Stooshie Supreme

Theresa May and her Tory government may have made the biggest political miscalculation of their political lives in appealing against the verdict of the English High Court to the Supreme Court over the issue of whether the Westminster parliament can debate how to proceed with article 50 to remove Britain from the EU.

Had she conceded the initial judgement instead of being dictatorial in refusing to accept it, she would have been able to simply put a very brief and simple bill in front of parliament which would have given her the go ahead. The Westminster Parliament and its MPs in the Labour and Tory ranks would have been satisfied broadly that they had at least been consulted and it would have gone ahead. No way would they risk going against the majority in England and Wales to proceed with Brexit.

Instead she has proceeded to dig her heels in, and I would suggest that she will lose the appeal and will be forced into the very limited bill and some indication of the Governments intentions on how they intend to proceed.

While the legal arguments in the Supreme Court are certainly of interest in this regard in a very dry legalistic way, the bigger issue and the very big Elephant in the room is not the judgement over whether parliament has some limited say and consultation, but rather the intervention of the Scottish Government, The Northern Irish Government and the Welsh Assembly into this case.
Their argument is that they too need to be consulted, but the Scottish input is of even greater significance than Brexit.
The Lord Advocate of Scotland with the assistance of Aiden O’Neill QC have really taken the whole dispute by the throat, for they have included not only the Sewel Convention which is a convention which has been understood until now to mean that the Scottish Government would have to be consulted on any legal matters which directly impinged on Scotland made by Westminster. But much more than that, included in the argument is that the Queens prerogative which Theresa May has been intent on using to prevent Article 50 being consulted on by Westminster is not binding in Scotland.
While in English Law the parliament is sovereign on behalf of the monarch and the prerogative can be used to pass Law without the need for parliament to be consulted. That is not the case in Scots Law. In Scots Law it is the people of Scotland who are Sovereign not the Monarch. So the argument is that the Queens prerogative being attempted to be used by May does not have any force in Scotland. Therefore given that the majority of the Scottish electorate voted to remain, this attempt to bull through Brexit and Article 50 on the back of an English Royal prerogative is in dispute!

So what the 11 judges will have to decide on is this particular issue of Sovereignty and where it lies. This is the biggest constitutional crisis the UK government has ever had to face, and should Scots Sovereignty be denied..we have the mother and father of all Constitutional Crisis!
How this is resolved may mean the beginning of the end of the United Kingdom.

Today Lord Keen Advocate General to Scotland and former Scottish Tory Chairman made his case on behalf of the Westminster Government…and Boy did he put the cat in among the pigeons …
To summarise what he said or implied , he in effect argued that the Sewel Convention wasn’t worth a bean and that even though it was put into the Scotland Act of 2016 it meant absolutely nothing!
Westminster could in fact dissolve the Scottish Parliament if it wanted to.. In effect power devolved is power retained… And they will do what they damn well please no matter what Scots want.

Worse than that!! He trashed the Declaration of Arbroath,The Scottish Act of Union and the Scottish Claim of Right and said in effect that Scotland was a Colony and bowed to English Law….

So, my Lords, the Sewell convention is a political
13 convention concerning the legislative functions of the
14 Westminster Parliament. It is, as I say, essentially
15 a self denying ordinance on the part of Parliament. It
16 was never intended to be a justiciable legal principle,
17 and as my Lord, Lord Reed has already correctly
18 observed, it is a political restriction on Parliament’s
19 ability to legislate in respect of devolved matters.
20 The correct legal position is that Parliament is
21 sovereign, and may legislate at any time on any matter,
22 and that is specifically set out in the devolved
23 legislation itself, section 28(7) of the Scotland Act,


Basically the Westminster Tory Government have been forced to admit that the Scotland Act 2016 from the watered down Smith Commission which replaced the Vow was a massive Con, and that this supposedly best in the world devolution government with its built in Sewel Convention wasn’t worth the paper it was written in as it had no real power where it matters.
But worse still from the examples given, that Scotland was compared to a former colony like Rhodesia and our Constitution in their eyes is worthless and should be archived.

Here is the very dry legalise if you can bear it of todays submissions, his is down a wee bit past Eadie. at page 74 onwards

Supreme Court transcript

If you cannot bear plowing through that….. here is the written submission of Scotlands Lord Advocate and how he will argue his case…. AND The SECOND ONE IS WORTH A READ!

Lord Advocate on Sewel Convention

And This Beauty which is the real meat!!

Lord Advocate/Aiden O’Neill QC Scottish Constitution and Sovereignty

There is going to be a real stooshie this afternoon  and on Thursday morning

Get your popcorn…..This is massive!!

About auldacquaintance

I am not a member of any political party. I am however a strong supporter of Scots Independence. Any views which I express in this Blog are purely my own. This Blog intends to be a place where I will be putting my views on Scots Independence. It will primarily concern itself with the upcoming Referendum In Scotland. However It will also be somewhat diverse in the range of day to day issues which are evident to me in modern day Scotland. Not all of it will be political, and indeed may take me off into avenues I am not even aware of yet. Please come and join in on this journey, and any comments are welcome provided they are not abusive! All the best from a new acquaintance! Rod
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Stooshie Supreme

  1. Hazel Smith says:

    Great article Rod. Theresa May certainly made a very bad judgement in appealing the verdict of the English High Court.

  2. Reblogged this on charlesobrien08 and commented:
    This a good article with good links.There does however remain the the point of the unionist press and their control of news e.g. the BBC.Will any of them dare to print or relate the truth of Scotland being subservient to England,and does the Scots union supporters accept that we are a colony of England?

  3. Marconatrix says:

    Somewhere on the first day the second of the UK´s Scottish lawyers dismissed O´ Neill´s arguments as ¨romantic clap-trap¨ or words to that effect. It would be worth finding the exact expression in the transcript or on-line video … hopefully they will come back to haunt him.

    • Yes….that was Lord Keen who did that

    • Marconatrix says:

      I have located the phrase near the top of p77 of Tuesday´s draft transcript, which reads :
      1 My learned friend Mr O’Neill then submits a written
      2 case on behalf of one intervener, the Independent
      3 Workers Union of Great Britain, which could be described
      4 as poetic or romantic licence, …
      To be fair however, he has pulled the phrase ¨poetic or romantic licence¨ from an essay by O´ Neill himself, quoted on the previous page of the transcript (p76).

      Nevertheless, all´s fair in love and litigation 🙂

  4. Wow…!

    (Apologies for only now getting round to reading this Rod, sister’s illness does have benefits..!)

    We surely must be able to walk away from Westminster after all this..! It will be very interesting to see if the BBC even mention it.!

    • Never mind the BBC not mentioning it… Aiden O’Neill was not permitted to address the Supreme Court….and absolutely no discussion or comment made by the Judges….unless of course they address the points he makes in their written judgement.
      I am surprised that the likes of the National or Sunday Herald have made any mention of his intervention. I wouldn’t expect 90% of the british press to go anywhere near it, and no surprise that it has been swept under the carpet by them

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s