Alfredo Vogel
@Vanitarium
Joined August 2020
25
Posts
10
Following
1
Followers
+ConUnitUCL SP should publish and approve a constitution. Put it to the approval by the Scottish people then offer England to negotiate the exit from UK. England needs us. Think water, oil energy, manufacturing etc. We have it they don’t
As from today war has been declared on Scotland by the English government. Don’t expect it to be sweet n sour,it will be tough and merciless. No music/art/poetry festival will stop them. They are coming for you and your nation. Let everybody put up a Saltire in their window to let them know where you stand!!!
Alfredo Vogel Shared
And the worst criminals are the so-called technical people who write that the number of deaths by COVID-19 is lower than the number of death produced by an economic crisis.
Just ask yourself : how many people die from a drop in share prices?
Or lower profits in Rolls Royce?
Or higher interest rates on business loans?
Or higher land taxes to the royal family?
The economy is not going to be the same after this pandemic.
The wealthy profiteers need to be judged by a jury for their failure to help and their profiteering crimes during a universal war against COVID-19.
This is the question to the leaders of this world:
Can you really support these alt-right capitalist individuals who have given money to you, just to enrich themselves?
They are not helping you when all help is needed.
Just ask yourself : how many people die from a drop in share prices?
Or lower profits in Rolls Royce?
Or higher interest rates on business loans?
Or higher land taxes to the royal family?
The economy is not going to be the same after this pandemic.
The wealthy profiteers need to be judged by a jury for their failure to help and their profiteering crimes during a universal war against COVID-19.
This is the question to the leaders of this world:
Can you really support these alt-right capitalist individuals who have given money to you, just to enrich themselves?
They are not helping you when all help is needed.
+EU4IndyScot This is not something to disbelieve: the attack on Scotland has begun.
Democracy is the theme of the week, it seems. The US President is trying to stop vote counting. The UK Government is trying to stop Scotland's right to decide. And those who arrange the SNP conference are trying to stop a debate about indy strategy. If you value democracy, now is the time to speak up for it.
Ben Wray, Source Direct
Ben Wray, Source Direct
Boris Johnson set for compromise on Human Rights Act – EU sources
A DICTATOR CONCEDES BREAKING HUMAN RIGHTS
A DICTATOR CONCEDES BREAKING HUMAN RIGHTS
Update on Peoples Action on Section 30
Good Afternoon,
From the outset, let me just apologise for the delay in sending out an update. At this point in the process, immediate updates after hearings are not going to be possible because of the complex nature of what is currently going on. This is because after hearings I will be consulting with Counsel. In this case, I have had meetings on Monday, Tuesday and Today about the case.
That combined with the fact that every time I have sat down to write this, I've received another document to review. Please understand that at the minute, if a deadline is 5 pm on a certain day (even after 4 weeks to deal with it), we've been getting submissions on the last day at 2 pm or 3 pm, leaving mere hours to respond. So it has been a case of dropping everything to deal with it.
I also just want to say that I had to take some time to decide how I wanted to write this update based on the matters which I am going to be discussing. My conclusion was that the only way to approach this is to rip the band-aid off.
Firstly things first. The hearing the other day which was supposed to be the by-order roll (to establish further procedure) has been moved to the 4th of November. This was because there was a number of outstanding matters that needed to be dealt with administratively.
At this heating, the first matter was on the production of documents, which the court denied in the case of the bill which the Scottish Government is bringing forward. The second was to establish access for press etc and public access. The third was with respect to a formal amendment procedure to ensure all of the documents for arguments are properly amended due to the Scottish Governments withdrawal, which has been more complex than thought, to deal with. An amendment procedure (albeit 4 weeks) is the fastest and most efficient way to deal with things. So we went with that.
We can confirm that the court will allow access to hearings moving forward. All you require to do is contact the court of session the day before the hearing and request access and they will grant it. Most of the hearings are being done via teleconferencing or via video conferencing at the minute.
Now onto the troubling issue
As you are all aware, the Scottish Government withdrew from proceedings, indeed this is what has caused the disruption with re-writing the record and the primary reason we're having to move the by-order roll hearing to the 4th of November while a formal amendment procedure is going on (compulsory 4-week time limit).
On the 1 st of September, the First Minister stated in her programme for Government speech that she intended to bring a “draft bill” before the Scottish Parliament before the next election. You will note the term “draft bill” not “bill”. Which means it will simply be published, not voted on. We have established that this bill is anticipated to be laid before the parliament in the first 3 weeks of March 2021.
Unfortunately, the words spoken during that speech do not seem to track with what we are seeing in this case.
At page 126 of the programme for Government, it makes mention of there being no “moral” or “democratic” justification for the UK Government failing to acquiesce to an order in council under Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998. It is noted, however, that that passage did not include the words “legal justification”. Indeed, it is also noted that on that same page it states, “it will clearly not be possible to organise and hold an independence referendum that is beyond legal challenge before the end of the current Parliamentary term next year.” Which is a clear admission by the Scottish Government that they expect the UK Government to challenge any bill for a second referendum when it is put to the Scottish Parliament formally.
The First Minister has for all intents and purposes stated the SNP's intention to stand on the promise of this draft bill, which should the Scottish electorate cast its votes in the forthcoming Scottish Parliament elections, the SNP risks perpetrating a fraud on the electorate if the election campaign is conducted on the basis that Scottish National Party is asking people to vote for it to carry out a measure in government – to introduce an independence referendum Bill before the Scottish Parliament – but where there has been no legal clarification as to the constitutionality of the Scottish Parliament legislating for such a bill.
In other words, the SNP is saying it will put a bill to the Scottish Parliament either, with a section 30 order (which there is virtually no hope of getting) or a bill without a section 30 order which it knows would be immediately challenged by the UK Government creating exactly the same scenario as what happened with the continuity bill – and the exact scenario we’ve been warning about for the past year. That is the same as promising something it knows it may not be able to deliver, while also giving the UK Government an open goal to trash any bill it might put forward. It is the 2021 version of “give us a mandate”.
But what makes this even more serious is that the Scottish Government seems to be squandering the chance to gain that legal clarification (which is the entire point of the Peoples Action on Section 30 case – to establish that legal competency), which would not only ensure that any plan B on legislating for a second referendum was within the competency of the Scottish Parliament, (i.e. a without the consent of Westminster by way of a Section 30 order), but also would strengthen their hand in being able to demand such a Section 30 by saying "Give us it or else we’ll do it ourselves”.
Their statements about there being no moral and democratic justification for the UK Government to refuse a section 30 is pure 100% corn fed cow manure in my opinion. Some may recoil at me describing it like that, but it's not like we don't have enough empirical evidence to lend weight to that.
You’ll not there is no mention of the word “legal”. Moral and democratic arguments, do not a legal basis, make. Indeed, for the UK Government to be swayed by moral or democratic arguments, they must first have a modicum of morality and respect for the democratic process. I reasonably ask you: “what experience in the past number of years would even lead you to think that a Government under Boris Johnson would acquiesce to the third request for a section 30 order?” – The simple answer? None!
We are, after all, talking about a Government led by a Prime Minister who has unlawfully prorogued parliament and who stated to Angus MacNeill in committee that he would not acquiesce, only a few weeks ago. We are talking about a Government who have, with malice of forethought, driven a horse and carriage through the devolution settlement with legislation such as the internal market bill. A Government which has undermined the devolved nations in terms of COVID 19 personal protective equipment, has sought to undermine the Scottish Governments communication with the electorate on matters relating to the pandemic and who has failed to work with the devolved nations on a linked up approach – all the while pursuing a devastating march towards Brexit during a global pandemic. We’re talking about a Government that has simultaneously initiated a full-on power-grab from Holyrood while also seeking to try and tie the hands of the Judiciary in matters of public law. His Government does not even have the respect to inform your Cabinet Secretary for Finance of serious and substantive matters pertinent to the Scottish Budget, nor even Members of the House of Commons of serious and substantive policy shifts – not least on matters relating to COVID 19. The list goes on and on.
He and his Government have zero respect for the rule of international law, nor domestic law and it is wholly complacent to think that he will have any more respect for the law and precedents surrounding devolution. I quite reasonably call on the First Minister to show me evidence to the contrary. Which she won’t because she cannot. She knows this and yet she is trying to state otherwise.
At this moment, the only possibility of a section 30 order comes from the land of unicorns and pixie dust, or from the back of an extremely large wardrobe with a talking lion. The current state of constitutional affairs is akin to something out of Alice and wonderland, except the lion has no courage, the scarecrow got his brain but has had a mental breakdown and the tin man has accidentally managed to get himself transported to a recycling plant; all while toto has his leg cocked over the burnt out remnants of the devolution settlement. Alice can click her heels as many times as she wants, but she is not getting anywhere near Kansas.
As I stated above. The Scottish Government withdrew from proceedings leaving the Advocate General (on behalf of the UK Government) and the Lord Advocate (on behalf of the Scottish Parliament). However, It appears that the Lord Advocate is advancing arguments for the Scottish Government despite them having withdrawn. The Scottish Government (Scottish Ministers) were convened in this case for any interest and standing they might have in the case. They chose to withdraw.
This invitation did not have to be taken up, they could have very easily declined. Instead, they did join proceedings and their first act was to try and delay for 3 months. When that failed, their next act was to try and have proceedings shifted to a different process so it could then be thrown out, a motion which they chose not to proceed with literally hours before it was to proceed. We considered this particular motion to be an abuse of the court's processes and an attempt to short-circuit the jurisdiction of the court.
At each stage, the Lord Advocate and Scottish Ministers (both being represented by the same legal counsel) have requested we “assume our own costs” on motions which they have lost or aborted.
Put together with what we had already learnt to that point, it begun to form an impression that their intention was to deplete funds and resources of the backers in this case. To my mind, this is and was a blatant and deliberate attempt to make the 8000 backers of this case, pay twice. First from the case fund from crowdfunding, and then again from their general taxation which each of the defenders in this action are using.
To put this in the simplest terms, the Advocate General (UK Gov) has been very relaxed up to this point but that’s only because it seems that the Lord Advocate, who is supposed to represent the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Ministers, seem to be doing their job for them.
But when the second fundraiser happened, and it began to climb rapidly and after months of taking part and trying to obstruct proceedings, the Scottish Government suddenly decided that it wanted to withdraw.
If the Lord Advocates submissions on behalf of the Scottish Government were ordered by the Scottish Government while they were still party to proceedings, then the position taken by the Scottish Government is just openly disrespectful to the General Electorate and to the backers of the case, a large chunk of whom are members of their own party.
If, however, the Scottish Government merely dismissed the action from the outset turning over responsibility for arguing the Scottish Governmental position to the Lord Advocate, and he has chosen to represent matters in such a manner, only becoming aware of the tone and language used when contacted by the press after one of the defenders leaked the submissions and then panicking when they realised the way in which the submissions were made on their behalf – this would be even more egregious because it would be outright complacency.
The Scottish Government have declined to elaborate which of the two is the case. Were they aware of the submissions made on behalf of the Scottish Government as third defenders by the Lord Advocate? If not, why not?
At the same time as withdrawal (and indeed mere hours after their submissions were leaked to the press by one of the defenders), the Scottish Government immediately moved to an announcement of a bill in the programme of Government - that it intended to bring before the Scottish Parliament a “draft bill”. Which seems to be nothing more than a throw-away comment designed to offset the news which broke mere hours before the First Minister said it, that the Scottish Government believed that it was not the place of the electorate to “stand in the shoes of parliamentarians”.
But now it appears that the Scottish Government have not, in fact, withdrawn from proceedings. Instead, it seems that they have decided to dust themselves in Lord Advocate Coconut and call themselves a parliamentary snowball.
There’s a very good reason why we listed both the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Ministers separately at the beginning of proceedings. This is because the Lord Advocate represents parliament and the modus operandi of parliament does not necessarily reflect that of Government. They are not one in the same entity.
Our calling of both into this case separately was to ensure no conflict of interest.
In this hearing, what we saw was reliance by the Lord Advocate in his opposition on Scottish Government publications and on their assertions about what documents the Scottish Government does or does not hold, and what documentation would be “appropriate” for the court to order from the Scottish Government. They actually came into court and argued for the Scottish Government, not the Scottish Parliament, which is not appropriate because the Scottish Government are no longer a party to these proceedings. There is also continued involvement in this action of the Scottish Government Legal Department as the instructing agent for the Lord Advocates counsel – It is, therefore, clear that the Scottish Government has withdrawn in name only.
It is cosmetic rather than a proper withdrawal from proceedings and can only lead to the political accusation that the Scottish Government are having the Lord Advocate do their dirty work for them, allowing them to claim plausible deniability.
If this is the case, then this is highly inappropriate because the Scottish Government is politically influencing a case which it is no longer a party to. It is also inappropriate because if the Lord Advocate is representing the Scottish Government, he is not accurately representing the Scottish Parliament, its MSP’s and by extension those who elected those MSP’s to office. For the avoidance of any doubt. That’s you!
It is no doubt competent for the Lord Advocate to represent the interest of and present argument for the Scottish Government in a court action such as this, because he is, by extension a member of the Scottish Government. But the principle of the separation of powers – and indeed the principle of open and transparent justice – requires that the Lord Advocate cannot in the one proceedings purport to be acting in the public interest to defend the rights, privilege and prerogatives of the Scottish Parliament (and its constituent MSPs) and at the same time also be acting as a member of the Scottish Government or as a proxy for, and defender of the interests of, the Scottish Government. Especially when the Scottish
The Scottish government seem to be trying to exert political influence on a legal matter which is diametrically opposing to the statements they are making in public to the General Electorate, or certainly, that's what submissions would seem to suggest.
If the Scottish Government want to be a party to proceedings the should have remained as such, but they chose to withdraw. The problem is that the submissions being put forward by the Lord Advocate which seem intended to cause disruption in the case, seem to be coming from the Scottish Government, not representative of the Scottish Parliament.
All this being said, we are going to take some lumps along the way, that's just the order of things, we all knew that was going to be the case, that this was a long-haul prospect when we got involved. We're not deterred and the team are in good spirits in general. Over the coming weeks there will be revisions and changes and complex legal matters to deal with. All of this is normal. On the 4th of November, we'll finally get to the by-order roll hearing and then we'll know exactly where we're going from there.
As always, I will update you once I know more.
Sincerely,
Martin
Disclaimer: CrowdJustice sends out emails on behalf of Case Owners
Our mailing address is: 45 - 47 Clerkenwell Green London
Good Afternoon,
From the outset, let me just apologise for the delay in sending out an update. At this point in the process, immediate updates after hearings are not going to be possible because of the complex nature of what is currently going on. This is because after hearings I will be consulting with Counsel. In this case, I have had meetings on Monday, Tuesday and Today about the case.
That combined with the fact that every time I have sat down to write this, I've received another document to review. Please understand that at the minute, if a deadline is 5 pm on a certain day (even after 4 weeks to deal with it), we've been getting submissions on the last day at 2 pm or 3 pm, leaving mere hours to respond. So it has been a case of dropping everything to deal with it.
I also just want to say that I had to take some time to decide how I wanted to write this update based on the matters which I am going to be discussing. My conclusion was that the only way to approach this is to rip the band-aid off.
Firstly things first. The hearing the other day which was supposed to be the by-order roll (to establish further procedure) has been moved to the 4th of November. This was because there was a number of outstanding matters that needed to be dealt with administratively.
At this heating, the first matter was on the production of documents, which the court denied in the case of the bill which the Scottish Government is bringing forward. The second was to establish access for press etc and public access. The third was with respect to a formal amendment procedure to ensure all of the documents for arguments are properly amended due to the Scottish Governments withdrawal, which has been more complex than thought, to deal with. An amendment procedure (albeit 4 weeks) is the fastest and most efficient way to deal with things. So we went with that.
We can confirm that the court will allow access to hearings moving forward. All you require to do is contact the court of session the day before the hearing and request access and they will grant it. Most of the hearings are being done via teleconferencing or via video conferencing at the minute.
Now onto the troubling issue
As you are all aware, the Scottish Government withdrew from proceedings, indeed this is what has caused the disruption with re-writing the record and the primary reason we're having to move the by-order roll hearing to the 4th of November while a formal amendment procedure is going on (compulsory 4-week time limit).
On the 1 st of September, the First Minister stated in her programme for Government speech that she intended to bring a “draft bill” before the Scottish Parliament before the next election. You will note the term “draft bill” not “bill”. Which means it will simply be published, not voted on. We have established that this bill is anticipated to be laid before the parliament in the first 3 weeks of March 2021.
Unfortunately, the words spoken during that speech do not seem to track with what we are seeing in this case.
At page 126 of the programme for Government, it makes mention of there being no “moral” or “democratic” justification for the UK Government failing to acquiesce to an order in council under Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998. It is noted, however, that that passage did not include the words “legal justification”. Indeed, it is also noted that on that same page it states, “it will clearly not be possible to organise and hold an independence referendum that is beyond legal challenge before the end of the current Parliamentary term next year.” Which is a clear admission by the Scottish Government that they expect the UK Government to challenge any bill for a second referendum when it is put to the Scottish Parliament formally.
The First Minister has for all intents and purposes stated the SNP's intention to stand on the promise of this draft bill, which should the Scottish electorate cast its votes in the forthcoming Scottish Parliament elections, the SNP risks perpetrating a fraud on the electorate if the election campaign is conducted on the basis that Scottish National Party is asking people to vote for it to carry out a measure in government – to introduce an independence referendum Bill before the Scottish Parliament – but where there has been no legal clarification as to the constitutionality of the Scottish Parliament legislating for such a bill.
In other words, the SNP is saying it will put a bill to the Scottish Parliament either, with a section 30 order (which there is virtually no hope of getting) or a bill without a section 30 order which it knows would be immediately challenged by the UK Government creating exactly the same scenario as what happened with the continuity bill – and the exact scenario we’ve been warning about for the past year. That is the same as promising something it knows it may not be able to deliver, while also giving the UK Government an open goal to trash any bill it might put forward. It is the 2021 version of “give us a mandate”.
But what makes this even more serious is that the Scottish Government seems to be squandering the chance to gain that legal clarification (which is the entire point of the Peoples Action on Section 30 case – to establish that legal competency), which would not only ensure that any plan B on legislating for a second referendum was within the competency of the Scottish Parliament, (i.e. a without the consent of Westminster by way of a Section 30 order), but also would strengthen their hand in being able to demand such a Section 30 by saying "Give us it or else we’ll do it ourselves”.
Their statements about there being no moral and democratic justification for the UK Government to refuse a section 30 is pure 100% corn fed cow manure in my opinion. Some may recoil at me describing it like that, but it's not like we don't have enough empirical evidence to lend weight to that.
You’ll not there is no mention of the word “legal”. Moral and democratic arguments, do not a legal basis, make. Indeed, for the UK Government to be swayed by moral or democratic arguments, they must first have a modicum of morality and respect for the democratic process. I reasonably ask you: “what experience in the past number of years would even lead you to think that a Government under Boris Johnson would acquiesce to the third request for a section 30 order?” – The simple answer? None!
We are, after all, talking about a Government led by a Prime Minister who has unlawfully prorogued parliament and who stated to Angus MacNeill in committee that he would not acquiesce, only a few weeks ago. We are talking about a Government who have, with malice of forethought, driven a horse and carriage through the devolution settlement with legislation such as the internal market bill. A Government which has undermined the devolved nations in terms of COVID 19 personal protective equipment, has sought to undermine the Scottish Governments communication with the electorate on matters relating to the pandemic and who has failed to work with the devolved nations on a linked up approach – all the while pursuing a devastating march towards Brexit during a global pandemic. We’re talking about a Government that has simultaneously initiated a full-on power-grab from Holyrood while also seeking to try and tie the hands of the Judiciary in matters of public law. His Government does not even have the respect to inform your Cabinet Secretary for Finance of serious and substantive matters pertinent to the Scottish Budget, nor even Members of the House of Commons of serious and substantive policy shifts – not least on matters relating to COVID 19. The list goes on and on.
He and his Government have zero respect for the rule of international law, nor domestic law and it is wholly complacent to think that he will have any more respect for the law and precedents surrounding devolution. I quite reasonably call on the First Minister to show me evidence to the contrary. Which she won’t because she cannot. She knows this and yet she is trying to state otherwise.
At this moment, the only possibility of a section 30 order comes from the land of unicorns and pixie dust, or from the back of an extremely large wardrobe with a talking lion. The current state of constitutional affairs is akin to something out of Alice and wonderland, except the lion has no courage, the scarecrow got his brain but has had a mental breakdown and the tin man has accidentally managed to get himself transported to a recycling plant; all while toto has his leg cocked over the burnt out remnants of the devolution settlement. Alice can click her heels as many times as she wants, but she is not getting anywhere near Kansas.
As I stated above. The Scottish Government withdrew from proceedings leaving the Advocate General (on behalf of the UK Government) and the Lord Advocate (on behalf of the Scottish Parliament). However, It appears that the Lord Advocate is advancing arguments for the Scottish Government despite them having withdrawn. The Scottish Government (Scottish Ministers) were convened in this case for any interest and standing they might have in the case. They chose to withdraw.
This invitation did not have to be taken up, they could have very easily declined. Instead, they did join proceedings and their first act was to try and delay for 3 months. When that failed, their next act was to try and have proceedings shifted to a different process so it could then be thrown out, a motion which they chose not to proceed with literally hours before it was to proceed. We considered this particular motion to be an abuse of the court's processes and an attempt to short-circuit the jurisdiction of the court.
At each stage, the Lord Advocate and Scottish Ministers (both being represented by the same legal counsel) have requested we “assume our own costs” on motions which they have lost or aborted.
Put together with what we had already learnt to that point, it begun to form an impression that their intention was to deplete funds and resources of the backers in this case. To my mind, this is and was a blatant and deliberate attempt to make the 8000 backers of this case, pay twice. First from the case fund from crowdfunding, and then again from their general taxation which each of the defenders in this action are using.
To put this in the simplest terms, the Advocate General (UK Gov) has been very relaxed up to this point but that’s only because it seems that the Lord Advocate, who is supposed to represent the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Ministers, seem to be doing their job for them.
But when the second fundraiser happened, and it began to climb rapidly and after months of taking part and trying to obstruct proceedings, the Scottish Government suddenly decided that it wanted to withdraw.
If the Lord Advocates submissions on behalf of the Scottish Government were ordered by the Scottish Government while they were still party to proceedings, then the position taken by the Scottish Government is just openly disrespectful to the General Electorate and to the backers of the case, a large chunk of whom are members of their own party.
If, however, the Scottish Government merely dismissed the action from the outset turning over responsibility for arguing the Scottish Governmental position to the Lord Advocate, and he has chosen to represent matters in such a manner, only becoming aware of the tone and language used when contacted by the press after one of the defenders leaked the submissions and then panicking when they realised the way in which the submissions were made on their behalf – this would be even more egregious because it would be outright complacency.
The Scottish Government have declined to elaborate which of the two is the case. Were they aware of the submissions made on behalf of the Scottish Government as third defenders by the Lord Advocate? If not, why not?
At the same time as withdrawal (and indeed mere hours after their submissions were leaked to the press by one of the defenders), the Scottish Government immediately moved to an announcement of a bill in the programme of Government - that it intended to bring before the Scottish Parliament a “draft bill”. Which seems to be nothing more than a throw-away comment designed to offset the news which broke mere hours before the First Minister said it, that the Scottish Government believed that it was not the place of the electorate to “stand in the shoes of parliamentarians”.
But now it appears that the Scottish Government have not, in fact, withdrawn from proceedings. Instead, it seems that they have decided to dust themselves in Lord Advocate Coconut and call themselves a parliamentary snowball.
There’s a very good reason why we listed both the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Ministers separately at the beginning of proceedings. This is because the Lord Advocate represents parliament and the modus operandi of parliament does not necessarily reflect that of Government. They are not one in the same entity.
Our calling of both into this case separately was to ensure no conflict of interest.
In this hearing, what we saw was reliance by the Lord Advocate in his opposition on Scottish Government publications and on their assertions about what documents the Scottish Government does or does not hold, and what documentation would be “appropriate” for the court to order from the Scottish Government. They actually came into court and argued for the Scottish Government, not the Scottish Parliament, which is not appropriate because the Scottish Government are no longer a party to these proceedings. There is also continued involvement in this action of the Scottish Government Legal Department as the instructing agent for the Lord Advocates counsel – It is, therefore, clear that the Scottish Government has withdrawn in name only.
It is cosmetic rather than a proper withdrawal from proceedings and can only lead to the political accusation that the Scottish Government are having the Lord Advocate do their dirty work for them, allowing them to claim plausible deniability.
If this is the case, then this is highly inappropriate because the Scottish Government is politically influencing a case which it is no longer a party to. It is also inappropriate because if the Lord Advocate is representing the Scottish Government, he is not accurately representing the Scottish Parliament, its MSP’s and by extension those who elected those MSP’s to office. For the avoidance of any doubt. That’s you!
It is no doubt competent for the Lord Advocate to represent the interest of and present argument for the Scottish Government in a court action such as this, because he is, by extension a member of the Scottish Government. But the principle of the separation of powers – and indeed the principle of open and transparent justice – requires that the Lord Advocate cannot in the one proceedings purport to be acting in the public interest to defend the rights, privilege and prerogatives of the Scottish Parliament (and its constituent MSPs) and at the same time also be acting as a member of the Scottish Government or as a proxy for, and defender of the interests of, the Scottish Government. Especially when the Scottish
The Scottish government seem to be trying to exert political influence on a legal matter which is diametrically opposing to the statements they are making in public to the General Electorate, or certainly, that's what submissions would seem to suggest.
If the Scottish Government want to be a party to proceedings the should have remained as such, but they chose to withdraw. The problem is that the submissions being put forward by the Lord Advocate which seem intended to cause disruption in the case, seem to be coming from the Scottish Government, not representative of the Scottish Parliament.
All this being said, we are going to take some lumps along the way, that's just the order of things, we all knew that was going to be the case, that this was a long-haul prospect when we got involved. We're not deterred and the team are in good spirits in general. Over the coming weeks there will be revisions and changes and complex legal matters to deal with. All of this is normal. On the 4th of November, we'll finally get to the by-order roll hearing and then we'll know exactly where we're going from there.
As always, I will update you once I know more.
Sincerely,
Martin
Disclaimer: CrowdJustice sends out emails on behalf of Case Owners
Our mailing address is: 45 - 47 Clerkenwell Green London
Alfredo Vogel Liked
The AUOB Edinburgh March is normally the culmination of AUOB's campaigning year, bringing together people from all over Scotland to Edinburgh to march for Independence. Our AUOB Edinburgh Ceilidh comes live from Broughton St Mary's Parish Church and brings together musicians from all over Scotland for an evening of...
youtube.com
Alfredo Vogel Liked
The need for a carefully laid out plan to get through the stages of Scot Independence demands a serious amount of work by specialised persons as well as the public. The Scottish Withdrawal Bill (SWB) is absolutely necessary for several reasons:
1. The voters will feel more confident if they see that experts and people have written and discussed a proper route to independence.
2. The negotiations with rUK (rump UK) will be so much simpler if a carefully designed SWB and timetable is presented to the rUK government (probably a Tory one!). It will also give the negotiating teams a guide t the negotiations.
3. The timetable for the transition has to be included in this planned withdrawal with clearly defined and realistically achievable milestones. We have learned from Brexit that having the alternative of an extension makes the whole procedure of withdrawal into a never ending story. The SWB has to clearly state the date for the complete disengagement of Scotland from the rUK.That date should be immovable and nobody should be allowed th change or postpone that date.
4. All the possible questions from other experts, politicians and the public should have been answered in the SWB. The answers should be presented as a FAQ format as an appendix to the SWB. Examples questions to be answered are: is there a written constitution? Who is the head of state?What is the new currency?Will there be a physical border?etc.etc.
1. The voters will feel more confident if they see that experts and people have written and discussed a proper route to independence.
2. The negotiations with rUK (rump UK) will be so much simpler if a carefully designed SWB and timetable is presented to the rUK government (probably a Tory one!). It will also give the negotiating teams a guide t the negotiations.
3. The timetable for the transition has to be included in this planned withdrawal with clearly defined and realistically achievable milestones. We have learned from Brexit that having the alternative of an extension makes the whole procedure of withdrawal into a never ending story. The SWB has to clearly state the date for the complete disengagement of Scotland from the rUK.That date should be immovable and nobody should be allowed th change or postpone that date.
4. All the possible questions from other experts, politicians and the public should have been answered in the SWB. The answers should be presented as a FAQ format as an appendix to the SWB. Examples questions to be answered are: is there a written constitution? Who is the head of state?What is the new currency?Will there be a physical border?etc.etc.
Alfredo Vogel Liked
I believe that the Independence of Scotland is not an impossible task, but if the Government and the SNP are really prepared to compromise and accept the opinions of all interested parties, the experience of making two countries independent from each other without conflicts would be an incredible achievement and an example for the whole world. It would prove that complex political issues can be resolved by peaceful, harmonious means without armed conflict.
Even if these ideas can be put into practice there are pitfalls which the Scottish culture and civilisation will allow us to resolve and overcome.
The spirit of the Scottish people and their history will allow this unbelievably complex process to be achieved almost 700 years after the writing of the Declaration of Abroath (6 April 1320), in which independence would have been achieved by the force of arms and many deaths.
Even if these ideas can be put into practice there are pitfalls which the Scottish culture and civilisation will allow us to resolve and overcome.
The spirit of the Scottish people and their history will allow this unbelievably complex process to be achieved almost 700 years after the writing of the Declaration of Abroath (6 April 1320), in which independence would have been achieved by the force of arms and many deaths.
I believe that the Independence of Scotland is not an impossible task, but if the Government and the SNP are really prepared to compromise and accept the opinions of all interested parties, the experience of making two countries independent from each other without conflicts would be an incredible achievement and an example for the whole world. It would prove that complex political issues can be resolved by peaceful, harmonious means without armed conflict.
Even if these ideas can be put into practice there are pitfalls which the Scottish culture and civilisation will allow us to resolve and overcome.
The spirit of the Scottish people and their history will allow this unbelievably complex process to be achieved almost 700 years after the writing of the Declaration of Abroath (6 April 1320), in which independence would have been achieved by the force of arms and many deaths.
Even if these ideas can be put into practice there are pitfalls which the Scottish culture and civilisation will allow us to resolve and overcome.
The spirit of the Scottish people and their history will allow this unbelievably complex process to be achieved almost 700 years after the writing of the Declaration of Abroath (6 April 1320), in which independence would have been achieved by the force of arms and many deaths.
The need for a carefully laid out plan to get through the stages of Scot Independence demands a serious amount of work by specialised persons as well as the public. The Scottish Withdrawal Bill (SWB) is absolutely necessary for several reasons:
1. The voters will feel more confident if they see that experts and people have written and discussed a proper route to independence.
2. The negotiations with rUK (rump UK) will be so much simpler if a carefully designed SWB and timetable is presented to the rUK government (probably a Tory one!). It will also give the negotiating teams a guide t the negotiations.
3. The timetable for the transition has to be included in this planned withdrawal with clearly defined and realistically achievable milestones. We have learned from Brexit that having the alternative of an extension makes the whole procedure of withdrawal into a never ending story. The SWB has to clearly state the date for the complete disengagement of Scotland from the rUK.That date should be immovable and nobody should be allowed th change or postpone that date.
4. All the possible questions from other experts, politicians and the public should have been answered in the SWB. The answers should be presented as a FAQ format as an appendix to the SWB. Examples questions to be answered are: is there a written constitution? Who is the head of state?What is the new currency?Will there be a physical border?etc.etc.
1. The voters will feel more confident if they see that experts and people have written and discussed a proper route to independence.
2. The negotiations with rUK (rump UK) will be so much simpler if a carefully designed SWB and timetable is presented to the rUK government (probably a Tory one!). It will also give the negotiating teams a guide t the negotiations.
3. The timetable for the transition has to be included in this planned withdrawal with clearly defined and realistically achievable milestones. We have learned from Brexit that having the alternative of an extension makes the whole procedure of withdrawal into a never ending story. The SWB has to clearly state the date for the complete disengagement of Scotland from the rUK.That date should be immovable and nobody should be allowed th change or postpone that date.
4. All the possible questions from other experts, politicians and the public should have been answered in the SWB. The answers should be presented as a FAQ format as an appendix to the SWB. Examples questions to be answered are: is there a written constitution? Who is the head of state?What is the new currency?Will there be a physical border?etc.etc.
And the worst criminals are the so-called technical people who write that the number of deaths by COVID-19 is lower than the number of death produced by an economic crisis.
Just ask yourself : how many people die from a drop in share prices?
Or lower profits in Rolls Royce?
Or higher interest rates on business loans?
Or higher land taxes to the royal family?
The economy is not going to be the same after this pandemic.
The wealthy profiteers need to be judged by a jury for their failure to help and their profiteering crimes during a universal war against COVID-19.
This is the question to the leaders of this world:
Can you really support these alt-right capitalist individuals who have given money to you, just to enrich themselves?
They are not helping you when all help is needed.
Just ask yourself : how many people die from a drop in share prices?
Or lower profits in Rolls Royce?
Or higher interest rates on business loans?
Or higher land taxes to the royal family?
The economy is not going to be the same after this pandemic.
The wealthy profiteers need to be judged by a jury for their failure to help and their profiteering crimes during a universal war against COVID-19.
This is the question to the leaders of this world:
Can you really support these alt-right capitalist individuals who have given money to you, just to enrich themselves?
They are not helping you when all help is needed.
It is now becoming clear that leadership will not be forthcoming from the SNP or the Scottish Government. So, what can the wider Independence movement and its grassroots do?
Their main task is to force the Scottish Government to act for Independence. If Nicola Sturgeon does not get the message from the base, she will lose the advantage in the polls. People and voters will get tired of the inaction of their government that did such an outstanding job leading the nation out of the pandemic.
Activism and peaceful demonstrations, well choreographed actions of revolt against the “give us a referendum” position: replace it by open “Independence NOW” revolt and demand.
Finally, it is disappointing that when the hunger and thirst for independence has reached almost 55% of the population the government elected by those same people is responding with an attitude of a parliamentary, elitist and bureaucratic leadership, not with a forward looking, progressive and revolutionary fervor needed to become independent from the Tory Government in England.
Their main task is to force the Scottish Government to act for Independence. If Nicola Sturgeon does not get the message from the base, she will lose the advantage in the polls. People and voters will get tired of the inaction of their government that did such an outstanding job leading the nation out of the pandemic.
Activism and peaceful demonstrations, well choreographed actions of revolt against the “give us a referendum” position: replace it by open “Independence NOW” revolt and demand.
Finally, it is disappointing that when the hunger and thirst for independence has reached almost 55% of the population the government elected by those same people is responding with an attitude of a parliamentary, elitist and bureaucratic leadership, not with a forward looking, progressive and revolutionary fervor needed to become independent from the Tory Government in England.
alfredosbook.wordpress.com/...-struggle/
In the context of this site. Read and THINK
In the context of this site. Read and THINK
@Vanitarium Don’t believe it? I never had a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Hindu, etc. knocking at my door trying to convert me
Alfredo Vogel Shared
There is only one religion in the world who wants to convert everybody else: Christianity. There is only one party who wants Scotland to stay as a colony: Tories. There is only one government to make SCOTLAND free: Nicola sturgeon’s government
There is only one religion in the world who wants to convert everybody else: Christianity. There is only one party who wants Scotland to stay as a colony: Tories. There is only one government to make SCOTLAND free: Nicola sturgeon’s government
