MIA PUTS FUEL ON THE FIRE OF THE SUPREME COURT FARCE!

MIA comments on the Ewan Kennedy article published earlier this morning.

This is a very interesting article that, in my view, hints beautifully at the conflict between the Treaty of Union and the Supreme Court and also at the conflict created by cases where ruling from the HoL appears fairer than the ruling from our own courts in Scotland, giving this breach of one of the fundamental conditions of the treaty, a veneer of pretend legitimacy.

With regards to the situation of the referendum bill, I humbly ask:
how can the position of Holyrood having sufficient power to pass that bill and call that referendum can possibly be represented fairly and convincingly when it seems the individual tasked with doing so either does not believe it herself or does not want it to happen?

If the Lady Advocate actually believed the position she is pretending to defend, the bill would have been brought and passed in Holyrood already. In other words, it appears what we have here is not a real court case, but rather an exercise in managing expectations. Or putting it more plainly, a stalling exercise. 

The treaty of Union is clear: A “Westminster Hall” court cannot overrule the highest court in Scotland. So, I ask: Is this the reason why this was sent directly to the English court, instead of to the Scottish courts, which would be the logical thing to do? 

Was the objective on such move to give free rein to this English court to trash the bill without risking another breach of the Treaty of Union at a time when far too many eyes in Scotland and beyond are already watching like hawks their every move and waiting for an excuse to declare the treaty of union void?

Love or hate Sturgeon and her SNP government, the truth is they represent the democratically elected government of Scotland. Given the majority of pro-indy seats in Holyrood, it is not difficult to guess that if they were to bring that bill to Holyrood, it would have passed. 

So why didn’t they bring the bill forward?

Let’s look back at the case of the Continuity Bill. The English court trashed it under the principle of “parliamentary sovereignty”, and only because the tory executive rushed through a bill to rewrite law and then applying it retrospectively.

But there is not such a bill just now in parliament regarding forbidding Holyrood to hold that referendum, is there? What we have is a constant denial but from the UK gov (the executive power), not parliament (the legislative power). If I am not mistaken, the Supreme court is not dictated by the executive power, but by what the legislative body has put in law.

And let’s face it, how can England MPs convincingly pass such bill in Westminster without causing a massive uproar in Scotland leading to even more demands for the immediate end of the treaty of union? It would be a pyrrhic victory.

If they felt they could, they would have already done so ages ago. I mean, is not like Sturgeon has not given them plenty of time to pass this through.

In other words, if there is not a bill/statute that has been passed by Westminster specifically removing from Holyrood the power to pass that referendum bill, the Supreme Court cannot use its favourite “one tool for all” parliamentary sovereignty to trash the referendum bill.

So what could be the best solution to this conundrum until some other statute/bill can be thought of?

Well, managing the expectations of the Scottish voters by stopping the Referendum bill even reaching Holyrood would be an option. We have the precedent of Martin Keating’s case, so one can guess what their response will be.

Now, if you are a clever politician and you are prepared to be seen as an undemocratic ruler who happily blurs the boundaries between the executive and judiciary powers by willingly opening the door to an unelected representative of the crown to your government cabinet, then you at least ensure such individual is on your side. 

There is nothing to suggest Ms Sturgeon is not a very clever lady. I am sure she is, far more than the average person. So if, and I mean if, this is the strategy that has been followed, one only can conclude she is perfectly on board with it.

A Supreme Court, constrained by a pro-union crown and parliament and who hides behind “parliamentary sovereignty” any time that something needs to be swiftly brushed under the carpet, will only rule in favour of Holyrood if the alternative is far worse. And what could possibly be worse than Holyrood passing that bill and Scotland holding that referendum?

I can think in two things:

1. Scotland bypassing all the bullshit from Westminster and its self-awarded parliamentary sovereignty, and exercising its legitimate right to unilaterally repeal the treaty of Union and Act of Union with England. It is no secret that the patience of the Scottish people is wearing off and demands to bypass Sturgeon’s “gold standard” and directly terminate the treaty are increasing. 

2. The re-emerging of the Convention of States from its own ashes to reclaim its right to issue another Claim of Right and remove the Crown of Scotland from a monarch who may have abused their position of power to exercise absolute rule over Scotland. 

Now the caveat here is what you understand as “absolute rule”. How many people in Scotland see giving royal assent to bills passed by the England as the UK parliament when an absolute majority of Scotland’s MPs opposed and when the majority of Holyrood has also explicitly opposed as absolute rule, matters here. It also matters how popular a particular monarch might be and how much the people of Scotland is prepared to forget and forgive.

Equally important is how many people see deliberately stopping a bill entering Holyrood by the direct intervention of the unelected Head of the COPFS (representing the crown) and by a bunch of England judges (also representing the crown) as an attempt to frustrate democracy by exercising abuse of power to impose absolute rule. Denying Scotland its legitimate right to unilaterally terminate the union is akin to imposing absolute rule.

SALVO is up and running and heading towards the reinstating of such convention.

One thing is clear: the ruling of that English court will not be determined by the establishment’s fear that Sturgeon will ever deliver independence through that referendum. It will be determined by the fear the establishment has that the people of Scotland might have already found an alternative route to independence that does no longer include a referendum the establishment can manipulate. 

I am a cynic and totally convinced that this crazy management of expectations we have been subjected to for the last 8 years is because there might be already an agreement behind closed doors to move the UK towards some kind of federalism with Scotland getting FFA or something like that. I am of the opinion the stalling exercise might be because they are still trying to find a way, that is acceptable to either the majority of a large minority, to present what would be a cosmic stitch up by Sturgeon’s SNP as “the will of the people”.

At what point of the game “Act of Union Bill [HL] (originated 2019-19)” or something of the sort enters the scene, remains to be seen.

MY COMMENTS

MIA sets out an argument about how we have reached the point where England’s Supreme Court can rule on Scotland’s constitutional future without it first being ruled on by Scotland’s highest court, The Court of Session. Worryingly and I think correctly she suggests it is political trickery devised by rogues to escape proper scrutiny and responsibility and to avoid a true showdown with Westminster. To put it in fewer words…cowardice!

I am, as always.

Yours for Scotland.

BEAT THE CENSORS

Unfortunately some sites, which claim to be pro INDY are not as they appear but secretly filter out any comment that is not 100% supportive of the SNP and their leader. This has got worse in recent times and most bloggers are completely banned from these pages. We rely on our readers to combat this blatant censorship and I am extremely grateful when readers share our articles and ensure others have the opportunity to discuss all topics freely and without censorship.

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Another way to avoid censorship is to take out a free subscription to this site which are available on the Home and Blog pages of this website. This ensures you are the first to get new articles sent to you directly by email each day. 

SALVO

One of the most exciting steps forward during 2022 has been the work of Salvo which is very much driving our cause when most of the politicians have been disappointing. They require funding. I don’t. So the donate button on this site which allows small donations of only £3 will now send all funds raised on to Salvo to help them continue and expand the great work they are doing.

LIBERATION.SCOT

If you have not already done so please sign up to Liberation.Scot. It will be from that body that people will be able to apply to become members of the first Scottish National Congress which is currently being organised and which will be launched early in 2023. The SNC will debate and organise Scotland’s case to DECOLONISE our country.