Friday, 21 April 2017

A Scotch Coo

So the big message from the Yoonistas to Scotchland, in June's forth coming Generial Infection is:

"We know better than you, so do as we say and stop talking about being independent because you know you are too wee, too stupid and too small and will fail without Westminster holding your hand."

So far, so normal.

Then there is the "big idea" from Labour that by voting with the Tory Party on almost everything Labour are cunningly opposing their policies unlike the nasty SNP who keep voting against Tory policies and abstained on the "let's have a general election five years early". Apparently this sort of active SNP opposition to the Tory Party is divisive and not good for Britain. Better for Labour supporters to vote for the Tories in Mundell's seat (majority 750) or Tory supporters to vote Labour in Edinburgh South to keep what's his name's nose, you know the wee Labour nyaff, in the Westminster trough. Funnily, it does not seem that either Ruth's Tories or the Dug's Labour give much of a toss about the other lone Yoonist in Shetland as, as yet, there has been no cry and hue to come to Alistair's aid, though maybe that was what Willie Rennie sitting on a lawn mower was about. Maybe Willie was channeling Ruthie's tank fixation with the usual result for the Libdems, a bit of a flop.

So as May's council elections in Scotland looms, what is the message from the Yoonistas?

It appears to be:

"We know better than you, so do as we say and stop talking about being independent because you know you are too wee, too stupid and too small and will fail without Westminster holding your hand."

 I do not know about you but I think I have heard this particular message far too many times, already.

The mystic Meg's of Ukanian motile political spherology have been breaking eggs, stirring their tea leaves, sacrificing chickens while dancing naked around a blood daubed image of Margaret Thatcher then decided that Ms May will win a landslide (except for Scotland or Northern Ireland) in Great Britian which will give her all the powers she needs to cut down the first born of the SNP and Sinn Fein, shattering the revolting Celts hopes under the heels of her kitten heeled, leopard skinned shoes.

In any other realm, other than media of the Democratic Ukanian Dictatorship (aka DUD), journalists would be quick to point out the rather large hole in this rather tenuous reading of the political runes. The problem for the UK Parliamentary Union is it can only exist as long as both the original signatories to the Treaty of Union continue to agree to share sovereignty in the UK Parliament at Westminster.

The argument of the 'constitutional experts' is basically the Scottish Parliament is not actually sovereign or that its sovereignty is constrained by the Scotland Act. Fine, that is OK if you go along with the fuges, bodges, misplaced assumptions, precedent and down right lies that are the basis for the UK Parliament's historical claim to exercise the Scottish people's sovereignty.

What if you, like Lord Cooper in his comentary on McCormack (1953), believe the issue of how and who represents the people of Scotland's sovereignty at Westminster is a loose and impermanent mix of what ever the UK Government of the day tries to get away with, as the historical series of fudges since 1707 clearly demonstrate; whether its is Grand Committees or the quasi viceroy position of the Secretary of State for Scotland of Thatcher's time. May's Tory Government has gone one stage further by removing the current dogsbody Secretary of State for Scotland from the cabinet. The sovereign people of Scotland currently have no one representing their sovereignty or considered will within the current UK Government's main decision making process.

This being the case with the elected voice of the sovereign people of Scotland actively ignored at Westminster over such key issues as Brexit, to what extent has the UK Parliament any claim on the people of Scotland's sovereignty, except to ignore it?

If the considered will of the people of Scotland is ignored routinely by Westminster, how can it claim to exercise the people of Scotland's sovereignty?

Under modern Scottish constitutional practice the "considered will" is exercised for the people via the election of MPs and MSPs on behalf of the sovereign Scottish people. While the constitutional experts claim that AXA vs the Scottish Parliament would have had a different outcome if only AXA's highly paid QC's had picked the 'right sub clause in the Scotland Act' rather than the one they chose. The bottom line remains the UK Supreme Court stated in 2010 it had no power to send back or block a legitimate bill of the Scottish Parliament which reflected the 'considered will' of the people of Scotland.

My suggestion is:

"It is time to legally test where the people of Scotland's sovereignty actually lies because clearly it is no longer exercised in accordance with the requirements of the Treaty of Union by the current UK Parliament and Government at Westminster."

The simplest way would be for a bill to be brought forward in the Scottish Parliament seeking to suspend the 1707 Act of Union (Scotland) until such time as the outcome of Brexit negotiations are known or the sovereign Scottish people decide on the 1707 Act's continuation or repeal, as the result of the outcome of a referendumon this issue. In effect this bill, if put into effect, would return full sovereignty to the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh for the duration of the Brexit negotiations, forcing May's Tory Party to negotiate with the Scottish Government on the key issues such as Scotland retaining its place within the EEA, as a minimum requirement, if they wanted to keep the UK Parliamentary Union intact. In effect forcing the Tory Government to act upon the "considered will" of the people of Scotland as the Treaty of Union requires them to do, as opposed to, at present, simply ignoring us.

I can see this suspension bill of the Scottish Parliament causing the current presiding officer a serious outbreak of political hives. On the one hand his Labour bosses will be pressurising him on behalf of the Yoonistas, to throw out such a bill as being outside the powers of the Scottish Parliament as it is a "constitutional issue" reserved for the UK Parliament which is sovereign. On the other hand it would raise some serious questions of the legitimacy actions taken by the UK Government regarding Scotland, within the UK Parliamentary Union, merely from the social and mainstream media comment, given 60% of Scots made their considered will known over the issue of remaining in the EU. Even if the Presiding Officer blocks such a suspension bill, the argument over who represents the considered will of the people of Scotland and thus legitimately represents the sovereign people of Scotland, is not going to go away. The lid of the Pandora's Box of 300 plus years of constitutional fudging, bodging, assuming and lying by UK Governments and Parliaments over Scotland will not be easily closed, once opened.

Importantly the "Lord Cooper argument" says the UK Parliament has no powers to renegotiate the terms and conditions of the Treaty of Union and only the sovereign parliaments of the original signatories have these powers. By ignoring the import of the people of Scotland's considered will, by abusing and misrepresenting the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, surely the UK Parliament has taken powers for itself, outside of the legitimate and legal remit set out in the Treaty of Union Article 19, thus the UK Parliament is open to legitimate legal challenge of which the suspension of the 1707 Act of Union (Scotland) is but one legitimate pathway to ensure the UK Parliament and Government takes full cognaissance of the people of Scotland's considered will on Brexit and other issues.

I am indulging in blue sky thinking but the one thing I know is there is no progress in any human field without the challenging of "expert opinion" based on the principals of logic. In the 14th Century all the experts said the world was flat. In the 18th Century no one believed there was a simple solution to the problem of longitude except by measuring the transit of Venus. In the 19th Century no one believed you could split an atom. In the 1940's British experts said electronic bombing aids would never work as the signal could not bend round the earth ... tell that to Coventry. In the early 21st Century it was proven that gastric ulceration was caused by bacteria and not by the long taught methodology.

My point is simple: Experts are only right until proven wrong; at some point all experts are proven wrong - even Einstein. The same is true for "UK Constitutional experts".

Now I just need to find a MSP to volunteer to trigger my Scotch Coo ......