renton Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 So Cameron is fixed on abolishing the HRA if he gets a majority next year at Westminster, I'm wondering to what extent the Scottish government and legal establishment have to comply? The HRA was enshrined in Scots law prior to the establishment of the parliament, when, if you wanted Scots Law and English law to do the same thing it was easy - you ran the Scottish office after all. What I'm now wondering is that with law devolved to the Scottish parliament, can Westminster still railroad through what is in effect a fairly large change to the practiced laws? Could Scot Gov simply decide not to comply and keep Scots law as is, with the HRA, or is there a larger precedent here, or some legal mechanism that would allow Westminster to change the law up here itself, without recourse ot the Scottish parliament? Could you then conceivably have a situation where Scotland has the HRA and England and Wales the British Bill of Rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 No idea about Scotland's situation, but it's a cosmetic exercise by Cameron anyway. We'll still be signed up to the European Court of Human Rights, so if any UK court ignores it, its judgements will be subject to an appeal to Strasbourg. The whole point of of the HRA was to avoid this, the hassle and the ignominy of being told how to behave by a bunch of Europeans, never mind the fact that UK lawyers drafted most of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted October 1, 2014 Author Share Posted October 1, 2014 No idea about Scotland's situation, but it's a cosmetic exercise by Cameron anyway. We'll still be signed up to the European Court of Human Rights, so if any UK court ignores it, its judgements will be subject to an appeal to Strasbourg. The whole point of of the HRA was to avoid this, the hassle and the ignominy of being told how to behave by a bunch of Europeans, never mind the fact that UK lawyers drafted most of it. I did like that line in cameron's speech today about the country who came up with Magna carta (England = Britain, oops!) not needing told about human rights - well, aye, That's why UK lawyers wrote the fucking HRA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrontPage Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 We're about as far removed from the Magna Carta in todays legal system as you could possibly be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 The Human Rights Act is, in effect, transposed into the Scotland Act. With the caveat that cross references would have to be tidied up, devolved institutions would continue to be restricted in how they could legislate and what they could do insofar as they must act in compliance with the ECHR. Matters which are reserved would be subject to the conditions of any new Bill of Rights. It poses an interesting obstacle to Cameron trying to do this even if he gets a Westminster majority for it. Since an outright repeal and replacement of the Human Rights Act would have ancillary effects on devolved matters and the structural relationship between the Convention and the Scotland Act, thus the Holyrood Government and Parliaments' powers, they would need to subject it to a legislative consent motion. Constitutionally, though not in strict law, the Scottish Parliament would effectively have a veto over any Bill of Rights should acceptable provision not be made for the devolved institutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 I've got no idea why people seem to think withdrawing from it will somehow be a good thing for people living in the UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEETHING Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 I've got no idea why people seem to think withdrawing from it will somehow be a good thing for people living in the UK But but but CRIMINALS A good test for people who bitch about Human Rights is to ask them which right(s) in particular they object to and why. You very rarely get an answer to that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 But but but straight bananas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 But but but straight bananas. When I was a nipper we never had straight bananas and the world was a better place for it, fruit knew their shape back then and stuck to it. We had little crime back then and most of the serious criminals were good lads, God bless em. Never had any of these peodos either mind. And fewer darkies and Musies. The first time I saw a straight banana I knew the world was going to hell in a handcart. I blame that 'sailor' Ted Heath; mind you that Thatcher could have done more - far too easy going she was, typical bloody woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Insofar as a legitimate debate about the Human Rights Act exists, it's not about the enumerated rights in the Convention but how they are interpreted, by whom, and subject to what overriding democratic limitations. The UK has just about the most accommodating balance there is to strike. Domestic judges are not obliged to follow Strasbourg jurisprudence, merely to take it into account when interpreting the Convention rights, when primary legislation is in violation the Courts can't actually strike it down; just declare it incompatible, and, most critically, our judges *have* been free to distinguish and not to apply logic in Strasbourg rulings where they feel they take insufficient account of the particular conditions, whether democratic or constitutional, in the UK. We are one of the most ECHR compliant countries and the overwhelming majority of UK applications to Strasbourg fail. Even when they did find we had violated the Convention on disproportionately interfering with the right of prisoners to vote, they refused, because of the sensitive nature of the subject and out of deference to the national legislature, to make compensation orders to prisoners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Could be wrong, but I think we'll join the citizens of Belarus in being the only people in Europe who can't take our Government to task if they breach our human rights, if Cameron has his way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Could be wrong, but I think we'll join the citizens of Belarus in being the only people in Europe who can't take our Government to task if they breach our human rights, if Cameron has his way. I've heard some people saying this won't apply as the UK Gov can't opt out Scotland, only England. anyone confirm this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banterous Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 No idea about Scotland's situation, but it's a cosmetic exercise by Cameron anyway. We'll still be signed up to the European Court of Human Rights, so if any UK court ignores it, its judgements will be subject to an appeal to Strasbourg. The whole point of of the HRA was to avoid this, the hassle and the ignominy of being told how to behave by a bunch of Europeans, never mind the fact that UK lawyers drafted most of it. Spot on. Cameron's so pro Europe he might as well buy himself a house in Lower Saxony. Just more political posturing from the PR king who won't be there anymore anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I've heard some people saying this won't apply as the UK Gov can't opt out Scotland, only England. anyone confirm this? Chat on radio Scotland was that we might be able to veto as charter embedded in devolution settlement. Had to get out the car then though so missed end of report. Probably something on BBC website Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Spot on. Cameron's so pro Europe he might as well buy himself a house in Lower Saxony. Just more political posturing from the PR king I relented and decided to release you from your solitary confinement for a mo, and read your post. So you're a UKIP boy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banterous Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I relented and decided to release you from your solitary confinement for a mo, and read your post. So you're a UKIP boy? Much as I find Nigel Farage likeable in a sit com character way, I wouldn't vote for his party. I'm apolitical but I really despise politicians who whip up hostility like Salmond has. In terms of HR charters, Cameron is playing a game and posturing in the same way he did with the Junker appointment. Cameron is intelligent but useless. I do support immigration controls and extradition reform. People who commit crime here should go through their original country's criminal prosecution service. However, people who come here, irrespective of politics should be free from harassment and should be treated as respectfully as UK citizens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 A crime here may not be a crime in their "original" country or the punishment may not be deemed as severe. Also, I don't believe any nation has an obligation to imprison one of its citizens for potential crimes committed in foreign soil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 The humorous part here is this: 1) Cameron is pro-EU, and knows exactly how pointless this all is; 2) Paying lots of well-qualified civil servants a fortune to pick holes in the HRA is incredibly wasteful and expensive; 3) Even if they get this bullshit through, it won't prevent most of the OMG Abu Hamza stories and 4) They almost certainly won't get this bullshit through, because they're not going to win an outright majority at the next election. So, to translate that - the Tories have spent a fucking fortune on a policy that they know won't work, and that they know they won't be able to carry through, because they're scared of UKIP. Democracy, ladies and gentlemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 The humorous part here is this: 1) Cameron is pro-EU, and knows exactly how pointless this all is; 2) Paying lots of well-qualified civil servants a fortune to pick holes in the HRA is incredibly wasteful and expensive; 3) Even if they get this bullshit through, it won't prevent most of the OMG Abu Hamza stories and 4) They almost certainly won't get this bullshit through, because they're not going to win an outright majority at the next election. So, to translate that - the Tories have spent a fucking fortune on a policy that they know won't work, and that they know they won't be able to carry through, because they're scared of UKIP. Democracy, ladies and gentlemen. I agree with you apart from 1). What makes you think Cameron is pro-EU? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I agree with you apart from 1). What makes you think Cameron is pro-EU? By comparison with the rest of his party, not with anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.