|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 14, 2024 8:34:31 GMT
Labour Party unionist carwyn jones further discredits happy jacks theory of uk parliamentary sovereignty.
"In 1689, the Earl of Shaftsbury said that the English parliament was sovereign. But the English Parliament doesn't exist anymore. The English Parliament disappeared in 1707, as did the Scottish Parliament. [In] the Parliament of the United Kingdom, there is no law at all that says that that is sovereign.
"And the reason why that's important is because in Scotland, there's no concept at all of parliamentary sovereignty. The Declaration of Arbroath, which you'll all be familiar with, of course, says that sovereignty in Scotland rests with the people.
"That's still the case today in Scots' Constitutional Law. Still the case.
"And the Scottish courts have expressed an opinion in that regard, particularly in cases in the Fifties to the Seventies. What does that mean in practice? It means that if this clause becomes law, Scotland will have imposed on it a form of sovereignty that, firstly doesn't exist in Scotland, and secondly, cuts across the Treaty of Union in 1707. And the Scottish courts have said that is something that they are willing to look at, in terms of its justiciability.
"Doesn't affect us in Wales, I grant you, because our court system was abolished gradually between 1536 and 1830. But this actually is a fundamental attack on the 1707 Treaty of Union in Scotland.
"I'll leave it to the Scots to fight their own battle, but it's something that just hasn't been noticed. Parliamentary sovereignty has never been part of the law of the United Kingdom with regard to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, apart from now." Carwyn Jones
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Feb 14, 2024 8:41:27 GMT
So , in other words happy , what carwyn jones is saying , is that the old English parliament concept of parliamentary sovereignty ended in 1707 , and centuries later , was revived as an idea by a victorian age constitutional theorist called Albert dicey , who also believe god was an Englishman .
Since then , it's been a `convention` that has never been tested in the courts of England and Wales , which as you know share the same legal system. However , its been tested three times that I know of , twice that jones mentions , in Scottish courts , and has been thrown out .
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Mar 28, 2024 11:40:34 GMT
When you say “ in other words” you obviously mean in words that change the substance of what Carwyn Jones said to allow you to make a false claim in support of your argument. Very shabby behaviour, Thomas - but that’s just typical of your wide-boy ways so no surprises there.
No, he does not say that the “old English parliament concept of parliamentary sovereignty ended in 1707“, only that the English parliament ended in 1707. If you disagree then can you point to where he says that the concept of parliamentary sovereignty ended with it.
What he actually said, based upon what I read in your posts (I can’t open the link you posted so can’t comment on that) is that there is no law stating that parliament is sovereign (which, as far as I know, is correct, although he makes reference in the extract you quote above to a prospective clause which, if now on the statute book, might have changed that position), that there is no concept of parliamentary sovereignty in Scotland (which is obviously wrong, as even the SNP/Green Scot Gov accepts that parliament is sovereign, as I touched on in earlier posts), and that the Declaration of Arbroath says that “sovereignty in Scotland lies with the people” despite there being no such words in that document as far as I can see.
So, as for the Declaration of Arbroath (which was not a piece of legislation but just a letter from Scotland’s elite in support of Scotland’s king and opposing rule by England, as I am sure you are aware) and the sovereignty of the people that is presumed by some to have existed in Scotland across the centuries prior to 1707, what do you think that meant in a society that had little or no concept of popular sovereignty, how did it manifest itself in practice, and how did the people get to exercise that sovereignty until the sovereign country of Scotland, and therefore Scottish sovereignty, ceased to exist?
Not that it really matters because, however we got there, the constitutional position is that parliament is sovereign, but where is your evidence in support of your claim that Dicey revived the idea of parliamentary sovereignity and that prior to that, since 1707, there was no such opinion?
And, of course, if someone chooses to challenge this issue in the courts then they are free to try, just as people are free to challenge pretty much any issue they want. The fact that the Indy movement has not done so (other than as part of the SNP’s derided and rejected submission to the Supreme Court perhaps in support of the Indyref 2 case) somewhat backs up my point - which takes us back to where I came in on this issue with my response to Ripley’s post.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Aug 23, 2024 15:04:59 GMT
“So, as for … the sovereignty of the people that is presumed by some to have existed in Scotland across the centuries prior to 1707, what do you think that meant in a society that had little or no concept of popular sovereignty, how did it manifest itself in practice, and how did the people get to exercise that sovereignty … ?”
I note that you never did come back on this one, Thomas, which is quite surprising as this point is surely important to your claim that the Scottish people were and remain sovereign. Do you have credible answers to my questions above in support of your assertion ?
|
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on Oct 2, 2024 14:36:31 GMT
Now that Thomas is back and dragging down the forum again with his fact-lite / delusion-high contributions, perhaps he can finally answer the important question below which has been sitting waiting on a convincing answer ( or any answer whatsoever) from him for more than 6 months. I am pretty sure, if he attempts any type of response at all, it will be his trademark deflection and evasion, but let’s see .
“So, as for … the sovereignty of the people that is presumed by some to have existed in Scotland across the centuries prior to 1707, what do you think that meant in a society that had little or no concept of popular sovereignty, how did it manifest itself in practice, and how did the people get to exercise that sovereignty … ?”
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Oct 11, 2024 6:21:41 GMT
Scotland was a dictatorship before the act of union.
The monarchs were unelected.
But Scotland gained democracy via the House of Commons.
Our Parliament which works for all of us.
The SNP wish to return Scotland to an era of dictatorship.
They have no economic plan, no defence plan, no foreign policy plan. Their plans are for everyone else but Scotland to pay for it. They have been rightfully rejected. They are a waste of space.
|
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Oct 13, 2024 0:13:02 GMT
Scotland was a dictatorship before the act of union. The monarchs were unelected. But Scotland gained democracy via the House of Commons. Our Parliament which works for all of us. The SNP wish to return Scotland to an era of dictatorship. They have no economic plan, no defence plan, no foreign policy plan. Their plans are for everyone else but Scotland to pay for it. They have been rightfully rejected. They are a waste of space. I think you should read that back to yourself and maybe edit out the second line. Since when were monarchs elected? What democracy? Only a few were able to vote The Parliament works for England. Not content with squandering the proceeds from Our oil, they are hell bent on taking our renewable energy. Do you know the meaning of dictatorship. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Oct 13, 2024 0:21:27 GMT
Our Parliament (The House of Commons) works for all of us, not just racist Anglophobic SNAT bigots.
And English taxes pay for fucking devolution.
Abolish devolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by borgr0 on Oct 25, 2024 11:11:29 GMT
|
|
