Nick Clegg is, what we called in Ayrshire, an educated eejit, who claims those who want independence are extremists. John Swinney? A carbon copy of the old-fashioned bank manager, watching the nation’s bawbees, for whom caution, not radicalism, is a guiding principle. Nicola Sturgeon? Not yet seen breaking nurses’ legs and setting fire to hospitals?
Alex Salmond? That chap cooing at the English on The One Show? He’s about as extreme as the Queen, a woman never seen to flinch with fear when he leans towards her during one of their chats on state occasions.
We Scots will have to get used to the eejits. Nothing can prevent them coming up here with fantastic tales of what will befall us if we dare to be like other nations and become a sovereign state.
We are told we shall be unable to service our share of the UK debt, although, by some alchemy, if we remain part of the UK, we most certainly will continue to service our share of it. We shall lose the AAA status that we do not in fact have as yet, despite the fundamental positive economic effect of significant oil production, and energy self-sufficiency.
Despite needing to build a warship fleet similar to the size of Denmark or Norway, to protect our national interests in the North Sea and Atlantic, the Cleggs claim our shipyards will rust and collapse. We shall soon hear from them of a world of the high unemployment that will follow on independence, compared to what?
– the position today in the UK, where hope vanishes quickly for the young as the school gates close on them for the last time, or they pick up their degrees at university, to face life without work?
We shall hear the unionist cry that when the gracious, helping hand of the English is there no more, we’ll be permanently skint, with the backside hanging out of our ragged trousers.
How on earth will the Edinburgh Festival and the Tattoo survive if we are independent? Woe unto us if we dare do what others have done.
Hopefully, we Scots will recognise the eejits for what they are. What should be of greater concern to Alex Salmond at this stage is the action being taken by David Cameron. Nicola Sturgeon, on radio, said the referendum is not about legal competence. That is not right. The issues in a referendum are political, but the process is legal, and that is a crucial point. The legal weight, and powers, in the case of the referendum lie entirely with the UK Parliament and government.
The Scottish Parliament is a creature of statute.
It is not sovereign, but bound by the limits on its powers as set out in the Scotland Act 1998. Those limits in certain areas are severely restrictive. The Secretary of State can, for example, stop the Presiding Officer submitting a Bill for Royal Assent. Section 29 states that an Act of the Scottish Parliament is not law if it is outside the competence powers given by the Act.
Section 28(7) makes clear that nothing stops the UK Parliament making laws for Scotland.
Section 33 allows the UK Advocate General or the English Attorney General to refer a Scottish Parliament Bill, on a question of competence, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Schedule 5 of the Act reserves powers for the UK Parliament on the issue of the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England. It is beyond doubt: the constitution is a reserved matter. The SNP may wave these legalities aside, claiming to have a political mandate for a referendum, but it ignores the legal realities at its peril.
Alex Salmond may gamble, or believe, that if the Westminster Government takes the legal actions available to it under the Scotland Act, where Section 30 allows it to modify Schedule 5 in order to give the Scottish Parliament the legal right to hold a referendum on independence within a time limit – and thus interfere – then there will be such an outrage in Scotland that there will be no stopping us on the way to independence.
Perhaps in the SNP mind we are heading for a repeat of the poll tax, where mismanagement of Scotland created such an outrage that mass revolt against Westminster was the result. But Cameron is not Thatcher, and he is not proposing to punish the Scots, neither is he taking away any democratic right. Cameron proposes to give powers to Alex Salmond to hold his referendum, removing all possible legal challenges, albeit with a couple of strings attached – to be held by the end of 2013 and one question on independence. It will be difficult to sustain any sense of outrage on that offer.
If the SNP spurns the Cameron offer, and does not enter into negotiations with him, especially over who sets the question (it should be Salmond), and continues to claim the right to go it alone on its own terms, then the Presiding Officer will inevitably face the challenges built into the Scotland Act, about the legality of the SNP referendum. These challenges will be settled in court.
The Presiding Officer, not Salmond? That’s right. Before any bill comes before Holyrood, the Presiding Officer has to decide its competence (S31 (2)). If the PO clears the Salmond bill, then it is she, not he, who will be taken before the courts. If the courts find against her, then she cannot allow the Salmond referendum bill to be tabled. That’s why Nicola is not correct in dismissing the issue of competence.
Salmond has the political mandate, but holds none of the legal cards. Cameron has them, but no mandate on a Scottish referendum. The mandate should triumph over the legalities, but will it in a court of law? It’s a big risk. Alex, go and negotiate with Cameron, to take his offer and turn it to your advantage.
Name calling
Alex Salmond? That chap cooing at the English on The One Show? He’s about as extreme as the Queen, a woman never seen to flinch with fear when he leans towards her during one of their chats on state occasions.
We Scots will have to get used to the eejits. Nothing can prevent them coming up here with fantastic tales of what will befall us if we dare to be like other nations and become a sovereign state.
We are told we shall be unable to service our share of the UK debt, although, by some alchemy, if we remain part of the UK, we most certainly will continue to service our share of it. We shall lose the AAA status that we do not in fact have as yet, despite the fundamental positive economic effect of significant oil production, and energy self-sufficiency.
Despite needing to build a warship fleet similar to the size of Denmark or Norway, to protect our national interests in the North Sea and Atlantic, the Cleggs claim our shipyards will rust and collapse. We shall soon hear from them of a world of the high unemployment that will follow on independence, compared to what?
– the position today in the UK, where hope vanishes quickly for the young as the school gates close on them for the last time, or they pick up their degrees at university, to face life without work?
We shall hear the unionist cry that when the gracious, helping hand of the English is there no more, we’ll be permanently skint, with the backside hanging out of our ragged trousers.
How on earth will the Edinburgh Festival and the Tattoo survive if we are independent? Woe unto us if we dare do what others have done.
Hopefully, we Scots will recognise the eejits for what they are. What should be of greater concern to Alex Salmond at this stage is the action being taken by David Cameron. Nicola Sturgeon, on radio, said the referendum is not about legal competence. That is not right. The issues in a referendum are political, but the process is legal, and that is a crucial point. The legal weight, and powers, in the case of the referendum lie entirely with the UK Parliament and government.
The Scottish Parliament is a creature of statute.
It is not sovereign, but bound by the limits on its powers as set out in the Scotland Act 1998. Those limits in certain areas are severely restrictive. The Secretary of State can, for example, stop the Presiding Officer submitting a Bill for Royal Assent. Section 29 states that an Act of the Scottish Parliament is not law if it is outside the competence powers given by the Act.
Section 28(7) makes clear that nothing stops the UK Parliament making laws for Scotland.
Section 33 allows the UK Advocate General or the English Attorney General to refer a Scottish Parliament Bill, on a question of competence, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Schedule 5 of the Act reserves powers for the UK Parliament on the issue of the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England. It is beyond doubt: the constitution is a reserved matter. The SNP may wave these legalities aside, claiming to have a political mandate for a referendum, but it ignores the legal realities at its peril.
Alex Salmond may gamble, or believe, that if the Westminster Government takes the legal actions available to it under the Scotland Act, where Section 30 allows it to modify Schedule 5 in order to give the Scottish Parliament the legal right to hold a referendum on independence within a time limit – and thus interfere – then there will be such an outrage in Scotland that there will be no stopping us on the way to independence.
Perhaps in the SNP mind we are heading for a repeat of the poll tax, where mismanagement of Scotland created such an outrage that mass revolt against Westminster was the result. But Cameron is not Thatcher, and he is not proposing to punish the Scots, neither is he taking away any democratic right. Cameron proposes to give powers to Alex Salmond to hold his referendum, removing all possible legal challenges, albeit with a couple of strings attached – to be held by the end of 2013 and one question on independence. It will be difficult to sustain any sense of outrage on that offer.
If the SNP spurns the Cameron offer, and does not enter into negotiations with him, especially over who sets the question (it should be Salmond), and continues to claim the right to go it alone on its own terms, then the Presiding Officer will inevitably face the challenges built into the Scotland Act, about the legality of the SNP referendum. These challenges will be settled in court.
The Presiding Officer, not Salmond? That’s right. Before any bill comes before Holyrood, the Presiding Officer has to decide its competence (S31 (2)). If the PO clears the Salmond bill, then it is she, not he, who will be taken before the courts. If the courts find against her, then she cannot allow the Salmond referendum bill to be tabled. That’s why Nicola is not correct in dismissing the issue of competence.
Salmond has the political mandate, but holds none of the legal cards. Cameron has them, but no mandate on a Scottish referendum. The mandate should triumph over the legalities, but will it in a court of law? It’s a big risk. Alex, go and negotiate with Cameron, to take his offer and turn it to your advantage.