Burma Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Parliament is not the people. Parliament is Parliament. It is a legislature which passes laws applicable throughout the land with greater prospective authority than any other source of law. The Parliament of Scotland in 1689 was no more "the people" than the Parliament of England in 1689 was "the people". Both had elements of a) territorial representation of Burghs and Counties b) representation of the nobility and c) representation of ecclesiastical office-bearers. As I stated before the term "of the people" was an oversimplified one in the context of the day. As for your assertion that Parliament is not made up of the people of the country, well thats just laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 As I stated before the term "of the people" was an oversimplified one in the context of the day. As for your assertion that Parliament is not made up of the people of the country, well thats just laughable. No. You're not getting out of this one that easily. Explain why "of the people" is "an oversimplified" (rather than just a "wrong") phrase in the Scottish context, but not in the English one. Parliament isn't made up of "the people". This isn't fucking Athens. Parliament, in Scotland, in England and now in the UK is made up of territorial representatives of whoever happened to be enfranchised among the people, certain members of the nobility, and ex-officio officers of, at various points, the established churches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 As I stated before the term "of the people" was an oversimplified one in the context of the day. lolwut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Will be avoiding this thread tonight. It"s started again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Will be avoiding this thread tonight. It"s started again I'm holding the thread hostage and my demands are simple. Burma makes a humiliating climbdown about claiming either as a matter of national or international law, the Scottish people rather than the Westminster Parliament, is sovereign. You can choose to pressurise Burma as a community to reclaim your thread, or I keep asking if Lord Hope is right. I am a legal jihadist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 No. You're not getting out of this one that easily. Explain why "of the people" is "an oversimplified" (rather than just a "wrong") phrase in the Scottish context, but not in the English one. Parliament isn't made up of "the people". This isn't fucking Athens. Parliament, in Scotland, in England and now in the UK is made up of territorial representatives of whoever happened to be enfranchised among the people, certain members of the nobility, and ex-officio officers of, at various points, the established churches. I have never made any comparison between the Scottish "context" and the English one. You are the only one attempting to create an opinion that I have never made. It is oversimplified because due to the process of representation. This, however, does not invalidate its current status as a key instrument in Scottish constitutional affairs. And as you are fully aware the democratic process of representation today allows (with almost no limitation) any of Scotlands citizens (or THE PEOPLE) to stand for election as a representative of the designated populace (THE PEOPLE) in that specific area. Therefore the people get to choose which members of the people will represent the people and administer governance to the people. Yawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 I'm holding the thread hostage and my demands are simple. Burma makes a humiliating climbdown about claiming either as a matter of national or international law, the Scottish people rather than the Westminster Parliament, is sovereign. You can choose to pressurise Burma as a community to reclaim your thread, or I keep asking if Lord Hope is right. I am a legal jihadist. Aye right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Aye right. So, just to be clear here. Are you advancing the reversionary position with regards to Scottish secession. A position that has been thoroughly laughed at by numerous legal scholars in the field? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 So, just to be clear here. Are you advancing the reversionary position with regards to Scottish secession. A position that has been thoroughly laughed at by numerous legal scholars in the field? My post was a mocking of your colleagues vanity. Just to be clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 My post was a mocking of your colleagues vanity. Just to be clear. That's not clear. Either you are or are not proposing that on secession the Kingdom of Scotland would jump back into life as was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 That's not clear. Either you are or are not proposing that on secession the Kingdom of Scotland would jump back into life as was. ah so its "random question" time. I am not, nor have I proposed either of those things in the event of Independence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Uh huh. So you accept then that, as Professor Boyle stated, Scotland was extinguished in 1707? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wingsoverperthshire Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Uh huh. So you accept then that, as Professor Boyle stated, Scotland was extinguished in 1707? Are you suggesting this is true ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Uh huh. So you accept then that, as Professor Boyle stated, Scotland was extinguished in 1707? Having never read Professor Boyle I am unable to comnent. I do, however, accept the current Official Westminster Government policy on the existence of Scotland as a country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Are you suggesting this is true ? Yes, I am. Because it is true. Scxotland doesn't exist in terms of International Law. It has been extinguished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 I have never made any comparison between the Scottish "context" and the English one. You are the only one attempting to create an opinion that I have never made. Yes you have made the comparison. You have cited MacCormick v Lord Advocate in support of the position in Scotland being different from the position in England. It is oversimplified because due to the process of representation. This, however, does not invalidate its current status as a key instrument in Scottish constitutional affairs. No one is denying the importance of the Claim of Right Act 1689 to the importance of constitutional affairs as they concern Scotland. I'm simply pointing out to you that the Claim of Right Act provides no legal basis and re-enforces no legal authority for the notion of "sovereignty of the people" as set against the sovereignty of Parliament. The position is no different from that accepted in England post the Bill of Rights of the same year. Unless you are saying that the English Parliament was also not sovereign, because "uh the franchise was small but they were the people really" we are done here. And as you are fully aware the democratic process of representation today allows (with almost no limitation) any of Scotlands citizens (or THE PEOPLE) to stand for election as a representative of the designated populace (THE PEOPLE) in that specific area. Therefore the people get to choose which members of the people will represent the people and administer governance to the people. There's no such thing as a Scottish citizen. Citizenship is conferred by states. Scotland isn't a state. Note also that literally everything you say about "ra peepul" applies no less to the inhabitants of England and Wales (or Northern Ireland) than of Scotland. The mere fact of democratic representation does not mean that sovereignty vests in the demos rather than their legislature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Having never read Professor Boyle I am unable to comnent. Perhaps I can help you :- "For the purpose of this advice, it is not necessary to decide between these two views of the union of 1707. Whether or not England was also extinguished by the union, Scotland certainly was extinguished as a matter of international law, by merger either into an enlarged and renamed England or into an entirely new state " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Yes, I am. Because it is true. Scotland doesn't exist in terms of International Law. It has been extinguished. Quite. Only the reversionary theory of Scottish independence makes constitutional law remotely relevant to the international legal personality of Scotland. Unless Burma is suggesting that the old Kingdom of Scotland would be restored, his being incorrect about what, as a matter of domestic constitutional law, the Claim of Right Act 1689 says is ultimately wholly irrelevant to the question whether Scotland is sovereign as a matter of international law. Never mind of course that the consequences of claiming Scotland was internationally sovereign would see any and all Treaties entered into by the United Kingdom since 1707 wholly disapplied, thus being of no avail whatsoever to anyone trying to claim that EU membership would be automatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Quite. Only the reversionary theory of Scottish independence makes constitutional law remotely relevant to the international legal personality of Scotland. Unless Burma is suggesting that the old Kingdom of Scotland would be restored, his being incorrect about what, as a matter of domestic constitutional law, the Claim of Right Act 1689 says is ultimately wholly irrelevant to the question whether Scotland is sovereign as a matter of international law. Never mind of course that the consequences of claiming Scotland was internationally sovereign would see any and all Treaties entered into by the United Kingdom since 1707 wholly disapplied, thus being of no avail whatsoever to anyone trying to claim that EU membership would be automatic. Quite. Hence why his frantic backpeddling from this position is all the more baffling. The only possible purpose to his cut-and-paste job was to cheerlead for the reversionary theory. Although that is wrong, at least it is a theory. I have absolutely no idea what his witterings relate to now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wingsoverperthshire Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Yes, I am. Because it is true. Scxotland doesn't exist in terms of International Law. It has been extinguished. Then you're a fucking idiot and it shows how absolutely wrong international law is. I'm with Burma on this and I'm sure Aung san suu kyi would be backing home rule for Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.