H_B Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Probably taken advice from Guys like you H_B. You call it a lie maybe others would call it a U-Turn. Do you not think it is a good thing if a politician changes something that is, (or maybe), wrong to something that is right (or at least less wrong)? They claimed they had legal advice at the start that supported their previous position. Nicola Sturgeon also, only in 2013, mounted a cheerleading campaign in support of David Scheffer's nonsense, which was in line with their previous claims. They refused to reveal whether they had sought legal advice. They have never published any legal advice which supported either their previous position, or the current one. They called the UK government's advice "arrogant and colonial". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 "It is paradoxical that the process that is favoured in the White Paper is the one that seems to give the Scottish Government the least control... Straightforwardly I don't think it's plausible." Prof Kenneth Armstrong on using Art 48 to amend the Treaty instead of a fresh application under Art 49. Another point he made was that there is a significant risk of "issue linkage" between ensuring Scottish membership of the EU and the re-opening of the UK's relationship with the EU in the event that an Art 48 situation was invoked. At the very least, that risks bringing about a longer timescale for negotiation rather than a shorter one with a fresh Art 49 application. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 The question is one of credibility and trust. And in some ways embodied by the NCC here, who blindly believe any sort of crap the SNP feeds them. The SNP have lied to people on Europe. I've said this for years, and now everyone knows this. What you are asking us now to accept is that well yes they lied before, but now they are telling the truth (and as I've said they actually aren't - they are still wrong, just less wrong). Why would we believe what's in the White Paper (which has no Appendix showing who provided the legal advice that underpins their claims) when it contradicts completely their previous claims on the subject, which they also claimed were underpinned by legal advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 The question is one of credibility and trust. And in some ways embodied by the NCC here, who blindly believe any sort of crap the SNP feeds them. The SNP have lied to people on Europe. I've said this for years, and now everyone knows this. What you are asking us now to accept is that well yes they lied before, but now they are telling the truth (and as I've said they actually aren't - they are still wrong, just less wrong). Why would we believe what's in the White Paper (which has no Appendix showing who provided the legal advice that underpins their claims) when it contradicts completely their previous claims on the subject, which they also claimed were underpinned by legal advice. you have been proved wrong on this claim countless time, amd you stil keep repeting it! saying it over and over again doesnt make it true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 And in terms of credibility here, they have been completely owned by the UK government, that played them like a fiddle here. The SNP have conducted their campaign through the media, and through unverified claims about legal advice they have which definitely agrees with their views, but which they don't seem willing to share with any Scots voters. You OK with that though? You don't find that odd? You have this legal advice that proves you are correct, but you are keeping it to yourselves. The UK government on the other hand published their legal advice (from the top of the tree and from a neutral source) which states publicly the already accepted legal consensus amongst scholars, and compleltely blows out of the water the nonsense the SNP has been feeding people. The SNP response to this? Label it arrogant and colonial, and restate (again without evidence and without publishing anything which contradicts the UK government's legal advice) a contrary position. You aren't stupid. Why do you think they have failed completely to either a) source independent legal advice on this subject and b) publish the advice they have had? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 They claimed they had legal advice at the start that supported their previous position. Nicola Sturgeon also, only in 2013, mounted a cheerleading campaign in support of David Scheffer's nonsense, which was in line with their previous claims. They refused to reveal whether they had sought legal advice. They have never published any legal advice which supported either their previous position, or the current one. They called the UK government's advice "arrogant and colonial". Governments are under no obligation to reveal any legal advice and indeed the tradition is not to. As well you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 The question is one of credibility and trust. ...says the incredibly untrustworthy H_B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Governments are under no obligation to reveal any legal advice and indeed the tradition is not to. As well you know. Where there is a public interest in publication, they should. The UK Government did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 15, 2014 Author Share Posted January 15, 2014 Where there is a public interest in publication, they should. The UK Government did. Are you suggesting the WG does this in all cases, or just the cases that suit them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Where there is a public interest in publication, they should. The UK Government did. They don't. How many hundreds of legal opinions has the govt. not revealed since? It wasn't public interest, it was the governments interest that led them to publish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 15, 2014 Author Share Posted January 15, 2014 And in terms of credibility here, they have been completely owned by the UK government, that played them like a fiddle here. The SNP have conducted their campaign through the media, and through unverified claims about legal advice they have which definitely agrees with their views, but which they don't seem willing to share with any Scots voters. You OK with that though? You don't find that odd? You have this legal advice that proves you are correct, but you are keeping it to yourselves. The UK government on the other hand published their legal advice (from the top of the tree and from a neutral source) which states publicly the already accepted legal consensus amongst scholars, and compleltely blows out of the water the nonsense the SNP has been feeding people. The SNP response to this? Label it arrogant and colonial, and restate (again without evidence and without publishing anything which contradicts the UK government's legal advice) a contrary position. You aren't stupid. Why do you think they have failed completely to either a) source independent legal advice on this subject and b) publish the advice they have had? I am guessing that something along the lines of this happened; They based their original case on legal advice given. It was brought to their attention from the detail guys, like you & Ad Lib, that there original opinion may be flawed. They revisited the case & got some new legal advice. They changed their minds. It happens all the time, folk discover, on the balance of probabilities, they may be wrong about something & change their minds - we all live & learn. FWIW, I am much more interested in the conclusion rather than the process, everybody believes that the EU "issue" will be sorted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 I am guessing that something along the lines of this happened; They based their original case on legal advice given. It was brought to their attention from the detail guys, like you & Ad Lib, that there original opinion may be flawed. They revisited the case & got some new legal advice. They changed their minds. It happens all the time, folk discover, on the balance of probabilities, they may be wrong about something & change their minds - we all live & learn. FWIW, I am much more interested in the conclusion rather than the process, everybody believes that the EU "issue" will be sorted. Anyone who gave them legal advice in support of their original supposition would have been, frankly, professionally negligent. In the interests of transparency, that should have been published or the individuals in question fired and (if appropriate) had their Law Society or Faculty of Advocates credentials reviewed. The truth is there was no legal advice. They made it up, based on snippets of bits of multiple journals and utterances of people who happened to have law degrees. They admitted as such when Sturgeon said so in Parliament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 15, 2014 Author Share Posted January 15, 2014 Anyone who gave them legal advice in support of their original supposition would have been, frankly, professionally negligent. In the interests of transparency, that should have been published or the individuals in question fired and (if appropriate) had their Law Society or Faculty of Advocates credentials reviewed. The truth is there was no legal advice. They made it up, based on snippets of bits of multiple journals and utterances of people who happened to have law degrees. They admitted as such when Sturgeon said so in Parliament. OK, do you think they have had legal advice now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 OK, do you think they have had legal advice now? No. That's my point. If they had, it would have been professionally negligent. That they haven't sought to reprimand through the professional bodies any individual in connection with the provision of erroneous advice, it rather suggests they didn't have any. ETA: to clarify, I misread this as "do you now think" not "do you think.... now". I do believe they now have legal advice. Because the White Paper basically admits they were wrong before, but insists that everyone will play ball to change the rules for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyBamboo Posted January 15, 2014 Author Share Posted January 15, 2014 No. That's my point. If they had, it would have been professionally negligent. That they haven't sought to reprimand through the professional bodies any individual in connection with the provision of erroneous advice, it rather suggests they didn't have any. So you think they are "winging it" in the White Paper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 No. That's my point. If they had, it would have been professionally negligent. That they haven't sought to reprimand through the professional bodies any individual in connection with the provision of erroneous advice, it rather suggests they didn't have any. And does the UK government seek to reprimand individuals via professional bodies or are you making this complete rubbish up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 The truth is there was no legal advice. The truth is that there is no evidence for this "fact" only opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 So you think they are "winging it" in the White Paper? No, I think they've conceded the point in the White Paper and have suggested an alternative that is of no use to them whatsoever as it entails the same basic hurdles. And does the UK government seek to reprimand individuals via professional bodies or are you making this complete rubbish up? I know of no case where someone has provided Her Majesty's Government such reckless and unfounded legal opinion. The truth is that there is no evidence for this "fact" only opinion. Nicola Sturgeon admitted it in the Scottish Parliament! Just weeks after Alex Salmond claimed to Andrew Neil that there was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiddy Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 I know of no case where someone has provided Her Majesty's Government such reckless and unfounded legal opinion.Me too, I raq'd my brains but couldn't find one either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamaldo Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 No, I think they've conceded the point in the White Paper and have suggested an alternative that is of no use to them whatsoever as it entails the same basic hurdles. I know of no case where someone has provided Her Majesty's Government such reckless and unfounded legal opinion. Nicola Sturgeon admitted it in the Scottish Parliament! Just weeks after Alex Salmond claimed to Andrew Neil that there was. Post the video, I want to see this myself. Exact minutes, and her EXPLICITLY saying what you're claiming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.