Dear British Constitutional experts,
Please excuse me for being a bit ignorant but I do not understand how there can be a 'British' constitution, in fact I do not understand where the 'British' Empire comes from either let alone the 'British' Commonwealth or Ms May's claims about the primacy of 'British' Law.
Maybe I missed something on my troll through the Treaty of Union but it makes pretty clear that any preexisting, about to be or future colonies would be dependencies or territories of the English Crown alone and subject to English legal and constitutional practices. I may be being pedantic here but surely that means there is no such thing as the British Empire or British Commonwealth and should be properly referred to as the English Empire and Commonwealth.
For them to be 'British' would require there to be a 'British' Crown, but there is not, is there?
I note that James 6th and 1st tried to get the Scottish and English Parliament's to agree to a unified crown but he was told to get lost in no uncertain terms by both. Since then, no UK crowned head has sought to formally unify the crowns and they remain separate, with separate and very different legal and constitutional requirements and responsibilities between those of the English Crown and those of the Scottish Crown to their respective subjects.
As such, does this not mean the UK is made up of two separate nation states, sharing one parliament and not the argument routinely put by the 'British' Constitutional experts that Scotland was subsumed by England when the UK Parliament was created. It seems this was and is not the case according to the Treaty. Maybe, as the English hijacking of the UK Parliament moved apace in its early days, this was why Lord Selkirk, in 1714, sought to have the UK Parliament suspended until a new Treaty could be agreed by the original sovereign parliaments. This request was filibustered by the Tories of the day to ensure there could be no vote, a habit they continue to follow to this day on issues which are of importance to Scotland but not Tory politics or self interest.
How can there be a 'British' constitution for the UK Parliament when it only follows English Law and constitutional practice and does not reflect the traditions of Scots Law and constitutional practice?
This unwritten behemoth of smoke and mirrors has no right to call itself 'British' in any sense as it is 'English' in root and branch. How can the 'crown' be in the UK Parliament and give it unlimited sovereignty when Scots Law does not recognise this singularly English Law practice. Anyway which crown is it in the UK Parliament as there is no 'British' crown, as I pointed out earlier. If it is the English Crown which is in the UK Parliament then the UK Parliament's sovereignty is limited by the Scottish Crown's dependence on the considered will of the people of Scotland.
Does the 'British' constitution make clear how this serious limitation of the UK Parliament's sovereignty by the people of Scotland is exercised?
I know through out the history of the Parliamentary Union there have been umpteen different fudges to get round this big vacant space in the 'British' constitution, varying from Scotch Grand Committees to the appointing of a defacto Viceroy to the Scottish Office, supposedly held in check and to account by the Scottish Affairs Committee of the UK Parliament but these were all designed to ensure the considered will of the people of Scotland could simply be ignored or manipulated and the UK Parliament then continues on its way, undisturbed by any real accountability to the people of Scotland - except at the ballot box. Then again, as long as Labour held sway in Scotland what was the problem, the fudges continue to be fudged and the peasants subdued with claims of massive cash handouts to the too wee, too stupid, too poor Scots which were and remain but a fraction of the cash Scotland contributes to the UK Treasury, year on year.
Dear 'British' Constitutional experts this leaves me perplexed and disturbed as it appears the function of the unwritten 'British' constitution's main task is to ensure the voice of the considered will of the people of Scotland is silenced at Westminster or at best simply ignored. Ms May and her ministers have now demonstrated this must be the case on numerous occasions since the 23rd of June in their responses to SNP MPs and their championing of the considered will of the people of Scotland to remain in the EU. In which case, surely the objective evidence now points to the reality the unwritten 'British' constitution has now failed in all major respects as its ability to fudge and ignore the people of Scotland has been split wide open by the election of MPs from Scotland who seek to exercise that will on their constituents behalf and on the behalf of the nation state of Scotland, within the shared UK Parliament.
Maybe it is time to stop the pretense that this unwritten 'British' constitution is supremely clever and all things to all men (and women) when it is in fact a Gordian Knot of half truths, fudges, illegalities, illegitimacies and is need of the chop then replaced by a written one to which the UK Parliament can actually be held accountable by the UK electorate. I can hear UK Parliamentary MPs already squealing like stuck pigs about the loss of their own 'freewill' to consider the case made before them before voting as their conscience dictates by being at the beck and call of their electorate. As opposed to being at the beck and call of party whips and their offers of possible 'legs up' in the party hierarchy or 'financial gain' by being made chair of an upcoming select committee, if they do as the whips tell them.
On the other hand, maybe it will be easier for Scots simply to give the UK Parliament the chop and leave the English Parliament to continue on its undemocratic, autocratic and oligarchic way without the worry of for ever keeping us annoying, whining 'Jocks' quiet.
What do you think 'British' constitutional experts, can you help me understand?
Yours faithfully,
A sick fed up Scot.
Please excuse me for being a bit ignorant but I do not understand how there can be a 'British' constitution, in fact I do not understand where the 'British' Empire comes from either let alone the 'British' Commonwealth or Ms May's claims about the primacy of 'British' Law.
Maybe I missed something on my troll through the Treaty of Union but it makes pretty clear that any preexisting, about to be or future colonies would be dependencies or territories of the English Crown alone and subject to English legal and constitutional practices. I may be being pedantic here but surely that means there is no such thing as the British Empire or British Commonwealth and should be properly referred to as the English Empire and Commonwealth.
For them to be 'British' would require there to be a 'British' Crown, but there is not, is there?
I note that James 6th and 1st tried to get the Scottish and English Parliament's to agree to a unified crown but he was told to get lost in no uncertain terms by both. Since then, no UK crowned head has sought to formally unify the crowns and they remain separate, with separate and very different legal and constitutional requirements and responsibilities between those of the English Crown and those of the Scottish Crown to their respective subjects.
As such, does this not mean the UK is made up of two separate nation states, sharing one parliament and not the argument routinely put by the 'British' Constitutional experts that Scotland was subsumed by England when the UK Parliament was created. It seems this was and is not the case according to the Treaty. Maybe, as the English hijacking of the UK Parliament moved apace in its early days, this was why Lord Selkirk, in 1714, sought to have the UK Parliament suspended until a new Treaty could be agreed by the original sovereign parliaments. This request was filibustered by the Tories of the day to ensure there could be no vote, a habit they continue to follow to this day on issues which are of importance to Scotland but not Tory politics or self interest.
How can there be a 'British' constitution for the UK Parliament when it only follows English Law and constitutional practice and does not reflect the traditions of Scots Law and constitutional practice?
This unwritten behemoth of smoke and mirrors has no right to call itself 'British' in any sense as it is 'English' in root and branch. How can the 'crown' be in the UK Parliament and give it unlimited sovereignty when Scots Law does not recognise this singularly English Law practice. Anyway which crown is it in the UK Parliament as there is no 'British' crown, as I pointed out earlier. If it is the English Crown which is in the UK Parliament then the UK Parliament's sovereignty is limited by the Scottish Crown's dependence on the considered will of the people of Scotland.
Does the 'British' constitution make clear how this serious limitation of the UK Parliament's sovereignty by the people of Scotland is exercised?
I know through out the history of the Parliamentary Union there have been umpteen different fudges to get round this big vacant space in the 'British' constitution, varying from Scotch Grand Committees to the appointing of a defacto Viceroy to the Scottish Office, supposedly held in check and to account by the Scottish Affairs Committee of the UK Parliament but these were all designed to ensure the considered will of the people of Scotland could simply be ignored or manipulated and the UK Parliament then continues on its way, undisturbed by any real accountability to the people of Scotland - except at the ballot box. Then again, as long as Labour held sway in Scotland what was the problem, the fudges continue to be fudged and the peasants subdued with claims of massive cash handouts to the too wee, too stupid, too poor Scots which were and remain but a fraction of the cash Scotland contributes to the UK Treasury, year on year.
Dear 'British' Constitutional experts this leaves me perplexed and disturbed as it appears the function of the unwritten 'British' constitution's main task is to ensure the voice of the considered will of the people of Scotland is silenced at Westminster or at best simply ignored. Ms May and her ministers have now demonstrated this must be the case on numerous occasions since the 23rd of June in their responses to SNP MPs and their championing of the considered will of the people of Scotland to remain in the EU. In which case, surely the objective evidence now points to the reality the unwritten 'British' constitution has now failed in all major respects as its ability to fudge and ignore the people of Scotland has been split wide open by the election of MPs from Scotland who seek to exercise that will on their constituents behalf and on the behalf of the nation state of Scotland, within the shared UK Parliament.
Maybe it is time to stop the pretense that this unwritten 'British' constitution is supremely clever and all things to all men (and women) when it is in fact a Gordian Knot of half truths, fudges, illegalities, illegitimacies and is need of the chop then replaced by a written one to which the UK Parliament can actually be held accountable by the UK electorate. I can hear UK Parliamentary MPs already squealing like stuck pigs about the loss of their own 'freewill' to consider the case made before them before voting as their conscience dictates by being at the beck and call of their electorate. As opposed to being at the beck and call of party whips and their offers of possible 'legs up' in the party hierarchy or 'financial gain' by being made chair of an upcoming select committee, if they do as the whips tell them.
On the other hand, maybe it will be easier for Scots simply to give the UK Parliament the chop and leave the English Parliament to continue on its undemocratic, autocratic and oligarchic way without the worry of for ever keeping us annoying, whining 'Jocks' quiet.
What do you think 'British' constitutional experts, can you help me understand?
Yours faithfully,
A sick fed up Scot.
Excellent stuff, an education.
ReplyDeleteSuperb.
ReplyDeleteSuperb.
ReplyDeleteI could be wrong but becoming a state is,as far as I understand it,largely about recognition by other states of that status.
ReplyDeleteIt now seems that England will never recognise Scotland as a state because that would relinquish all control over our affairs.
However,should the EU welcome the state of Scotland as an equal member,then we would overnight have recognition from the existing 27 states of that fact.
A belligerent English state outside that union would have little or no say.
It would,no doubt,try to make life difficult for Scotland but would be up against international condemnation and possible trade sanctions.
This would not be in England's best interests and some sort of accommodation is going to have to be reached before they exit the EU.
I think we have a very strong hand.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete