Jump to content

shull

Big Boris, Our Prime Minister

Recommended Posts

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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by salmonbuddie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



If ZA is reading this, it would be appreciated by the many his interpretation of how this would be heard at the Supreme court.




We all know WHAT the Supreme Court does, very few of us will know the details of HOW it does it. I suppose we are all about to find out.

Where the feck's ZA when you need him?


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 emoji16.png

 

 

 

 

 

Patience.

We'll all find out next week.

Don't assume ZA knows the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?
I'm not sure if you are being bloody minded or you are just being thick as shit.
English parliament fur f**ksake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?
So it was just English MPs that the parliament was prorogued for?

You're not very good at this trolling lark, are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:


 

 


Yeah, well, thanks for explaining what everyone already knows. :hammer

The actual point of the question, though, was if (and I don't know if this is correct or not) the two appeals are heard under different legal systems then there is the possibility (however small) that it could end with conflicting results. What would the outcome then be? Maybe they aren't held under different legal systems and/or maybe they are being heard together (is it one decision, or two?) and it is a moot point.

If it turns out that both decisions are upheld (or both overturned) there will obviously be a conflict and a decision will have to be made one way or other. After that decision, there would be people that will claim that English law is being treated as more important than Scots law or Scots law is being treated as more important than English law.

Or is there a separate sort of "UK Law" that these are heard under?

We all know WHAT the Supreme Court does, very few of us will know the details of HOW it does it. I suppose we are all about to find out.

Where the feck's ZA when you need him?

 

Both Scots and English law are competent to hear these cases. Above both of the courts mentioned there is the Supreme Court in the UK to which this the judgement in Scotland, England and NI have been referred as e.g. The court in Scotland recognised the case was likely to end up there, said so in their judgement and in doing so expedited matters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:


 

9 hours ago, jaybee said:
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?

 

No, but it is in London last time I looked........perhaps they moved it and didn't tell me .... ever so sorry. Actually yes it is, or i you would rather be pedantic it's a UK parliament sitting in London, but then that belittles the wee nyafs one in Edinburgh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:
9 hours ago, jaybee said:
dae you ware tartin nickers?

Just so we're clear, I didn't write that. Not sure how you ended up with that, it was a response to a post I'd made.

Yes it was apologies it was not aimed at you...............grovel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TPAFKATS said:
9 hours ago, jaybee said:
it's entirely political supporting the wee nyaf in charge and the judge who spoke looks like Salmonds Daddy.
9 hours ago, jaybee said:
as are  the wee fat jock judges

Oh wait, it's humour...

Well those wee fat lawers/judges/magistrates were certainly a joke, but what is more 'humerous' is the fact that people seriously believe that there judgement is NOT Political, THAT is a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...