Firstly, Nicola Sturgeon said that she would use all legal means to hold a referendum.
So, I’m not a lawyer and she is, and I imagine that she won’t have taken this decision lightly, or indeed, alone.
There will have been legal advice from Scotland’s Law Officers and, before sticking her head on the block, I suspect that this will have been looked into very very thoroughly. So until he knows exactly what the government’s advice is, he might be well advised to stay schtum!
Secondly, I can’t help but wonder if Mr Ross has thought this through.
Talking about illegality is, let’s be honest, a dodgy (or very brave) thing for a Conservative politician to bring up at the moment.
You know, given that the prime minister has been fined for breaking lockdown rules on one occasion, and seemingly only managing to escape a long list of other occasions being punished because…well, just because. (The mysteries of the Met, would make a good title for a book!)
Next we have the dodgy legislation that the Tories are currently putting through parliament to unilaterally unsign the Northern Ireland Protocol, which forms part of the European Union Withdrawal Agreement, an international treaty. This would effectively break the Withdrawal Agreement (you can’t unsign part of a treaty) and leave the UK with no agreements with the EU. Not to mention leaving it with a massive problem with the USA, and with what little reputation it has left internationally, shattered.
And over the last two days we have had the issue of the Brits sending refugees to Rwanda, which at the last moment was stopped by the European Court for Human Rights. This court, contrary to what is being said by some on social media, is an organisation within the Council of Europe, not the EU.
So, maybe a lecture from Douglas Ross on legality and how he will boycott anything illegal, is inopportune and ill-advised at this moment.
Anyway, doesn’t he know there’s a war on?
Oh, and while we’re talking about it. The much quoted statement from Alex Salmond about the 2014 referendum being once in a generation thing, was an off the cuff personal comment. It wasn’t said in parliament and it holds no force of law. No more than the prime ministers ridiculous promise that leaving the EU would provide the NHS with £350 million a week, or Gove’s idiotic notion that on leaving the EU, Britain would hold all the cards, or David saying that there were no downsides to Brexit.
But it’s an interesting thought that, if leaders’ words are to be taken as law… we don’t even need a referendum…
MUNGUIN'S NEW REPUBLIC 
How many times has the 1707 Treaty of Union been breached unilaterally? The Northern Ireland agreement must be honoured by all parties that subscribed to it, so ehy not ours? On the face of it, grounds here for Scotland to seek a ruling from the ECHR. And the democratic legitimacy of repeated unilateral rejecction of a Scottish independence vote.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m sure that Nicola and her advisors will have taken that into consideration.
LikeLike
How many times has the 1707 Treaty of Union been breached unilaterally?
Do you have anything specific in mind? I would guess a number very close to zero. It could only be breached unilaterally, anyway, because the union parliament is the source of law for the whole of the UK, as set out in Act of Union.
There was a fasciniating legal case in 1953: MacCormick v Lord Advocate. It concerned the naming of the queen. How come she was QE2 when Scotland had never had a QE1? This was the question asked of the court. The court ruled that this was a question for parliament to answer because parliament is supreme. One of the judges then wondered about the principle of parliamentary supremacy. How come the union parliament had adopted an English convention of parliamentary supremacy rather than the Scottish one of parliamentary constraints? He concluded that this too was a matter for the union parliament. I found this fascinating because it was a perfect example of the operation of the union parliament. It doesn’t matter what happened before 1707. All that matters for courts is what came after.
I’m afraid there is nothing in ECHR about having a right to a secession referendum or even any referendum. Council of Europe have some publications about best practice for referendums but nothing about a right to have one. There’s also nothing in ECHR about governments being forced to or even being able to implement their manifesto pledges. Even if Act of Union had been breached, that would be a matter for domestic law rather than ECtHR. If you have something in mind, please post it because I like this kind of stuff.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry, that should have been European Court of Justice (ECJ), not Human Rights.
LikeLike
The ECJ is an EU organisation, John.
I imagine its reach will not include “third countries”!
According to its website it is active in the
European Union and Northern Ireland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Justice
LikeLiked by 1 person
There was a man on last night’s news purporting to be a “Yes to No” voter. He announced he was a “proud Scot’ and though he had felt some temptation in 2014 to vote Yes or had actually voted Yes (don’t recall actual words), since starting his own business he had become sensible and had switched/confirmed his allegiance to No. I was quite unconvinced by by his statement – as with every statement which begins with “proud Scot”. (and almost begs the word “but…..”. Struck me as a slightly implausible Yoon stooge.
Did any of Minguin’s other acolytes hear this item? Any reactions ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ha ha … I’m very suspicious of that.
Which news was it?
He didn’t look like Douglas Ross, did he?
LikeLike
Aye, I heard him, I think.
Was he he the guy from the borders that’s now making craft gin?
I’m deeply suspicious of anyone who chucks ” I’m a proud Scot” into their argument .
Its a statement that’s invariably followed with a “but” and then an endless whine of “whit abootery”…
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yep, agreed.
It’s a bit like the opener “I’m not a racist, but” which immediately tells you that that is exactly what they are!
Switch off time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Some of my best friends are ….racists.” That’s what they really mean.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wouldn’t pay too much attention to U bend Ross.
Like his master in London,he will say one thing today and the opposite tomorrow.
My guess is that the SG will declare the referendum as a consultation,aren’t they all (Including Brexit) and should Unionists not wish to be consulted,then that is up to them.
I am surprised in a way that they don’t boycott Holyrood elections,with the limited success they have had recently.
Interesting times ahead.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think, initially, the Tories were so against the idea of a Scottish parliament that they were not going to get involved with it… but when it became a reality, of course, they saw the possibility a good few nice earners for precious little work and the possibility of a seat in the guided palace of Westminster’s Lords…
Eh Annabel? Eh Ruth…. I mean your gracious noblenesses.
Probably Dougie thinks he’s going there…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also Jack McConnell, former FM at Holyrood, and Alastair Darling, were handed seats in the HOLs, paid £300+ a day from the public purse, for services to England and their government/cabal. Dross is obviously hoping for the same reward, but he doesn’t stand a chance with his pathetic attempts to appear politically significant. It’s akin to a satirical drama programme on TV, and of course, to the Tories it’s all a great big party joke, for others, foodbanks.
If Charlie Windsor had a conscience he’d also be saying that having people relying on foodbanks in the UK, in the 21st century is ‘appalling’. It’s nothing short of criminal in fact. Sooner Scotland escapes the corrupt UK the better and given that the English government are talking about now removing UK membership of the ECHR putting it on par with Belarus and Russia. That’s very scary, especially for Scotland’s right to hold an independence referendum.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even more bizarre was the elevation of the aristocracy of the Noble Lord ffoulkes, Baron of Cumnock.
Someone needs to tell Mr Johnson that Churchill was the bloke who initiated the Council of Europe and the ECHR … they could add that his motivation was to stop people like Hitler ever taking power again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed and I guess stranger things have happened we could see wee Dross elevated even further beyond his abilities, yikes!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually, that would be hilarious.
Imagine him trying to cope with running the country.
LikeLike
I see that Mr Johnson’s second ethics advisor in a year has resigned.
I think if he wats to keep the next one, he’ll have to give the job to Mad Nad.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Aside from how clever that is…isn’t Truss blinky?
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FVKST-SXsAE02Ct?format=jpg&name=360×360
LikeLiked by 1 person
When you wrote, “running the country” tris, I read it as ruining the country. Funny that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Probably a typo, because in this case, it is true.
LikeLike
Strictly speaking Sturgeon isn’t a solicitor.
She was going to be struck off for gross negligence (amongst other things) but signed an undertaking never to practice law again when she went into politics and started her climb up the greasy pole.
I feel its important to point out that she was never a competent solicitor and her grasp of law was tenuous to say the least (and that’s being VERY kind).
LikeLiked by 1 person
How you hate her.
Let’s have her sacked then and we can have Douglas Ross instead.
LikeLike
I don’t hate her.
I just think her and hubby prioritise their own interests above other things – a normal situation for most people but not when you’re supposed to be leading a country.
I suggest you do some research on her.
My cousin (now a QC) worked in one of the solicitors from which Sturgeon was summarily dismissed (sacked), hence I know the history. Sturgeon ended up at Govan Law Centre (nobody else would employ her by this stage) where she frankly didn’t give a shit about the (poverty stricken) clients. She was sacked from there and proceedings were started to strike her off.
She’s not the angel you seem to think and IMHO the SNP has suffered badly with her as leader due to her incompetence.
You may think otherwise & that’s fine by me 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
It comes over to me as if you really do.
I’m sure shes’s not perfect. Who is?
But I’ve said it over and over, she’s the only hope we have.
She was criticised when she appeared to do nothing about a referendum (although I suspect she was doing stuff). She’s being criticised now when she is doing something, and I can’t honestly imagine that she has not taken advice about the legality of it, and indeed weighed the views of others including the friends she has been making in Europe and in the USA.
OK. Criticism is fine. That’s politics. But she’s taking all this flack from her own side. The others are, frankly rather too stupid to manage anything much in that direction.
(Ross said before the election that a vote for the SNP was a vote for an independence referendum… and now says that a referendum for independence would be illegal…eh???)
I don’t give a flying one about the personalities, as I’ve said before. I just want away from this nut case bin of a state before we lose all our rights. How long will be it before we too aren’t allowed to peacefully protest, and before cabinet ministers from England are telling our workers who are poorer than they were 2. 4. 10 years ago, that they risk losing their jobs if they go on strike.
Fine, once we are independent we can, if we want ditch Nicola and the SNP and vote… for whoever.
Let’s get independence.
No one else can lead us out of Britain at the moment. Not the Greens with 8 MSPs, the Scottish Socialist nor Alba, both with no MSPs.
Let’s give her a break.
LikeLike
I made the initial comment as you said “So, I’m not a lawyer and she is” in the article.
She isn’t and to be brutally honest I’d no more listen to legal advice from Nicola Sturgeon than I would Suella Braverman.
Neither of them has more than a tenuous grasp of law, constitutional or otherwise.
LikeLike