KNOW YOUR PLACE, SCOTLAND

 

It was always my opinion that Theresa May was foolish not to have accepted the ruling of the English High Court when they said that the UK parliament should have the final say on triggering Article 50.

Much better to accept it, put it before parliament and move on.

After all, it seemed to me unlikely that parliament would vote to disregard the result of a legally held, even if not binding, referendum. Tory MPs would, I thought, by and large support the government’s view and enough Labour MPs would most likely vote the way that their constituents voted (largely leave) to ensure that the Bill to give the government permission to remove us from the EU with all that entails, would pass.

For some odd reason, however, May decided not to accept the British judges’ British justice and instead take their case to the UK Supreme Court with an appeal, which they have now lost. (Never mind the cost though, we’ve got piles of cash!)

Those papers, like the Diana and the Heil, who considered the High Court judges to be “enemies of the people” for pointing out what the law stated, must by now have added the Supreme Court judges to that list. I suppose that we shall have to provide police protection for these judges too, lest the hatred that the Mail and Express, the Star and the Sun whipped up, erupt into some sort of violence. (Never mind the cost, we’ve got piles of cash, again!)

So, it was never about whether Article 50 would be triggered or not. It was about the law. About whether the power of the Crown could deny parliament its say in this case.

It is fairly important when embarking on a stupendously important piece of legislation, that it should be done legally. And surely it was better to find out now that Royal Prerogative was not a legal means of triggering this article than in say 9 months’ time when embarrassingly someone points out to David Davis that he didn’t have the power to proceed, has broken the law, and all his negotiations are invalid. Oeuf sur le visage, or what? Oops sorry, that’s foreign!

Indeed you would have thought that somewhere in the massive organisation that is the British government, there might have been someone who would quietly advise them of how the law stood on these matters. Clearly not, though. Such is the joy of having either an incompetent government that doesn’t understand the law of its own land or, more likely, an egotistical one that refuses to listen.

In any case, there is now to be a bill on Article 50, and they could have saved themselves a month (and a lot of our money) had they just known a bit more, or listened a bit more.

++++++++++

UK Supreme Court unanimous that this is not a devolved matter. Comprehensive defeat for the Scottish Government.

++++++++++

The Supreme Court also ruled that the opinions of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish parliaments/assemblies need not be considered.  The matter is a UK one and not for devolved governments.

This was greeted with much glee by Professor Tomkins who tweeted joyfully that this was a blow for the Scottish government (something he obviously relishes), seemingly unaware that his own government and prime minister had received an equal, if not greater, blow at the hands of the Supreme Court.

In fact, unless the Supreme Court had ruled that any one of the devolved administrations could overturn the Westminster parliament’s decision, it was never going to make any difference.  Our opinion may have had to be legally sought, but it was never going to change anything. And why should it? If England has 85% of the population; it has 85% of the clout.  No matter how strongly we, Northern Ireland or Gibraltar feel, we are simply too small to call the tune.

(This is NOT a criticism of the judgment of the Supreme Court. They have interpreted the law as it exists. I’ve no argument with that.)

++++++++++

Retweeted your Retweet
2h:

So it is as we suspected – the “most powerful devolved parliament in the world” is just a branch office that has no say or authority at all.
+++++++++++
Is it a blow to the Scottish government?
Well, hardly, I’d say. Au contraire! Oops, sorry, foreign again.
The Supreme Court has effectively ruled that we are not equal partners in the union and are not necessarily entitled to our opinion being regarded. It simply legitimises what we have always said. It’s an unequal union.
Mr Tomkin’s “comprehensive defeat” will probably convince some waverers that the Scottish legislature is, as someone once famously said, “a wee pretendy parliament”.

Carlaw hits the buffers

2It’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?)

1The 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.

1

So the facts are something like this:

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.

2

1

3

Make what you will of them….

 

ERM, ISN’T STEALING STREET SIGNS…

…NOT JUST A CRIMINAL OFFENCE, BUT IN SOME CASES DOWNRIGHT DANGEROUS?

aaaa

Because it’s far more sensible to have £:s:p, yards: feet: inches, gallons: quarts: pints, tons: hundredweights and quarters,  stones: pounds: ounces. Obviously.

Still, the Daily Mail seems to think he’s a bit of a hero, and I bet the Daily Diana is fizzing it didn’t get the story first. It would probably recommend him to the queen for a knighthood.

a

Oh, yes, then there was this bloke who seems to be unaware of just how utterly ridiculous Boris Johnson is, not to mention David Davis and the unbelievably hapless idiot Liam Fox, and that they are all led by someone with the well-deserved nickname “Mayhem”.

Talk about zero diplomatic know-how or ability!

Really, Prof Tomkins, have a wee word with yourself, will you? At the moment you are a liability.

 

PROFESSOR ADAM TOMKINS DISPLAYS HIS CLASSY SENSE OF HUMOUR

 

p

o

You know, it would be a wonder if sometimes we didn’t ALL say things on social media, particularly Twitter, that, upon reflection, would have been better left unsaid.

Of course, for many of us it doesn’t matter a fig. No one much reads our tweets, and those who do are probably friends…so it’s a bit like down the pub when we say something silly among our mates.

But when you’re a politician (or other celebrated personality), and your tweets are read by thousands, and they reflect the attitude of your party, it might be a good idea to consider very carefully before you put finger to keyboard.

It’s a small thing maybe, but using a picture of a natural disaster that killed 26 people and brought about devastation and misery just to make a silly, petty point against Humza and the SNP, is beneath even what you’d expect from anyone, let alone a supposedly educated man.

Stay classy, Prof.