For captions hold your mouse over the picture. Or if you wish to see the slideshow, click on any picture, the caption will show at the bottom. Hope this works OK for you.
I’ve just read Mark Frankland’s blog about Donald. As ever I leave Mark’s blog with tears of sadness and anger in my eyes. I am truly ashamed to be a part of a country that treats people like this but at the same time I’m proud to be a part of a country that has people like Mark Frankland in it.
Mark has more than met his target to keep Donald warm until the mean-minded bastards at the DWP see fit to give the guy some money to keep warm, and Mark and his team will feed him from First Base until February.
But we all know that Mark will have to face more Donalds before long.
Y’know, they talk big about Great British Values and how we are a Christian country and how their every step is guided by the gospels. But how in the name of hell can they be when they do this to people. Maybe they just had different gospels from the ones we read at school.
According to the Mail, then, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the one to which they, the Mail, have been fighting to bring back power from Europe (decent British judges, applying decent British law, enacted by decent British elected parliament…. (try not to laugh at the back), using decent British values), is fundamentally corrupt and can’t be trusted to make a decision about the law of the United Kingdom and its constituent parts regarding the right, under the legal systems operating therein, of the queen to enact the necessary legislation to remove the UK from the EU.
They seem to have little sense of irony at the Mail. I wonder if the British government doesn’t get its way on this, will the Mail demand that the case be taken to the European Court? After all, they clearly have serious doubts about the integrity of the UK’s own very most senior judges, and their abilities to distance themselves from their connections or private feelings when it comes to making judgements…and seriously, that bodes ill for justice in a newly independent UK.
No one is saying, of course, that the will of the people, as indicated in the referendum, should not be enacted. Article 50 should be enacted. The question is more technically about WHO enacts it. And in law that can be everything. Do something wrong at the beginning of the journey and it can invalidate everything you do thereafter.
If British/English/Scots/Irish laws say that use of the Royal Prerogative is illegal, then surely everything that follows from its use would be illegal. How embarrassing would that be?
As I see it, the first question is: Does the UK government, using whatever law it uses (English, I assume) have the right to invite the queen to use her powers under Royal Prerogative to initiate the Article 50 procedure, or must this be decided by the sovereign UK parliament?
The second question is: how is that right affected by different Scots and Irish law, and, given the results of the referendum in Scotland and NI, what rights, if any, do THEIR non-sovereign parliaments have to represent their will, and for it to be considered?
Of course, unlike some of you, I’m not a lawyer, so I’ll be very happy to stand corrected on any of that. I’d be interested in your thoughts.
Oh, and one last thing. The Daily Mail has just trashed the Supreme Court of the UK for being a pile of unelected (unlike the Daily Mail) Europhiles. Any judgement they make is bound to be biased. So, what happens if they agree with the government that the queen is entitled to make the decision and the Scotland and the Irish can like it or do the other thing? Will they still be a pile of unelected idiots, or will they suddenly have become sensible and sober upholders of the Great British legal system?
Will they still be a pile of unelected idiots, or will they suddenly have become sensible and sober upholders of the Great British legal system? It’s awfully complicated.
It’s hard to credit the amount of time and effort, social media space and press attention that Humza Yousaf has got following the breakdown of a train a couple of weeks ago.
I’ve lost count of the number of times his resignation has been demanded despite the fact that rail in Scotland, or at least that part of it that Scotland controls, is doing rather well by comparison with the chaos that abounds in some parts of England.
You’ll no doubt remember the classy comments made by one of the sillier Tories.
Needless to say, Jackson Carlaw, as deputy tank commander, had to get his dig in too. The Scottish people wanted a transport minister who used trains, he claimed (although to the best of my knowledge transport also includes road, cars, buses, bikes and planes… so why demand he use trains?)
The minister doesn’t use trains or it would show in his MSP expenses. The public would be furious that the transport minister had never set foot upon a train, he claimed proudly, as if he’d dealt the man a body blow.
Needless to say, as it was Jackson Carlaw, it was rubbish.
Humza is a minister and his travel costs from Glasgow to Edinburgh have by law to be attributed to ministerial expenses, and not constituency MSP expenses.
Between May and November the minister took 34 train trips, 28 between Glasgow and Edinburgh stations.
Mr Carlaw only took five trips between the cities. So Humza used the train a good deal more than Mr Carlaw. To add insult to injury, Mr Carlaw’s claims for mileage in his car came to £878, including 21 trips between his home and parliament. This is rather more expensive than taking the train. (A return fare costs £27,20 and the mileage cost is £46,80.) Still, Mr Carlaw is an important and busy man! Why would he take the train?
It is becoming clearer to me by the day why Mr Carlaw’s business career was less that hugely successful. Clearly he doesn’t do his research before he opens his mouth, he isn’t terribly economical with his expenses, and he can’t count.
Just after I uploaded this, I discovered these tweet which explains where Mr C gets his sharp wit.