Let me put it another way, Fred the C. How long will it take for Scotland to set up a separate legal system when it leaves the UK fiasco? No time at all. It has one already and always has, regardless of the colour of the sky in your world. Now how are you doing with the autonomous UK system having to bow to a superior ruling and release a recognised threat to national security into the community? Totally in control, is it? More than Scottish legal system is in control in Scotland, do you feel? Get off it...
The Scottish legal system, like the legal systems of most countries in Europe is a mixture of several systems, common law, legislative law, Roman law and a few others. It isn't all that different to the law anywhere else and like every other country in the EU it has amalgamated European law as well. I believe one of the basic principles of any law should be that for someone to be incarcerated they must be charged with committing a crime and receive a fair trial within reasonable time. Abu Qatada has not been charged with any crime, has not been tried for any offence. He was being held on remand pending extradition but as that extradition does not seem to be forthcoming a British judge ruled he must be released. So the Nationalists are planning on introducing imprisonment without trial are they?.
There were in fact two Acts of Union. One by the Scottish Parliament and one by the English Parliament. They were the ratifying instruments of the Treaty of Union in 1707. [Great] Britain only came about through the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England. Scotland was already part of the United Kingdom. Although the term 'United Kingdom' was first included in the formal name through the Union with Ireland in 1801 examination of the Articles of the Treaty of Union in 1707 show that the term 'United Kingdom' was used on numerous occasions.
'74. ...By the time of the Union a well-defined and independent system of Scottish law had been established. This was recognised in the Union settlement, which provided for the preservation of the separate code of Scots law and the Scottish judiciary and legal system. Under Article XIX the two highest Scottish Courts - the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary - were to continue, and were not to be subject to the jurisdiction of the English courts. These bodies have remained respectively the supreme civil and criminal courts in Scotland, while beneath them there is a completely separate Scottish system of jurisdiction and law courts, with a justiciary, advocates and solicitors, none of whom are interchangeable with their English counterparts... 76. ...Nevertheless the two systems remain separate, and - a unique constitutional phenomenon within a unitary state - stand to this day in the same juridical relationship to one another as they do individually to the system of any foreign country.' SOURCE: 'Royal Commission on the Constitution, 1969-1973', Volume I, Cmnd. 5460. 'on 25 March 1603, James VI of Scotland became James I of England. There were still two kingdoms, each with its own parliament, administration, church and legal system.' SOURCE: 'Scotland: The Shaping of a Nation' by Gordon Donaldson, p.46, ISBN 0 7153 6904 0.
I have been an active member of the SNP for over 37 years. In that time I have never heard any suggestion from anyone in the SNP that Scotland is not currently part of [Great] Britain. The suggestion of 'pretence' is absolute nonsense. Michael Follon
Yes, I've read the Wiki blurb ...and it is still different to English Law. Euro law appears to override both national and UK law in some cases. No doubt soon Scots Law will answer to EU, not UK, in the same way England will. Ask Smeato what he would do... I don't instruct Alex Salmond on legal matters, so I don't suppose he will take any notice of my outrage that the English legal system can't effectively protect the public from people like Qatada.
fredc has been taken in by a mixture of deliberate misinformation and blatant propaganda. He really needs to get rid of the blinkers he's wearing and open his eyes and ears. Genuine debate about Scottish independence belongs in the real world not the school playground. "People who make statements as fact without knowing what they are talking about are just opening their mouth and letting their belly rumble." Michael Follon
He hasn't been taken in by it...he is spreading it..and in some instances originating it by idiosyncratic agenda-driven interpretation of stuff he finds online and posts as fact.
Then you will agree that the Scottish legal system is a British legal system. In fact the highest Scottish court is the now Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, previously it was the House of Lords.
Not the English legal system, the British legal system. I haven't a clue what Qatada is like, I don't hold much on judging people by what it says in the Daily Mail. If he has committed an offence he should be charged with it and tried for it, if he hasn't then it should have nothing to do with any legal system.
What genuine debate would that be then? Cries of "what about Culloden" and "remember the clearances"? Or maybe you mean the sniping and ad hominem remarks from you and your Nationalist friends? Is it even possible to have genuine debate with people who's only argument is that all the English are a heap of s**t and they want rid of them? Here is a point for you to debate. If the oil fields had all been closer to England than to Scotland do you think the English would be saying "let's ditch Scotland now and keep it all for ourselves"? What do you think would have been the response if they had?
No, that is not true. The highest British Court may be the Supreme court but the extent to which it has say over Scottish law is a matter of dispute http://www.theedinburghreporter.co....nd-bill-to-protect-independence-of-scots-law/ Note the historical independence of the Scottish legal system.
You know when people start with the words "No, that is not true" then post evidence proving that it is true I have to wonder if they are in denial. If the Scottish government are attempting to remove the Supreme court from being Scotland's highest court then it means that it is now Scotland's highest court. As I pointed out earlier, historically prior to that it was the House of Lords.
garbage fredc you have been stating that Scotland does not have an independent legal system. You have been pretending the law of the UK is some kind of Universal 'British' law. This is not true. You are not dealing with reality. After Scotland was forced into Union with England, Scotland kept an Independent legal system which goes back beyond 1707. Deal with it.
Indeed. I have been thinking of asking the Mods to remove off topic posts, or perhaps restarting the thread with some parameters. It was created to discuss the OP topic hopefully with other Scots and also provide information to interested people on what is a very serious subject. It is the Scottish legal system, which existed pre-Union and will exist post-Union and is for the moment voluntarily affiliated with the Union in the same way it is working to EU legalities. Not your problem?.... People with that head in the sand attitude were shocked by 9/11. It is really our civic duty under current circumstances to be vigilant and aware of what is going on, don't you think? I understand Qatada has been publicly declared and accepted as a threat to national security by someone in the legal system you venerate. But you don't know anything about him. Compare Qatada to the current US situation, where people are crying entrapment because their authorities have been able to neutralise a threat to public safety before it got off the ground. Don't get me wrong, UK is dealing with Qatada and legally neutralising him regardless of legal issues and regardless of those who don't know or care about the safety of the community or what is going on around them. Whereas that legal restraint is something to be admired and something which also protect civil rights in society, it's still a long winded and expensive way to go about national security. Fred, Culloden and Braveheart are old hat and really a stupid thing to bring into a discussion about the specifics of the referendum. Nobody cares about a fictional Hollywood/Mel Gibson blockbuster and Culloden was part of a civil war, so why would we grind an axe with another country about it in the first place....the days of unbalancing via use of emotive fiction are over. If you could maybe take the insults to another thread where people want to debate alleged and fictional reasons for the referendum, as opposed to the facts of what is going to be involved in the referendum and how policy is being developed, it would be appreciated. I don't think oil was discovered when the Union was formed, but I do think England united for gain and not for loss. One thing is for sure, if we split and Scotland comes under bombardment by a tyrannical ruler, we have a fair chance of being "rescued" by England...which Syria currently does not have, not having oil. It's more disbelief at how far someone can be from reality. As above, the Scottish system is currently affiliated through the union. And will not be affiliated after the union but will continue as it did pre-union. Are you getting this, because I am now getting sick of writing the word "union". ...and will far outlive the union as the Scottish legal system it always was. Fred, you may as well say Scotland is not a country because it joined a temporary union which has as much impact on that as being an EU member. Reality is not his strong suit, but I am leaning toward Oddquine's suggestion it is deliberate propaganda and not just genuine pointlessly blinkered misguided misinformation.
Scotland had decided they were going to be a colonial power, they sent ships and built outposts in Panama. It was a good prospect, Panama had the Atlantic and Pacific very close together, goods from the east could be transported across saving ships the long and dangerous journey round the Cape. It would have been a nice little earner if the Spaniards had not had the same idea and the Spaniards not had the bigger army. Scotland lost a quarter of their country's wealth in the failed venture, if they hadn't formed a union with England and Wales then they would have gone bankrupt. There was no fiat currency in those days, you couldn't just print money like they do now, money was gold and silver and a quarter of Scotland's gold and silver was in South America in the hands of the Spaniards. So the Union was for the benefit of both countries and I believe has been to the benefit of both countries.
It would have been a nice little earner if the English had not withdrawn at the last minute the promised money and forbidden other countries like Holland also from investing, resulting in the Scottish people rich and poor digging into their own pockets and investing in it. It would have been a nice little earner if England had not demanded her navy help no Scot's when they were in difficulty leaving them to die. It would have been a nice little earner if the English had not demanded that other countries refuse to even given the boats water. It would have been good if England's imperialism had not made it so difficult to trade in the first instance that Scotland felt the need to take this gamble. and as we have seen above, the English had much to do with the failure of the Darien and the loss of life as well as the money of all of the people of Scotland. This was no Union based on free and equal decision. It resulted in rioting in the Streets of Scotland for months on end. As has already been said, Scotland only suspended her Parliament. In those days there was not universal suffrage. As soon as there was Scottish people started working to get some rights. The process continues with our democratic move towards Independence. Westminster and Scotland are politically miles apart and moving further apart by the minute. Hence the need now for a vote on Independence.
It is good that you are informative, but really breathtakingly offensive and arrogant that you continually assume people don't know their own history even at the most basic level. Despite the imposed UK education program's absence of Scottish history, I don't know many people who haven't heard about the Darien fiasco. ...thank you for confirming my previous point as accurate. England did join the union for gain and not for loss.
Scotland and England had no political union then, they were separate countries in competition with each other. England was at war with Scotland's long term ally France and needed the support of Spain who had already claimed Panama as their territory. I don't think it's fair to blame England for the Scottish incompetence which was the real reason for the Darien disaster. Yes there was rioting at the time driven by the same irrational nationalism we see re-emerging now. But within a generation Scotland went from failed state, which it was even before the Darien affair, to one of the wealthiest trading countries in the world.
I would assume, if you know your history, you will know that England was one of the wealthiest nations in Europe at the time and that Scotland was arguably the poorest. So Scotland had a lot more to gain than England and they did gain a lot, they gained the ability to trade with the entire British Empire.
You cannot be serious? We shared a 'union of crowns' and had been discussing some sort of relationship for a long time. As far as I can remember the Scot's themselves were pretty good with a surprise attack which sent the Spanish packing - notwithstanding these were not trained soldiers. and the rest I wrote is true. There are different viewpoints but no question the English deliberately scuppered it and what kind of humanity do you think it required to not allow countries to give water to our second boat???? On the other hand because there was the aspect of colonisation it was thought to be a bit immoral by many in Scotland. Even on the subject of wealth there is a different viewpoint. Try reading a bit more in depth. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/acts_of_union_01.shtml http://heritage.caledonianmercury.c...ew-light-on-scotland’s-darien-disaster/002786 I hate to tell you but every country hates being colonised/sold out however you want to look at it. If you read the BBC link I left you will see how bad a deal it was for Scotland but you are totally wrong that what is happening in Scotland now is about Nationalism in any sense in which the word is generally known - that is, in any negative way. It is political. It is because we are different politically from England. It is because we do not want your nuclear submarines in our territory and do not want our young men dying in your illegal imperialist wars. It is because you have moved so far to the right we cannot see you. We want to build a country which is not just for the elite, but one which has individual rights but is also centred on the common good. We want to build a country our grand children will enjoy living in, where there will be no more mass emigration as Scotland has known for hundreds of years. You are mistaken. The SNP is the vehicle not the destination.
Who are this "we" you talk of? Scots are not press ganged into the British armed forces you know, they volunteer, they get good pay and often a good education thrown in. Surely it should be up to them if they want to join up, up to them if they want to fight in foreign wars. I remember in the past the howls of outrage when MoD cuts meant the closing of a base in Scotland, the talk of loss to the local community and economy. I remember the fierce opposition to the disbanding of Scottish Regiments. Are these people who protested and condemned the British Government the "we" you are talking about now? Are those who will be thrown onto the dole queue with the closing of Faslane the "we" you refer to? Will they be forced to emigrate to England to keep their jobs?
The 'we' there were common arguments which I agree with. I do accept that I possibly could have put that better. I do not think that recent wars have been popular with the people. Having Independence would give Scotland her own right whether to be involved in a war or not. That is part of democracy, allowing people to choose. Now you have ignored everything else I said, so let's just get to what this is about. It is democracy and autonomy. During the 80's and 90's when Scotland was being shut down and her oil revenues were being used to fund welfare for those made redundant, we did not have a political voice. We had been offered a vote on devolution in 79 which did get a positive vote but extra conditions put on it at the last moment, meant we did not get it. More powers were though supposed to come. Instead Thatcher came and powers did not. Scotland lost out big time. So did the North of England. So did Democracy. During this time much thought was put into the fact that the UK does not have a written constitution and the reality that Thatcher did not even pay lip service to the unwritten one. The lack of access to information was also noticed. Eventually the new Labour Leader John Smith spoke to Charter 88 on his vision of how to sort out the problems of democracy the UK found herself in. He proposed devolution and Regional powers and a written constitution for the UK which would contain human rights and the right to access to information. Had this happened we likely would now have a federal UK, no need for Independence. However it did not happen. John Smith died and instead of him Labour got New Labour and omg Tony Blair. He paid lip service to John Smith's ideas. Scotland got a vote on devolution which she grabbed straight away but the NE was offered a Regional Assembly with no power and which was not even properly described to her. That ended any regional power for England. As far as the rest of the democracy ideas - written constitution containing human rights and the right to information - Blair just threw all that to the wind and embraced Corporate Globalism instead. You can find out more about this here http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkin...new-epoch-for-democratic-resistance-has-begun So Scotland got her Parliament back after all those years and a way was set out in the voting arrangements to ensure there would never be an overall majority. It was assumed Labour would be the leading party - Labour having been given birth to in Scotland and being her heartland and the Tories having hit the dust due to their lack of care about the Scottish people during the Thatcher years. Thing was, Labour had become New Labour and just carried on where Thatcher had left off as I have written above and not only that Labour was seen to have it's first loyalty to Westminster.....that is what opened the door for the SNP, the one party which could give it's allegiance to the needs and wishes of the Scottish people. They got a minority government and everyone was shocked. People liked them in government so the next election they managed to get what was supposed to be impossible an overall majority and that is what takes us to where we are now, looking at a referendum on Independence. It is simply about democracy, something the English people are getting a poor deal on at the moment.
