Big Boris, Our Prime Minister

[theknickerwetter 157]

18 minutes ago, jaybee said:

So, let get this right, the opposition party have to seize control of Parliament (even though it isn't currently sitting) and revoke article 50 ...................... which is to say ignore the will of the people in a vote that was intended to be democratic and decisive ...........................unless of course it doesn't suit your viewpoint.  A load of charlatans in the house sitting collecting in the region of £80,000 plus for doing the opposite of what they have been mandated to do, or as Shull would say lying cheating thieving barstuards.

I was brought up to believe judges were impartial but these ones seem politically motivated . I never voted for them or the European Commision. Ministers have to hand their phones in by 11pm tonite

[TPAFKATS 8,294]

I was brought up to believe judges were impartial but these ones seem politically motivated . I never voted for them or the European Commision. Ministers have to hand their phones in by 11pm tonite

Judges have made a judgement under scots law. You might not agree but it's not political.
The amount of rage from brexiters, including politicians, because a legal judgement went against the government is both ludicrous and also quite worrying.
The judges decision isn't about brexit, it's about proroging parliament.

Accusing them of being political and questioning their impartiality is quite deluded.

[TPAFKATS 8,294]

How does that work, TPAFKSTS? My understanding is that the vast majority of the judges forming the Court are non-Scots Law judges - 10 v 2 iirc.

It was a flippant comment in regards to BOK suggesting England would decide.
The judgement has been made under scots law and the supreme court will now hear. I think it's 9 judges with 2 Scots law?

[beyond our ken 3,532]

2 hours ago, theknickerwetter said:

Your opinions again , l disagree. You seem to dip into attempts at insults when l dont agree with you Bud. Anyone can get a link . Ruth Davidson ffs nearly as bad as the one who sold the shirt

wow!  You think other people engage in insults and say so as if it's a bad thing?

Ya wee Trump-ette

[Cornwall_Saint 4,024]

4 hours ago, stlucifer said:

The DUP's "usefulness" was past its sell by date as soon as BJ was elected and decide to alienate more than 20 of his own MPs.

They won’t care, they got their £1bn bung from May. The NI parties are generally powerless anyway, this is as good as it was going to get for any of them and the DUP came out brilliantly from it.

[jaybee 1,673]

2 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

2 hours ago, theknickerwetter said:

I was brought up to believe judges were impartial but these ones seem politically motivated . I never voted for them or the European Commision. Ministers have to hand their phones in by 11pm tonite

Judges have made a judgement under scots law. You might not agree but it's not political.
The amount of rage from brexiters, including politicians, because a legal judgement went against the government is both ludicrous and also quite worrying.
The judges decision isn't about brexit, it's about proroging parliament.

Accusing them of being political and questioning their impartiality is quite deluded.

Really, seriously? as a nasty wee yank git used tae say.................. you cannot be serious.

[St.Ricky 8,253]

6 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

7 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

It was a flippant comment in regards to BOK suggesting England would decide.
The judgement has been made under scots law and the supreme court will now hear. I think it's 9 judges with 2 Scots law?

Wait a minute, if the Scots one is held under Scots Law and the English one is held under English law, couldn't that result in both decisions being upheld by the Supreme Court? Where the feck would that leave things?

As far as I understand it, the Supreme Court is what it says it is, Supreme. Cases have been held now in England and in Scotland with courts which can only be superceded by the Supreme Court. In England, the case has reached there since those bringing the case have appealed the "no" decision and in Scotland as the judges here granted an appeal but recognised that this was likely to be appealed against so referred the matter to the supreme Court. Doing this made things happen more quickly.. Next week

[salmonbuddie 3,201]

It was a flippant comment in regards to BOK suggesting England would decide.
The judgement has been made under scots law and the supreme court will now hear. I think it's 9 judges with 2 Scots law?

9 English law judges, 2 Scots law judges & 1 NI law judge I think, hence 10 v 2.

You'd have to question the competency of those 10 to comment on Scots law.

[Bud the Baker 8,042]

12 hours ago, theknickerwetter said:

Your opinions again , l disagree. You seem to dip into attempts at insults when l dont agree with you Bud. Anyone can get a link . Ruth Davidson ffs nearly as bad as the one who sold the shirt

….and if the links come from reputable sources like mine have they're called facts! 

As for insults - pots & kettles. 

Going back to Ruth Davidson, you asked the question - just another deflection because you can't handle the answer

[theknickerwetter 157]

46 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

….and if the links come from reputable sources like mine have they're called facts! 

As for insults - pots & kettles. 

Going back to Ruth Davidson, you asked the question - just another deflection because you can't handle the answer

Again , your opinions,  and again l disagree . For the record   whatever R Davidson said was irrelevant or as you say,  a distraction (sic) 

[theknickerwetter 157]

11 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

Judges have made a judgement under scots law. You might not agree but it's not political.
The amount of rage from brexiters, including politicians, because a legal judgement went against the government is both ludicrous and also quite worrying.
The judges decision isn't about brexit, it's about proroging parliament.

Accusing them of being political and questioning their impartiality is quite deluded.

Lol, deluded.  That's your opinion,  in my opinion you Buddie are naive and should remove thy tinfoil hat .

Put the boot on the other foot for a minute and imagine that in 2014 52% of Scots had voted Yes and then 3 yrs later nothing had happened , we were still in the union and people were talking about revoking the Edinburgh agreement , and that England are our biggest trading partner and we shouldn't leave anyway bla, bla , remoan,  remoan

[beyond our ken 3,532]

3 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:

9 English law judges, 2 Scots law judges & 1 NI law judge I think, hence 10 v 2.

You'd have to question the competency of those 10 to comment on Scots law.

You don't have to, the judges are all highly experienced and knowledgeable people who have had exposure to all of the jurisdictions of the UK.  I know Barristers who have been trained in Scotland and are based here who not only defend cases but prosecute on behalf of governmental institutions in courts right across the UK.  Scots law has it's own procedures and quirks, however these don't make Scots law a completely unique entity in the context of the UK

The key issue is, judgements made under UK law in the supreme court are held to be influential over the scottish courts.  Not necessarily binding, but if a court in Scotland fails to follow a precedent set in the supreme court then the trail goes back to the SC so there is a well-worn path that keeps all involved following the same principles 

[beyond our ken 3,532]

1 hour ago, theknickerwetter said:

Lol, deluded.  That's your opinion,  in my opinion you Buddie are naive and should remove thy tinfoil hat .

Put the boot on the other foot for a minute and imagine that in 2014 52% of Scots had voted Yes and then 3 yrs later nothing had happened , we were still in the union and people were talking about revoking the Edinburgh agreement , and that England are our biggest trading partner and we shouldn't leave anyway bla, bla , remoan,  remoan

Fashion note

the wearing of a tin foil hat is usually reserved for a conspiracy theorist and not for a person who is debunking a conspiracy theory 

[salmonbuddie 3,201]

1 hour ago, beyond our ken said:

You don't have to, the judges are all highly experienced and knowledgeable people who have had exposure to all of the jurisdictions of the UK.  I know Barristers who have been trained in Scotland and are based here who not only defend cases but prosecute on behalf of governmental institutions in courts right across the UK.  Scots law has it's own procedures and quirks, however these don't make Scots law a completely unique entity in the context of the UK

The key issue is, judgements made under UK law in the supreme court are held to be influential over the scottish courts.  Not necessarily binding, but if a court in Scotland fails to follow a precedent set in the supreme court then the trail goes back to the SC so there is a well-worn path that keeps all involved following the same principles 

They don't make Scots law a completely unique entity in the context of the rest of the world, either, though, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, bok.   There's no such entity as 'UK law', either.

I think it will be 'interesting' to see how this is handled. Iirc the individual judges findings are made public so irrespective of whether or not they're actually competent, I suspect there will be 'outrage' if the two Scots law judges uphold the decision of the High Court and a majority of publically perceived non-competent judges outvotes them and overturns it. 

[beyond our ken 3,532]

21 minutes ago, salmonbuddie said:

They don't make Scots law a completely unique entity in the context of the rest of the world, either, though, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, bok.   There's no such entity as 'UK law', either.

I think it will be 'interesting' to see how this is handled. Iirc the individual judges findings are made public so irrespective of whether or not they're actually competent, I suspect there will be 'outrage' if the two Scots law judges uphold the decision of the High Court and a majority of publically perceived non-competent judges outvotes them and overturns it. 

What I am saying is that all of the UK supreme court judges will be highly aware and competent in their scrutiny of a judgement made under Scots law.  It happens in so many walks of life already and no-one is crying about other appeals that have gone from Edinburgh to London.

Those bringing the case say it is not about Brexit, it is about the abuse of power and what is really highlighted is the absence of a reliable user manual for the governance of the UK.

There will be no grounds for outrage and i say that as an independence-leaning Scot.  If people choose to use a decision that is made in the UK supreme court as evidence that Scotland's voice is never heard then I am afraid that will be a set-back for independence.  There is a strong enough positive case for independence and there is no need to resort to faux-outrage as a way of forwarding the cause.

 

[salmonbuddie 3,201]

8 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

What I am saying is that all of the UK supreme court judges will be highly aware and competent in their scrutiny of a judgement made under Scots law.  It happens in so many walks of life already and no-one is crying about other appeals that have gone from Edinburgh to London.

Those bringing the case say it is not about Brexit, it is about the abuse of power and what is really highlighted is the absence of a reliable user manual for the governance of the UK.

There will be no grounds for outrage and i say that as an independence-leaning Scot.  If people choose to use a decision that is made in the UK supreme court as evidence that Scotland's voice is never heard then I am afraid that will be a set-back for independence.  There is a strong enough positive case for independence and there is no need to resort to faux-outrage as a way of forwarding the cause.

 

That's an overt way of saying what I was implying, bok - interesting times indeed.

Edited September 12, 2019 by salmonbuddie

[TPAFKATS 8,294]

Lol, deluded.  That's your opinion,  in my opinion you Buddie are naive and should remove thy tinfoil hat .
Put the boot on the other foot for a minute and imagine that in 2014 52% of Scots had voted Yes and then 3 yrs later nothing had happened , we were still in the union and people were talking about revoking the Edinburgh agreement , and that England are our biggest trading partner and we shouldn't leave anyway bla, bla , remoan,  remoan

The judges didn't give a judgement on anything you have said there.
They gave a judgement on the proroging of parliament.
The rest is irrelevant.

[oaksoft 12,444]

1 hour ago, cockles1987 said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read a post from ZA on facebook the other week where he gave his view regarding a legal issue. Was good to see an explanation and helped clear things up from what we believe is correct and what actually is correct.

It's doing my head in trying to remember what it was, can only remember it was something that most folk would have got wrong because they'd heard it from someone else to be true.


ZA hellllllppppppp please

 

 

 

 

 

Patience.

We'll all find out next week.

Don't assume ZA knows the answer.

[Bud the Baker 8,042]

7 hours ago, theknickerwetter said:

Again , your opinions,  and again l disagree . For the record   whatever R Davidson said was irrelevant or as you say,  a distraction (sic) 

For the last time your attempt to blur the distinction between facts and opinions fools nobody - I'm not the only poster to have caught you out on this thread, and what RD said was relevant to the question you asked - one you couldn't even phrase without resorting to profanity (shitfest).

Throughout our dialogue you have been both profane and wrong, I don't expect a reasonable reply, you've offered nothing original so far as your latest act of plagiarism (sic) above demonstrates - if nothing else I've widened your vocabulary.

 

[jaybee 1,673]

17 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:

On 9/11/2019 at 9:39 PM, TPAFKATS said:

It was a flippant comment in regards to BOK suggesting England would decide.
The judgement has been made under scots law and the supreme court will now hear. I think it's 9 judges with 2 Scots law?

9 English law judges, 2 Scots law judges & 1 NI law judge I think, hence 10 v 2.

You'd have to question the competency of those 10 to comment on Scots law.

And just to be bloody minded...........how relevant is Scots law when it pertains to an English Parliament..........and just to be absurd (I can be good at that) if the Scottish legal system decided all schools should have Scots pies for lunch........how is that relevant to English schools in other words what the feck business is it of ours?

[Russian Saint 1,147]

[jaybee 1,673]

11 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:

There will be no grounds for outrage and i say that as an independence-leaning Scot.  If people choose to use a decision that is made in the UK supreme court as evidence that Scotland's voice is never heard then I am afraid that will be a set-back for independence.  There is a strong enough positive case for independence and there is no need to resort to faux-outrage as a way of forwarding the cause.

dae you ware tartin nickers?

[jaybee 1,673]

On 9/11/2019 at 9:35 PM, TPAFKATS said:

Judges have made a judgement under scots law. You might not agree but it's not political.
The amount of rage from brexiters, including politicians, because a legal judgement went against the government is both ludicrous and also quite worrying.
The judges decision isn't about brexit, it's about proroging parliament.

it's entirely political supporting the wee nyaf in charge and the judge who spoke looks like Salmonds Daddy.

[jaybee 1,673]

10 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

The rest is irrelevant.

as are  the wee fat jock judges

[salmonbuddie 3,201]

And just to be bloody minded...........how relevant is Scots law when it pertains to an English Parliament..........and just to be absurd (I can be good at that) if the Scottish legal system decided all schools should have Scots pies for lunch........how is that relevant to English schools in other words what the feck business is it of ours?

It's not an English Parliament that it pertains to, though, is it?