Small constitutional error oft repeated as gospel is the Union of the Crowns.
This 'union' never happened. James VIth and Ists big idea never got off the ground and was rejected out right by the sovereign parliaments in both Scotland and England. The present Queen is correctly Elizabeth, Queen of Scots as per the Claim of Right 1689 (Scotland) and separately Elizabeth Second of England. The fudge introduced by Churchill in 1952 to was to bring forward a bill on the future numbering of monarchs within the UK Union to preserve the Elizabethan PR spin he was already generating. It does not effect how the crown is constitutionally seen in either of its realms within the UK.
Same head - two different crowns with two different constitutional realities of the role of the respective crown's, on one head. In England the monarch is technically sovereign (and lends their sovereignty to the English Parliament), in Scotland the people are sovereign, by the action of their considered will, and have been since the 1328 Parliament of the Thrie Estaites.
Lord Cooper in McCormack vs the Lord Advocate (1953) debunks the false constitutional premise started by Baggshotte in the mid 1800's which gave rise to the idea that English constitutional practice had subsumed Scottish constitutional practice in the UK Union Parliament at the time of Union, based on the idea of the mythical 'Union of the Crowns' which meant the concept of the 'crown in parliament' was paramount. Lord Cooper makes clear this is not and has never been the case, there was no 'Union of the Crowns'.
The only Union effective in Great Britain is the political union under the Treaty of Union between the sovereign parliaments of Scotland and England. A treaty either sovereign parliament can decide to with draw from and the UK Union Parliament is powerless to prevent (a legal and constitutional point conceded on UK Parliament at Westminster's behalf by the Lord Advocate).
The current unwritten UK constitution and practice is based on a conflation, whether deliberate or not, and is fundamentally flawed. It is flawed as it fails to recognise that the considered will of the people of Scotland remains paramount ( Lord Cooper 1953 / UK Supreme Court AXA vs the Scottish Parliament). This considered will both at Westminster and at Holyrood rejected the current DWP changes enforced by Ian Duncan-Smith.
This gives rise to speculation of on what authority can the Tory Party enforce this heinous Welfare Bill on Scotland given the considered will of the people of Scotland has rejected said Bill, unanimously, via its representatives both at Westminster and at Holyrood?
The considered will of the people of Scotland remains paramount and Scots Law and constitutional practice does not recognise the concept of the 'Crown in Parliament' so where does Tory authority and legitimacy lie?
This 'union' never happened. James VIth and Ists big idea never got off the ground and was rejected out right by the sovereign parliaments in both Scotland and England. The present Queen is correctly Elizabeth, Queen of Scots as per the Claim of Right 1689 (Scotland) and separately Elizabeth Second of England. The fudge introduced by Churchill in 1952 to was to bring forward a bill on the future numbering of monarchs within the UK Union to preserve the Elizabethan PR spin he was already generating. It does not effect how the crown is constitutionally seen in either of its realms within the UK.
Same head - two different crowns with two different constitutional realities of the role of the respective crown's, on one head. In England the monarch is technically sovereign (and lends their sovereignty to the English Parliament), in Scotland the people are sovereign, by the action of their considered will, and have been since the 1328 Parliament of the Thrie Estaites.
Lord Cooper in McCormack vs the Lord Advocate (1953) debunks the false constitutional premise started by Baggshotte in the mid 1800's which gave rise to the idea that English constitutional practice had subsumed Scottish constitutional practice in the UK Union Parliament at the time of Union, based on the idea of the mythical 'Union of the Crowns' which meant the concept of the 'crown in parliament' was paramount. Lord Cooper makes clear this is not and has never been the case, there was no 'Union of the Crowns'.
The only Union effective in Great Britain is the political union under the Treaty of Union between the sovereign parliaments of Scotland and England. A treaty either sovereign parliament can decide to with draw from and the UK Union Parliament is powerless to prevent (a legal and constitutional point conceded on UK Parliament at Westminster's behalf by the Lord Advocate).
The current unwritten UK constitution and practice is based on a conflation, whether deliberate or not, and is fundamentally flawed. It is flawed as it fails to recognise that the considered will of the people of Scotland remains paramount ( Lord Cooper 1953 / UK Supreme Court AXA vs the Scottish Parliament). This considered will both at Westminster and at Holyrood rejected the current DWP changes enforced by Ian Duncan-Smith.
This gives rise to speculation of on what authority can the Tory Party enforce this heinous Welfare Bill on Scotland given the considered will of the people of Scotland has rejected said Bill, unanimously, via its representatives both at Westminster and at Holyrood?
The considered will of the people of Scotland remains paramount and Scots Law and constitutional practice does not recognise the concept of the 'Crown in Parliament' so where does Tory authority and legitimacy lie?
No comments:
Post a Comment