SNP are not offering us freedom
-
Mr_Garak — 18 years ago(May 06, 2007 02:28 PM)
I agree corporate_playboy, The Westminster Parliament be it Labour or Conservative run have always had it in for Scotland, Tories tested out the Poll Tax on us and closed down a lot of our Businesses.
Labour promised change back in 1997 when they were elected, all they've done is taken us into War after War, unemployment has risen, but their way of dealing with it was chucking the unemployed on training schemes for 6 month, now 3, and writing them off the unemployed figures list to make themselves look good for the idiots that vote for them.
I'm glad SNP have finally won, I will not let labour or Lib Dem or Tories tell me that I can't vote for Independence, when the referendum comes, I will be voting yes!
The Republic of Ireland have been Independant from the UK for almost a century now, have they come crawling back? no, they've thrived.
Instead of wimpering Labour and Tory MP's who cower at the sight of the big nasty EU when it comes to issues involving
our
country, such as the BSE scare and the Fishing embargo in our own waters, we'll have someone there who'll actually stand up to them, insted of cower like a scared little school kid who's afraid to stand up for himself infront of the Headmaster when he's done nothing wrong.
And we can finally pull our lad and lassies out of Iraq and out of Afghanistan, and out of illegal wars, something that the majority of people here were against in the first place.
Just because Tony boyfriend Bush wants to destroy the middle east with his war mongering ways, and Tony doesn't have the balls to say no to him.
Atlast we'll have a first minister who isn't a puppet of the Prime Minister, finally we'll have a Parliament that isn't a puppet Parliament to Westminster!
VOTE YES TO INDEPENDENCE AND YES TO FREEDOM! -
zadt — 18 years ago(December 26, 2007 04:29 PM)
this is an old topic, which has been argued to death, but i feel strongly about it
I don't understand why anyone could think that the scots could govern themselves better than they govern britain as a whole. westminster is ful of scots, and the scottish parliment is inenpt enough dealing with it's current duties. the scottish identity only really exists in the highlands and islands, elsewhere it is a myth - most scots still think that the battle of culloden was england vs scotland and tangle themselves up in romantic notions of a self governing scotland.
the most enthusiastic and brutal of empire builders were the scots, and after collapsing our own economy after investing a third of the total collective assets of the nation in the disastrous attempt to form a colony in panama, we were forced to join union with england or face utter ruin. we joined to save our own hides, and to strengthen both countries.
in this modern age only a moron would wish to further split up, we should be joining closer to other countries. -
jaws-3D — 18 years ago(June 28, 2007 06:22 AM)
"The corrupt EU? There speaks the voice of balanced reason! I fail to see how that would differ any from the corrupt Westminster Parliament deciding our fate"
While I agree that their is corruption within Westminster, I need to ask you this question. What is more democratic:- Elected Westminster MPs deciding our laws
or - An unelected European Commision deciding our laws
- Elected Westminster MPs deciding our laws
-
corporate_playboy — 18 years ago(June 28, 2007 01:14 PM)
Its important to clear up the last point that you made. The Commission is made up of twenty or so Commissioners drawn from the member states (two each from France, Italy, Germany, Spain & the UK, and one each from the rest) - provision was made to reduce this to one each from 2005 on (I would need to check this to see if it has been carried out).
Commissioners are appointed by a means of process involving nomination by the member states, adoption of a proposed list of commissioners (including a president)by the Council by qualified majority voting, and approval, following scrutiny, by the Parliament. The Parliament retains the power to dismiss the Commission by motion of censure. Most of the Commissioners have domestic political ties, although they are encouraged to put this to one side whilst sitting on the Commission.
So, firstly, the Commission can be comprised of elected MPs, and secondly the Commission is underneath the Parliament, which is drawn directly from proportional representation elections across the Union.
To muddy the waters even further, it is neither the Commission nor the Parliament which is the primary legislative power in the EU, it is the Council. The Council (of the European Union) is comprised of elected ministerial representatives from each of the member states. This should not be confused with the 'European Council' which is comprised of the heads of state across the Union.
So whilst there is potential for members of the Commission to arrive unelected from their own countries, and nominated by that countries MPs, the Commission is fairly low down the pecking order. The main role of the Commission is to ensure compliance amongst member states with the treaties of the Union, rather than pro active legislation.
In reality is there any difference between the composition of the Commission and say Gordon Brown's recent request (not sure if this has been confirmed at the time of writing) for Sir Alan Sugar to act as an adviser to the Government on business matters? Neither are elected by the people (Sir Alan or the Commission) but both are subservient to higher powers who are elected by the people.
The real issue with the EU is whether the elected politicians are pro active in stimulating business, fair trade and peace throughout the Union, or using it for their own domestic purposes.
Marge, is Lisa at Camp Granada? -
jaws-3D — 18 years ago(July 01, 2007 12:14 PM)
"Or, as a secondary thought, the House of Lords??!!!"
the HOL are not elected, but have no real power. The House of Commons can over rule them any time they want. The Commision can pass legislation in most areas but we do not have a say in who is on it (do you really think the British public would vote for Peter Mandelson to be on the commision)?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWSYMpuCFaQ -
corporate_playboy — 18 years ago(July 01, 2007 04:22 PM)
Sorry, but again your not really telling the truth on this matter. The House of Lords do have power, they can defeat a bill twice before the Commons can use the Parliament Acts (2 of them) to force through a bill, but in all honesty the damage would be done by that point, in terms of negative media publicity.
Secondly HoL can actually defeat a bill, if it is near a general election, they can delay it long enough to avoid it being passed, and if the reigning party is defeated at a general election then the bill would more than likely be scrapped.
And as I expressed in my previous post the Commission are subservient to elected bodies who wield the greater power. This idea that we have sold our Parliamentary sovereignty down the river to Brussels is nothing more than xenophobic nonsense from small minded bigots.
As someone who has studied the UK constitution as part of a Law degree, I should know something about this subject.
Marge, is Lisa at Camp Granada? -
jaws-3D — 18 years ago(July 02, 2007 04:12 AM)
"Sorry, but again your not really telling the truth on this matter. The House of Lords do have power, they can defeat a bill twice before the Commons can use the Parliament Acts (2 of them) to force through a bill, but in all honesty the damage would be done by that point, in terms of negative media publicity"
That isn't always the case. When the government used it to pass the Hunting Act a few years ago the reaction from the general public was very positive.
"And as I expressed in my previous post the Commission are subservient to elected bodies who wield the greater power"
You can slice it any way you want but the fact is that the general public does not get to decide who is on the commission and since the Commision have authority to initiate legislation in most policy areas this can only be considered undemocratic. And I will ask you again, do you really think the UK public would choose Peter Mandelson to be on the commision. Of course not. But we have no say in who is on the commision nor do we have the power to dismiss them if we are unhappy with them.
"This idea that we have sold our Parliamentary sovereignty down the river to Brussels is nothing more than xenophobic nonsense from small minded bigots"
The fact that you have resorted to name calling shows just the way you argue. I find it very offensive that you automatically refer to me as a racist bigot just because I have a differing view about the EU. -
corporate_playboy — 18 years ago(July 02, 2007 06:08 AM)
This was not aimed directly at you, but seeing as you associated yourself with the comment, one could infer that your views are not dissimilar. Seeing as you profess to be a member of UKIP I would have thought it would a name you are comfortable with! People who believe that we have sold our sovereignty either have not looked at how any legislation will be implemented, or choose not to do so for the purpose of their argument. I refer you to S.3 & s.6 of the HRA 1998. The HRA was designed merely "to give further effect" to the Convention, not to follow it lock, stock & barrel. What this demonstrates is very clever 'wriggle room' as it is known in the trade. We endorse the Convention and agree to adhere to it where possible, however we reserve the right to follow our own policies on the matter.
Similarly in England the courts cannot strike down legislation for being incompatible with Convention rights, they can state that it is incompatible but do nothing else. This means that Parliament retains its overall sovereignty.
This is exceptionally clever legal drafting, and I for one whole-heartedly agree with it.
Going back to the HoL, this chamber is full of extremely distinguished legal draftsmen, when they reject a bill, it is not usually out of principle but rather regarding potential unforeseen consequences of the bill. Their views are taken extremely seriously by the Commons. Indeed the HoL has a very active role as a reviewing chamber, they have the time and the skill to look at a bill in the sort of detail that Commons never could. One might make the argument that this is undemocratic because these people are unelected, however many of them are distinguished retired judges and QCs, what purpose would it serve to have these people on the campaign trail?
In respect to your dismissal of my view of the Commission, I would refer you to Aidan O'Neill, Scotland's most respected QC, and one of the most important contemporary legal writers and critics in Scotland. The views I expressed are shared by O'Neill, I guess I just take his views a little more seriously than those of a WWE/UKIP fan!
There is a term regarding the crime of reset in Scotland, "willful blindness" i.e. if you patently ignore the obviously criminal source of goods, then you are still guilty. You seem to be hung up on the Commission, and missing the point that the Commission is a lower entity in the EU than other organizations, which do comprise of people who are directly elected (that and that people on the Commission CAN be elected as MPs - this would be no different from you or I not getting to decide who sits on which Committee within the Scottish Parliament). I think that there must be an acceptance that if you require specialist knowledge in a certain area, then occasionally you hav111ce to look outside of elected bodies. A good parallel would be comparing courts to tribunals. Courts are more formal with greater legal authority, however if there is an employment law technicality will the average Sheriff be the best qualified person to preside over such a matter? Tribunals take the approach of having specialists on the panel, who are in a much better position to accurately gauge the situation. If the net effect of this is a more reliable, more equitable form of justice, surely it cannot be a bad thing?
Finally, you should note that the word "racist" doesn't appear anywhere in my post, we British are not a race, simply a nationality.
Marge, is Lisa at Camp Granada? -
jaws-3D — 18 years ago(July 02, 2007 07:42 AM)
"This was not aimed directly at you, but seeing as you associated yourself with the comment, one could infer that your views are not dissimilar"
You were replying to comments I made in the post so you can'y blame me for taking the insults you made to heart.
"Seeing as you profess to be a member of UKIP I would have thought it would a name you are comfortable with"
If that isn't implying that you think I'm racist then I don't know what is.
"The views I expressed are shared by O'Neill, I guess I just take his views a little more seriously than those of a WWE/UKIP fan"
This is a democracy, therefore I am entitled to have a different view to O'Neill. And I don't see why my views should just be brushed aside and I should just be treated as an inferior due to what I watch on TV and what Political Party I support.
"In respect to your dismissal of my view of the Commission"
You have also dismissed mine. You have refused to reply to my statement about a man who was removed twice from the british government representing us in the Commision. You also chose to ignore the link to a video about the Commision.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWSYMpuCFaQ
"Finally, you should note that the word "racist" doesn't appear anywhere in my post"
No but the terms xenophobic, small minded and bigot does.
Seriously, I was enjoying the debate we 5b4were having to begin with. But then you resorted to reffering to me as a racist (sorry, bigot), you also attempted to make me sound stupid just because I like wrestling and pointing out your law degree. Why? Why couldn't you just give me your opinions and leave it at that. There was no need to stoop to dirty underhanded tactics. -
corporate_playboy — 18 years ago(July 02, 2007 08:45 AM)
OK,I can see this degenerating into a fierce battle, so Ill cool it a little bit. The structure of the EU is like a 3 dimensional maze, I should know, I had to learn that crap! Nothing is transparent in the EU, and they insist on giving themselves group titles which sound very similar to other groups. i.e. the Council of the European Union (formerly the Council of Ministers), the European Council, and completely separate the founder members of the ECHR are the Council of E111curope!
Secondly the EU is really just a trading ground, where no punches are pulled, i.e. Poland whining at the latest summit because of Germany's actions in the war! So what you end up with is petty bureaucracy with layers and layers of meaningless legislation, with very little in the way of substance.
There is a general fear that successive liberal (general sense rather than strictly political sense) governments have eroded our sovereignty and handed power to Europe, however this isn't really true. The example I cited of the Human Rights Act 1998 is a great example, you can read it in all its glory on the OPSI site http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm - section 3(1) is the most interesting part - well worth a glance. Similarly, because you are a politically active Scot, have a read at the Scotland Act 1998 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980046.htm - sections 29 (legislative competence) and 57 (Community Law & Convention Rights) should be of interest.
What you should glean from this is that the formation of Scotland's constitution is fundamentally different from that of the rest of the UK, in essence we are far more assured of our Human Rights than our English & Welsh cousins (not a bad thing).
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, and yes you are perfectly entitled to express your opinion, however I would like to recommend some background reading to help your aspiring political career. "Scotland's Consitution: Law & Practice" by Himsworth & O'Neill (yes, THAT O'Neill) is a good starting point, and "The Scottish Legal System (3rd Ed)" by White & Willock is another good reference. They are both very dry books, and far from entertaining but they are useful. From a lawyer's perspective the easiest way to recognise the way the system works is to read case law, I cant recommend any English case law books on the subject, however "Human Rights in Scotland: Texts, Cases & Materials" by Ewing & Dale-Risk is a very useful guide for the application of the ECHR and Euro Court decisions in Scots law. Cases such as Starrs v Ruxton have been important in moving the law on in Scotland, in relation to expanding and defending Human Rights.
Hope this helps.
Marge, is Lisa at Camp Granada?