The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Here's mine, as far as Scotland is concerned.

1) Either Holyrood will get a vote on aspects of Brexit.

Which aspects require a vote?

Shakethedisease

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Which aspects require a vote?

Anything devolved and/or written into Scottish law.

Brexit will inevitably affect devolved matters, since EU law is embedded in the Scottish legal system. Brexit will also affect the powers of the devolved bodies (mainly to extend them in EU-dominated areas such as agriculture).

So if and when Westminster brings forward legislation implementing Brexit, the Scottish Parliament would be likely to vote on whether to give consent, subject to the Presiding Officer agreeing that the legislation affected devolved areas. There might also be an attempt to trigger Sewel if, as some lawyers believe is necessary, legislation is brought forward at Westminster to authorise the triggering of Article 50 and the commencement of Brexit negotiations.

There is potential for a legal dispute in which Westminster’s right to legislate in this area without consent is challenged by the Scottish Government, and in this case it would fall to the UK Supreme Court to resolve. However, it is generally thought that the wording of the Scotland Act was phrased deliberately to be symbolically important but judicially non-enforceable, though this has not been tested in the courts.

Scotland therefore probably has no formal veto over Brexit, but having to enforce this via the courts would surely not be in the interests of the UK Government. And the judiciary would itself be reluctant to get drawn into such a politicised dispute.

http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/can-scotland-avoid-brexit

https://constitution-unit.com/2016/06/13/removing-references-to-eu-law-from-the-devolution-legislation-would-invoke-the-sewel-convention/

Well it might be getting tested now. Though again, the Tories won't want it to be in case it highlights parts of the Scotland Act 2016 as completely meaningless. Especially after all the fuss and trumpeting about Holyrood being one of the 'most powerful devolved parliaments in the world'. Oops, maybe not then. The same legislation also applies to any changes to human rights, workers rights and the Great Repeal Bill.

having to enforce this via the courts would surely not be in the interests of the UK Government.

A gift to pro-independence support in other words should it mean Westminster does whatever it likes regardless.

Moby

Good points Shakey...........the Govmts legal position is a mess. How can devolved govmt legislation be sacrosanct if such legislation can be contradicted by the Govmts stance on article 50. Invoking article 50 without reference to parliament dismisses the interests of the constituent parts of this United Kingdom? People who believe in the United Kingdom need to think about this.

.string.

Shakey_(relating_to_take_on_Supreme_Court_process wrote:

Here's mine, as far as Scotland is concerned.!

1) Either Holyrood will get a vote on aspects of Brexit.

2) Or, the Scotland Act/Smith Commission/Vow will be proved legally to have been a complete fabrication from start to finish. Westminster can do whatever they want, however and whenever they want as long as they say something falls outwith 'normal' devolved matters.

Ull t e recognise the argument from a remark you made fesome time ago, basically the usual tactic of asking for the Moon and complaining when the Moon is not delivered.

Nothing surprising there.

As I mentioned, I am interested in getting the definitive judgement from the Supreme Court. Whether the Daily Mail et al go bananas was a result or the SNP do a "Daily Mail" is somewhat incidental (and predictable). The judgement will explain, hopefully, the current legal status quo by which we should abide until/unless it changes. The same rigour should also apply to any request/npn request and a y subsequent agreement/non-agreement from the UK Government.

So I'm quite happy that Devolved Governments have become involved so that it can be put to bed. It is not clear to me if the Court will react directly to the sort of points raised by the Devolved Ad administrations but I hope they do for clarity's sake.

Shakey_(relating_to_Sewel) wrote:

Anything devolved and/or written into Scottish law.

The clear debate is about whether laws agreed by the UK Government in fulfilling its competence in external affairs for the UK have in some way become devolved to Scotland.

At present I take the view that they are not devolved and the fact that they have been incorporated into Scottish Law is an acknowledgement of that. Agreeing changes to those laws, whether as a result of changes in EU Laws or Brexit remain a Competence of the UK sting on behalf of all its citizens. Scotland has no competence to agree by itself any changes with the EU

Yes I read a lot, but not all, of Sionaidh Douglas-Scott's stuff (note also this --- https://constitution-unit.com/2016/06/15/brexit-devolution-and-legislative-consent-what-if-the-devolution-statutes-were-left-unchanged-after-brexit/ ) and noted in passing that she is employed by the Scottish Government to advise on Brexit.

I await the definitive result with interest as I'm sure you do and while having an opinion on it am prepared to accept the Court's ruling.

Are you?

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Ull t e recognise the argument from a remark you made fesome time ago, basically the usual tactic of asking for the Moon and complaining when the Moon is not delivered.

Nothing surprising there.

As I mentioned, I am interested in getting the definitive judgement from the Supreme Court. Whether the Daily Mail et al go bananas was a result or the SNP do a "Daily Mail" is somewhat incidental (and predictable). The judgement will explain, hopefully, the current legal status quo by which we should abide until/unless it changes. The same rigour should also apply to any request/npn request and a y subsequent agreement/non-agreement from the UK Government.

So I'm quite happy that Devolved Governments have become involved so that it can be put to bed. It is not clear to me if the Court will react directly to the sort of points raised by the Devolved Ad administrations but I hope they do for clarity's sake.

The clear debate is about whether laws agreed by the UK Government in fulfilling its competence in external affairs for the UK have in some way become devolved to Scotland.

At present I take the view that they are not devolved and the fact that they have been incorporated into Scottish Law is an acknowledgement of that. Agreeing changes to those laws, whether as a result of changes in EU Laws or Brexit remain a Competence of the UK sting on behalf of all its citizens. Scotland has no competence to agree by itself any changes with the EU

Yes I read a lot, but not all, of Sionaidh Douglas-Scott's stuff (note also this --- https://constitution-unit.com/2016/06/15/brexit-devolution-and-legislative-consent-what-if-the-devolution-statutes-were-left-unchanged-after-brexit/ ) and noted in passing that she is employed by the Scottish Government to advise on Brexit.

I await the definitive result with interest as I'm sure you do and while having an opinion on it am prepared to accept the Court's ruling.

Are you?

You're missing the point. The ramifications of this are politically toxic and throws the whole premise of devolution into doubt. Even it seems when pertinent important parts of it are written into Scotland Acts and statute. It isn't so much the verdict, it's what the UK Government is arguing in court just now. That's what's going to garner attention in Scotland.. such as.

PeatWorrier ‏@PeatWorrier 1h1 hour ago Sumption bites: is the UK government suggesting incorporating the Sewel convention into legislation makes no legal difference? Keen: Yes.

Jo Maugham QC ‏@JolyonMaugham 1h1 hour ago
Here's the Government on the devolution settlements: Westminster "Parliament is sovereign and may legislate at any time on any matter."

It's making a mockery of everything since 2014 that led up to the 2016 Scotland Act. The UK Govt are laying it on the line right now in the SC, that putting things into statue in the Scotland Act wasn't in fact worth the paper it was written on.

Shakethedisease

On another note.. from BBC Scotland.

Glenn Campbell ‏@GlennBBC 32m32 minutes ago While EU will negotiate #Brexit with UK govt, I'm told @michelbarnier will be happy to discuss with all interested parties incl @scotgov

Glenn Campbell ‏@GlennBBC 30m30 minutes ago But only once Article 50 has been triggered

Looks like Michel Barnier indicating he'll be happy talking to Scots govt also during Brexit negotiations. We already know Verhofstadt is happy to do so.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You're missing the point. The ramifications of this are politically toxic and throws the whole premise of devolution into doubt. Even it seems when pertinent important parts of it are written into Scotland Acts and statute. It isn't so much the verdict, it's what the UK Government is arguing in court just now. That's what's going to garner attention in Scotland.. such as.


It's making a mockery of everything since 2014 that led up to the 2016 Scotland Act. The UK Govt are laying it on the line right now in the SC, that putting things into statue in the Scotland Act wasn't in fact worth the paper it was written on.

No, Shakey, I don't miss the point you would like to make at all. It is a regular feature of the SNP thought process, and what you write is spin, not fact. The SNP will play their games regardless, lost in their obsession and pet hates.

I am awaiting the objective judgement that I trust the Supreme Court will deliver so that the country can make progress on this Brexit business, one way or another.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

On another note.. from BBC Scotland.


Looks like Michel Barnier indicating he'll be happy talking to Scots govt also during Brexit negotiations. We already know Verhofstadt is happy to do so.

That bit of SNP wishful thinking which you are being fed by the SNP Collective is tantamount to lying designed to fool Scots. You know nothing of the sort.

If it were to be true, you should be able to give a link to where those two gentienen state their willingness to discuss things with the SNP during the negotiation process.

Moto2

Shakethedisease wrote: »

On another note.. from BBC Scotland.


Looks like Michel Barnier indicating he'll be happy talking to Scots govt also during Brexit negotiations. We already know Verhofstadt is happy to do so.

You missed a bit, I'm sure it was just an oversight

Glenn CampbellVerified account
‏@GlennBBC
To be clear: meeting, listening to interested parties does not mean there'll be a separate negotiation - that will only be with UK

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

No, Shakey, I don't miss the point you would like to make at all. It is a regular feature of the SNP thought process, and what you write is spin, not fact. The SNP will play their games regardless, lost in their obsession and pet hates.

I am awaiting the objective judgement that I trust the Supreme Court will deliver so that the country can make progress on this Brexit business, one way or another.

What's with this SNP this and SNP that guff. This is about the Scottish parliament being made permanent and as 'close to federalism as it's possible to get', and all the things that carried on from that.

This SC argument by the UK Advocate makes it clear this wasn't really the case, and deliberately so.

Iain Macwhirter Constitutional bomb lurking in 2016 Scotland Act has just gone off! Sewel has no statutory force/ SP not permanent.


We were promised a "federal" constitutional arrangement, with guarantees for Holyrood enshrined in SA 2016. Breach of trust.

Yes - but point is that this IS how the government really saw SA 16 - not what it told Scotland. Mundell should resign.