential conditions of the Act of Union.” Mr Jones said: “What’s clear from these words is that the court did not accept the Diceyan view of the constitution, and more, importantly, neither did the UK government’s own Scottish Law Officer. “The UK Parliament can either do as it sees fit, in which case it is sovereign, or there are restrictions on it regarding Scotland, in which case, it is not. “At the very least, in not expressly ruling out any challenge to parliamentary sovereignty the Court has left it open for a future Court to consider nation.cymru/news/former-first-minister-asks-whether-the-uk-parliament-is-really-sovereign/ |
|
