Orange Walk / Scottish Cricket thread

[Boostin' Kev]

Think I could hear a flute band type thing from my flat near Gorgie, or am I talking shite?

Would it not be stranger if you couldn't hear one?

[LongTimeLurker]

I am no legal expert, but I would suggest that the right of freedom of assembly, protest, freedom of speech and procession were in existence and protected long before the UK signed up to adhere to Human Rights legislation. Nor I am aware of any loyal order parade in Scotland having to have went to the ECHR to get permission to stage a march....

Under the traditional Westminster system there was no written constitution and the sovereignty of the crown in parliament gave a parliamentary majority the power to do pretty much anything it wanted, so rights like that were not firmly constitutionally entrenched, but more of a convention respected by tradition that could be suspended whenever it was convenient for those in power to do so. A lot of SNP types would love to ban the walks once and for all. They haven't tried because they know that European Convention on Human Rights makes freedom of assembly an entrenched right that has to be respected by local councils. David Cameron wants to be seen to reduce the influence of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg as a cynical ploy to keep UKIP at bay. Nicola Sturgeon is happy to do anything that drives a wedge constitutionally between Scotland and England, so will use the way it is the ECHR is entrenched into the Scotland Act of 1998 to do the opposite.

[AberdeenBud]

Do you object to traffic congestion caused by any other protest or parade or just loyal order ones? How many times this year as your life been inconveniced by being caught up by huge volumes of traffic caused by them?

Do you not think that the "battles that happened over 300 years ago in another country" had any influence upon the development of "our country"?

^^^ Orangeman found.

[The_Kincardine]

Under the traditional Westminster system there was no written constitution and the sovereignty of the crown in parliament gave a parliamentary majority the power to do pretty much anything it wanted,

This is very bad wording, chap. The delight of 1688's revolution was to give parliament sovereignty over the crown.

You are right in saying that, "a parliamentary majority (has) the power to do pretty much anything it wanted,"

Now I deprecate any attempts to change The Human Rights act for The UK and doubt it will happen. However, I don't see it having an affect on any peaceful celebration of William's glorious revolution.

[LongTimeLurker]

That's the point of the sovereignty of the crown in parliament notion within English legal tradition (Scots law is often said to differ a bit about where sovereignty ultimately lies with the people being claimed to be ultimately sovereign, but it makes little practical difference). The idea is precisely that parliament rather than the monarchy ultimately holds all the power and can do as it pleases in legislative terms with no US style written constitution to firmly entrench individual rights and freedoms as a counterbalance. The UK predates the Enlightenment, so it missed out on that sort of stuff in constitutional terms at least until the ECHR was signed up to and the authority of the court in Strasbourg was recognised. Cameron's desire to go down this route puts him in Jobbik sort of territory.

[ScottR96]

My main objection to these walks is the fact they hold them at stupid o'clock in the morning. Got woken up by them yomping down my street in Stirling at 9am this morning.

[The_Kincardine]

I'll try and have a go at unpacking this

"That's the point of the sovereignty of the crown in parliament notion within English legal tradition (Scots law is often said to differ a bit about where sovereignty ultimately lies with the people being claimed to be ultimately sovereign, but it makes little practical difference). The idea is precisely that parliament rather than the monarchy ultimately holds all the power and can do as it pleases in legislative terms"

The crown/parliament settlement is the same in both countries as we had a unified monarchy in 1603. The guts of the agreement (since 1688) is that parliament hold sway in both countries. You agree with this. You just use the unfortunate phrase, "sovereignty of the crown in parliament" which makes no sense.

can do as it pleases in legislative terms with no US style written constitution to firmly entrench individual rights and freedoms as a counterbalance

This is a fallacy. We haven't, of course, a single written document called, "Britain's Constitution". Nor should we. We do, though have a combination of written law, opinions and precedents which make up our constitution.

Has the whole Magna Carta celebration passed you by?

Britain has a whole series of rights constitutionally enshrined and Parliament bypasses those at its peril.

The UK predates the Enlightenment, so it missed out on that sort of stuff in constitutional terms at least until the ECHR was signed up to and the authority of the court in Strasbourg was recognised.

One delightful thing about The UK is that it informed and enhanced The Enlightenment through our thorough commitment to The Reformation. Especially in Scotland it would be crass to try and separate Enlightenment and Reformed ideals.

Summary? We have a robust constitution. That is a product of our rich history. The ECHR adds to it but it is crass to say 'nothing happened' between 1688 and the British-led initiative to establish the ECHR.

[Bobby Skidmarks]

I'll try and have a go at unpacking this

"That's the point of the sovereignty of the crown in parliament notion within English legal tradition (Scots law is often said to differ a bit about where sovereignty ultimately lies with the people being claimed to be ultimately sovereign, but it makes little practical difference). The idea is precisely that parliament rather than the monarchy ultimately holds all the power and can do as it pleases in legislative terms"

The crown/parliament settlement is the same in both countries as we had a unified monarchy in 1603. The guts of the agreement (since 1688) is that parliament hold sway in both countries. You agree with this. You just use the unfortunate phrase, "sovereignty of the crown in parliament" which makes no sense.

can do as it pleases in legislative terms with no US style written constitution to firmly entrench individual rights and freedoms as a counterbalance

This is a fallacy. We haven't, of course, a single written document called, "Britain's Constitution". Nor should we. We do, though have a combination of written law, opinions and precedents which make up our constitution.

Has the whole Magna Carta celebration passed you by?

Britain has a whole series of rights constitutionally enshrined and Parliament bypasses those at its peril.

The UK predates the Enlightenment, so it missed out on that sort of stuff in constitutional terms at least until the ECHR was signed up to and the authority of the court in Strasbourg was recognised.

One delightful thing about The UK is that it informed and enhanced The Enlightenment through our thorough commitment to The Reformation. Especially in Scotland it would be crass to try and separate Enlightenment and Reformed ideals.

Summary? We have a robust constitution. That is a product of our rich history. The ECHR adds to it but it is crass to say 'nothing happened' between 1688 and the British-led initiative to establish the ECHR.

[Mark Connolly]

[LongTimeLurker]

The Magna Carta, a bit like the literature of Shakespeare and Dickens, is over-rated in terms of its impact in the big scheme of things. Something each generation learns about from the one before and then passes on uncritically to the next out of force of habit as part of the shared set of myths of the nation.

It actually very much makes sense to separate Enlightenment ideas from those of the Reformation given it very much revolved around separating church from state. That is something that has yet to be achieved in the UK and was at the root of the failure to comfortably accommodate the island of Ireland.

[The_Kincardine]

Oh you boys! Wheesht. LTL and I are having a conversation!

[The_Kincardine]

The Magna Carta, a bit like the literature of Shakespeare and Dickens, is over-rated in terms of its impact in the big scheme of things.

That may well be true but it's a document enshrined in our constitution. I simply referenced it since you talked about The US's constitution.

It actually very much makes sense to separate Enlightenment ideas from those of the Reformation given it very much revolved around separating church from state.

You may do so but it would be facile. Martin Luther's idea of 'two states' set the 'separation' ball rolling and rightly so.

[~~~]

[THE KING]

Are there per chance fukwit bigots trying to justify fukwit bigots marching about streets waving banners about killing people of a certain religion on this thread?

[topcat(The most tip top)]

That may well be true but it's a document enshrined in our constitution. I simply referenced it since you talked about The US's constitution.

You may do so but it would be facile. Martin Luther's idea of 'two states' set the 'separation' ball rolling and rightly so.

It makes sense in a purely scottish context but given that the English reformation combined the roles of head of the church and head of state into one office it's not that convincing in a UK context.

You also have the counter examples for the French enlightenment happening despite the failure of the reformation to take hold there

[doulikefish]

No Orange walk in Glasgow this weekend at all.

Ok then,shower of aresholes walking through glasgow,that covers you all

[topcat(The most tip top)]

There's an irony in the parades happening in Scotland on a day when the people of the Republic of Ireland delivered a far louder "f**k you" to the Catholic Church than the Apprentice Boys could dream of.

[The_Kincardine]

It makes sense in a purely scottish context but given that the English reformation combined the roles of head of the church and head of state into one office it's not that convincing in a UK context.

The saving grace of England's reformation (quite a different beast to Scotland's) is that Samuel Rutherford's tract, Lex, Rex ultimately held sway.

That our HoS is also head of England's church is unfortunate and impossible to justify.

You also have the counter examples for the French enlightenment happening despite the failure of the reformation to take hold there

The Enlightenment in France may have produced good food, a few wee books and some nice diatribe but utterly fucked the country up - including pogroms against The Huguenots.

While The Enlightened French were running around killing folk we Scots were producing ground-breaking science, technology and philosophy.

Edited to add: Of course, John Calvin was French.

Edited May 24, 2015 by The_Kincardine

[THE KING]

The saving grace of England's reformation (quite a different beast to Scotland's) is that Samuel Rutherford's tract, Lex, Rex ultimately held sway.

That our HoS is also head of England's church is unfortunate and impossible to justify.

The Enlightenment in France may have produced good food, a few wee books and some nice diatribe but utterly fucked the country up - including pogroms against The Huguenots.

While The Enlightened French were running around killing folk we Scots were producing ground-breaking science, technology and philosophy.

Edited to add: Of course, John Calvin was French.

While we were running aroung the globe slaughtering everyone and stealing their wealth and resources.

[Jacksgranda]

While we were running aroung the globe slaughtering everyone and stealing their wealth and resources.

I think you'll find the Spanish and the Portuguese beat us to it. Not to mention the Vikings

The French, Belgians and Dutch also joined in, as did the Germans. The Italians were a wee bit late to the party, although the Romans had their go a lot earlier than we did.

Since then the Russians, Chinese and Americans have all had a shottie, not to mention most of the African countries taking turns to invade each other.

Although that's probably our fault, too.