On Devolution, Brexit, Independence and the Absolute Power of Westminster

[Justin Z]

It's long--not 5,000 words long, but long. You've been warned.

 

This is tangential to both the Brexit and Indy threads and instead of taking a punt on either I thought I'd just make a new thread. As I mentioned, I wrote a paper arguing that Brexit showed the net sum of Scottish Parliament's power amounts to zero.

 

Lady Hale stated in 2012 that the UK had become “a federal state with a Constitution regulating the relationships between the federal centre and the component parts”. But Parliamentary Sovereignty, which makes Parliament supreme over everything, prevents this arrangement in actuality. That's not to say that Lady Hale's idea wasn't a driving force behind devolution in the first place. This idea that the Scottish Parliament had meaningful power “akin to dual federalism in which each level of government exercises exclusive and nonoverlapping authority… had been a key motive behind support for devolution. The Scottish Parliament was conceived as a defensive institution, designed to protect Scotland from Westminster Governments that sought to pursue policies opposed by majority opinion in Scotland”. This notion of what devolution was supposed to be, and why, is extremely important in current context.

 

For about 15 years, following passage of the Scotland Act 1998, Westminster agreed through a mechanism known as the Sewel Convention, that if it were to legislate on a devolved matter, it would seek the consent of the Scottish Parliament. As convention, Parliament had no legal responsibility to actually do this, nor would there be any consequences if it failed to.

 

Following the Scottish Independence referendum, as part of "the vow" David Cameron/the Government made to the people of Scotland should they vote no, the Sewel Convention was codified into law with the passage of the Scotland Act 2016. Arguably intended as a constitutional change, what this was meant to have done was to require Westminster to "run legislation by" the Scottish Parliament when it overlapped with Scottish Parliament's areas of competence, with a legal remedy through the courts if it failed to do so. The exact language is thus: "But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament." Make mental note of the weasel word "normally" in there, but regardless, this was a change from the previous Sewel Convention which amounted to little more than a courtesy with no statutory basis or legal backing.

 

It did not take long at all for the weasel word to have an impact. Scotland voted in the EU referendum to remain, 62% to 38%, so the Scottish Parliament's political mandate, from a democratic point of view, was pretty clear: work for the interests indicated by an overwhelming majority in Brexit negotiations. First was withdrawal itself: Withdrawal from the EU would naturally touch on a wide range of devolved matters, including powers returning from the EU to the UK, so the devolved legislatures--in Scotland and Northern Ireland especially--ought to consent to any withdrawal bill drafted by Westminster, especially with such consent now constitutionally codified. If these Parliaments had meaningful lawmaking power, they would be critically involved in the process, but the Supreme Court, Lady Hale included, said no:

 

"[T]he [Sewel] convention was adopted as a means of establishing cooperative relationships between the UK Parliament and the devolved institutions, where there were overlapping legislative competences… [and] the UK Parliament has preserved its right to legislate on matters which are within the competence of the devolved legislature.” The Amendment to the Scotland Act enacted in 2016 “does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland”.  Rather than the only answer which made political sense—that Westminster, through the Smith Commission, was “seeking to convert the Sewel Convention into a rule which can be interpreted, [and] enforced, by the courts”, the purpose of putting it in the Scotland Act 2016 was instead “recognising the convention for what it is, namely a political convention… effectively declaring that it is a permanent feature of the relevant devolution settlement…. [This] is acknowledged by the words (“it is recognised” and “will not normally”), of the relevant subsection. We would have expected UK Parliament to have used other words if it were seeking to convert a convention into a legal rule justiciable by the courts.”

 

So much for the vow, and for Lady Hale's own assertion that the UK was "a federal state with a Constitution regulating the relationships between the federal centre and the component parts". Clearly, the component parts had no power at all and the federal centre intended to keep it that way.

 

Following the triggering of Article 50, Westminster debated the European Union (Withdrawal) bill but did so again without the consent of the Scottish Parliament--its amendments to the bill were ignored and its role in the negotiations minimised to near nothing. The bill passed and became law anyway, and this was the first time UK legislation having direct impact on matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament had been enacted by the UK Parliament without such consent. The bill even added itself to the list of matters the Scottish Parliament could not legislate on, two true fingers up to the idea of devolved sovereignty and a reminder that Parliamentary Sovereignty would always be what mattered.

 

Meanwhile, the Scottish Parliament passed its own European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill. It was an attempt to “(i) save all domestic devolved law relating to the EU and incorporate all directly applicable devolved EU law into domestic Scots law; (ii) give the Scottish Ministers powers to ensure that such devolved law that is saved or incorporated into domestic law continues to operate effectively after the UK has left the EU; and (iii) give the Scottish Ministers the power to, where appropriate, ensure that Scotland’s laws keep pace with developments in EU law”. It prompted another legal challenge, and the result was the same: the court unanimously held that important parts of the Scottish Bill were not law, because it would “render the effect of laws made by the UK Parliament conditional on the consent of the Scottish Ministers” in violation of the Scotland Act 1998 itself and the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, “therefore limit[ing] he power of the UK Parliament to make laws for Scotland, since Parliament cannot meaningfully be said to ‘make laws’ if the laws which it makes are of no effect”.

 

These developments make it rather difficult to quibble with the Scottish Government's assertions that “Scotland’s 62% vote to remain in the EU counted for nothing”—arguably nothing at all, not even political concessions—and that it was now impossible to deny “that Brexit has exposed a deep democratic deficit at the heart of how Scotland is governed”.

 

My conclusion is Scottish Parliament has zero effective power. Westminster, because of the UK's constitutional arrangement, retains all of it--it simply delegates it out and when it wants to ignore the effects of that delegation, it does so freely and with the backing of the highest court. It took less than two years for Westminster to renege on part of its "vow"--a small part that it contended it had kept, anyway--and ignore Scottish Parliament altogether in contravention of how the entire constitutional arrangement was supposed to work, especially after the vow allegedly codified a protective convention into constitutional law.

 

If you managed to get through all this, cheers. Thoughts?

 

[Irufushi]

Boring pish . 

[Justin Z]

2 hours ago, Irufushi said:

Boring pish . 

 

You'll get no argument from me

[Gorgiewave]

Charles I's death warrant is on the wall in the Queen's dressing room in the House of Lords, just as a reminder, in case she tries anything fancy.

I'd say Parliament is sovereign.

 

The current change is that the public vote them in and then monitor them closely and can remove them in some circumstances. Previously we always had to wait until the next general election.

[Gorgiewave]

On the other hand, whither now your House of Representatives? That was intended to replicate parliamentary sovereign and now Reps. are junior to Sens., Press. and SCJs.

Edited May 22, 2019 by Gorgiewave

[Irufushi]

1 hour ago, Justin Z said:

 

You'll get no argument from me

 

 ?

[ri Alban]

5 hours ago, Justin Z said:

It's long--not 5,000 words long, but long. You've been warned.

 

This is tangential to both the Brexit and Indy threads and instead of taking a punt on either I thought I'd just make a new thread. As I mentioned, I wrote a paper arguing that Brexit showed the net sum of Scottish Parliament's power amounts to zero.

 

Lady Hale stated in 2012 that the UK had become “a federal state with a Constitution regulating the relationships between the federal centre and the component parts”. But Parliamentary Sovereignty, which makes Parliament supreme over everything, prevents this arrangement in actuality. That's not to say that Lady Hale's idea wasn't a driving force behind devolution in the first place. This idea that the Scottish Parliament had meaningful power “akin to dual federalism in which each level of government exercises exclusive and nonoverlapping authority… had been a key motive behind support for devolution. The Scottish Parliament was conceived as a defensive institution, designed to protect Scotland from Westminster Governments that sought to pursue policies opposed by majority opinion in Scotland”. This notion of what devolution was supposed to be, and why, is extremely important in current context.

 

For about 15 years, following passage of the Scotland Act 1998, Westminster agreed through a mechanism known as the Sewel Convention, that if it were to legislate on a devolved matter, it would seek the consent of the Scottish Parliament. As convention, Parliament had no legal responsibility to actually do this, nor would there be any consequences if it failed to.

 

Following the Scottish Independence referendum, as part of "the vow" David Cameron/the Government made to the people of Scotland should they vote no, the Sewel Convention was codified into law with the passage of the Scotland Act 2016. Arguably intended as a constitutional change, what this was meant to have done was to require Westminster to "run legislation by" the Scottish Parliament when it overlapped with Scottish Parliament's areas of competence, with a legal remedy through the courts if it failed to do so. The exact language is thus: "But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament." Make mental note of the weasel word "normally" in there, but regardless, this was a change from the previous Sewel Convention which amounted to little more than a courtesy with no statutory basis or legal backing.

 

It did not take long at all for the weasel word to have an impact. Scotland voted in the EU referendum to remain, 62% to 38%, so the Scottish Parliament's political mandate, from a democratic point of view, was pretty clear: work for the interests indicated by an overwhelming majority in Brexit negotiations. First was withdrawal itself: Withdrawal from the EU would naturally touch on a wide range of devolved matters, including powers returning from the EU to the UK, so the devolved legislatures--in Scotland and Northern Ireland especially--ought to consent to any withdrawal bill drafted by Westminster, especially with such consent now constitutionally codified. If these Parliaments had meaningful lawmaking power, they would be critically involved in the process, but the Supreme Court, Lady Hale included, said no:

 

"[T]he [Sewel] convention was adopted as a means of establishing cooperative relationships between the UK Parliament and the devolved institutions, where there were overlapping legislative competences… [and] the UK Parliament has preserved its right to legislate on matters which are within the competence of the devolved legislature.” The Amendment to the Scotland Act enacted in 2016 “does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland”.  Rather than the only answer which made political sense—that Westminster, through the Smith Commission, was “seeking to convert the Sewel Convention into a rule which can be interpreted, [and] enforced, by the courts”, the purpose of putting it in the Scotland Act 2016 was instead “recognising the convention for what it is, namely a political convention… effectively declaring that it is a permanent feature of the relevant devolution settlement…. [This] is acknowledged by the words (“it is recognised” and “will not normally”), of the relevant subsection. We would have expected UK Parliament to have used other words if it were seeking to convert a convention into a legal rule justiciable by the courts.”

 

So much for the vow, and for Lady Hale's own assertion that the UK was "a federal state with a Constitution regulating the relationships between the federal centre and the component parts". Clearly, the component parts had no power at all and the federal centre intended to keep it that way.

 

Following the triggering of Article 50, Westminster debated the European Union (Withdrawal) bill but did so again without the consent of the Scottish Parliament--its amendments to the bill were ignored and its role in the negotiations minimised to near nothing. The bill passed and became law anyway, and this was the first time UK legislation having direct impact on matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament had been enacted by the UK Parliament without such consent. The bill even added itself to the list of matters the Scottish Parliament could not legislate on, two true fingers up to the idea of devolved sovereignty and a reminder that Parliamentary Sovereignty would always be what mattered.

 

Meanwhile, the Scottish Parliament passed its own European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill. It was an attempt to “(i) save all domestic devolved law relating to the EU and incorporate all directly applicable devolved EU law into domestic Scots law; (ii) give the Scottish Ministers powers to ensure that such devolved law that is saved or incorporated into domestic law continues to operate effectively after the UK has left the EU; and (iii) give the Scottish Ministers the power to, where appropriate, ensure that Scotland’s laws keep pace with developments in EU law”. It prompted another legal challenge, and the result was the same: the court unanimously held that important parts of the Scottish Bill were not law, because it would “render the effect of laws made by the UK Parliament conditional on the consent of the Scottish Ministers” in violation of the Scotland Act 1998 itself and the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, “therefore limit[ing] he power of the UK Parliament to make laws for Scotland, since Parliament cannot meaningfully be said to ‘make laws’ if the laws which it makes are of no effect”.

 

These developments make it rather difficult to quibble with the Scottish Government's assertions that “Scotland’s 62% vote to remain in the EU counted for nothing”—arguably nothing at all, not even political concessions—and that it was now impossible to deny “that Brexit has exposed a deep democratic deficit at the heart of how Scotland is governed”.

 

My conclusion is Scottish Parliament has zero effective power. Westminster, because of the UK's constitutional arrangement, retains all of it--it simply delegates it out and when it wants to ignore the effects of that delegation, it does so freely and with the backing of the highest court. It took less than two years for Westminster to renege on part of its "vow"--a small part that it contended it had kept, anyway--and ignore Scottish Parliament altogether in contravention of how the entire constitutional arrangement was supposed to work, especially after the vow allegedly codified a protective convention into constitutional law.

 

If you managed to get through all this, cheers. Thoughts?

 

^

What he said. ?

[hughesie27]

This makes me glad that I am no longer writing academic essays.

 

 

Nothing else to add other than good point.

[Cade]

Seeing as we're doing long posts:

 

Scotland has the most powerful devolved parliament in the world, is the proud boast of the Unionist parties as they try to persuade Scotland that they fulfilled their promises to give the Scottish parliament meaningful extra powers. And it’s true that with a couple of minor caveats and quibbles, Scotland is indeed the proud owner of the most powerful devolved parliament in the world.

Of course one of the quibbles is in the word devolved. There are self-governing territories quite close to home which have considerably more powerful parliaments than Scotland does. The British crown dependencies of the Isle of Man, Jersey, and Guernsey are independent in most respects. In fact they have what many in Scotland defined as devo max, control over everything except foreign affairs and defence. The British crown territories of Bermuda, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, St Helena, Montserrat, the British Virgin Islands, the Turks and Caicos, and the Cayman Islands, enjoy similar control over their own affairs. They control their own taxation policies, some of them have control over their own immigration policies. For the most part they are independent in all important respects, with the main exceptions of foreign affairs and defence.

The self-governing kingdoms of the Danish and Dutch crowns likewise enjoy a similar degree of autonomy. The Dutch kingdoms of Aruba, Curacao and Bonaire, and Sint Maartin are self-governing islands in the Caribbean. They have close ties to the Netherlands which retains responsibility for defence and most foreign affairs, although the islands can and do represent themselves at an international level on occasion. The same is true for the Danish crown possessions of Greenland and the Faroe Islands. They are independent in almost all respects. Greenland was even able to leave the EEC.

But apart from the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Bermuda, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, St Helena, Montserrat, the British Virgin Islands, the Turks and Caicos, the Cayman Islands, Aruba, Curacao and Bonaire, Sint Maartin, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands, Scotland has the most powerful devolved parliament in the world. So that’s OK then.

There are a few other countries which aren’t independent but which still enjoy considerably more autonomy than Scotland does. Puerto Rico is a country in free association with the United States. It has the right to self-determination, and has had several referendums on independence, none of which required the permission of Washington. Most recently it voted to become the 51st state of the Union. Guam, American Samoa, and the US Virgin Islands are other self-governing territories of the United States. Like Puerto Rico they have considerable control over their own financial affairs. French Polynesia and New Caledonia are French possessions in the South Pacific, they likewise have autonomy. New Caledonia is due to hold a referendum on independence.

 

Well … being devolved means that at any time Scotland’s autonomy can be revoked or altered by the Westminster parliament. There is no constitutional guarantee of the permanency of Holyrood, despite the fact that the Unionist parties promised to ensure that would be the case. After winning the first independence referendum, they went back on their word. So since there is no constitutional guarantee of the status of Scotland, that means that every single federal territory in the world has more power than the Scottish parliament. The constitutional status of a constituent member of a federal state cannot be altered except by a change to the constitution, a single government can’t do that unless extra steps are taken, most commonly involving a referendum.

Each of the US states, the Canadian provinces, the German Länder, the Swiss Cantons, the states of Mexico, and the states of Australia have considerably more power than Scotland’s parliament does. Quebec controls its own immigration policy. The US states as well as the Canadian provinces and the Mexican states control vehicle registration. All have powers over taxation, including sales taxes. They have control over the natural resources exploited within their own territory. The US state of Alaska has an oil fund which it periodically disburses to state residents as a financial windfall. The constituent states of the Federated States of Micronesia, Yap, Chuuk, Pohnpei, and Kosrae even have the power to represent themselves independently on an international level. Tiny wee islands in the Pacific, but they’re more powerful than Scotland is.

 

But … there are some other countries, territories, and regions which have a measure of self-government and like Scotland are not constituent parts of federal states. Gagauzia is a self governing territory of Turkish speaking Orthodox Christians which is a constituent part of Moldova, which isn’t a federal state, but Gagauz autonomy is written into the Moldovan constitution and can’t be altered by a Moldovan government without the consent of the Gagauz parliament. Which is more than can be said for Scotland.

Then there are countries and territories which like Scotland are actually devolved.  Nunavut was carved out of the North West Territories as an autonomous territory for Canada’s Inuit people. The new territory was named Nunavut, which in Inuktitut, the Inuit language, means “Has more devolution than Scotland”. As with the other territories of Canada, Yukon and the remaining part of the North West Territories, the Federal government is ensuring that Nunavut has control of its own mineral and oil and gas resources. Washington DC and the Federal District of Mexico City are not federal states in their respective countries, but each enjoys most of the powers enjoyed by states. The Northern Territory of Australia likewise enjoys many of the same powers that the fully fledged Australian states possess although it enjoys these powers as devolved powers from the Federal government which retains the right to legislate on its behalf.

Catalonia, Galicia, the Basque Country and the Canary Islands are autonomous communities in Spain. Each has control over its own broadcasting, something not allowed to Scotland. The Basque Country raises all taxes within its territory and is responsible for remitting part of the receipts to Madrid to cover its share of the costs of the Spanish state. Far more control than Scotland has.

Madeira and the Azores are autonomous parts of Portugal. They have control over immigration and residency policy, control over their marine economic zones, and control over oil and mineral rights as well as fishing.

 

So apart from the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Bermuda, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, St Helena, Montserrat, the British Virgin Islands, the Turks and Caicos, the Cayman Islands, Aruba, Curacao and Bonaire, Sint Maartin, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, French Polynesia and New Caledonia, Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Newfoundland, and the rest of the Canadian provinces, Alaska, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and the rest of the states of the USA, Yucatan, Sonora, Leon, and the other states of Mexico, Berne, Grisons, Aargau, Schwyz, and the other cantons of Switzerland, Bavaria, Baden-Wurtemberg, Schleswig-Holstein and the other Länder of Germany, Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania, Yap, Chuuk, Pohnpei, and Kosrae, Gagauzia, Catalonia, the Basque Country, Galicia, the Canary Islands, the Azores, Madeira, Washington DC, the Districto Federal de Mexico, Yukon, Nunavut, the North West Territories, and the Northern Territory of Australia, Scotland has the most powerful devolved parliament in the world.

[Justin Z]

7 minutes ago, Cade said:

[Long, far more entertaining post]

 

Always loved this one. Good stuff.

[Toggie88]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

Seeing as we're doing long posts:

 

Scotland has the most powerful devolved parliament in the world, is the proud boast of the Unionist parties as they try to persuade Scotland that they fulfilled their promises to give the Scottish parliament meaningful extra powers. And it’s true that with a couple of minor caveats and quibbles, Scotland is indeed the proud owner of the most powerful devolved parliament in the world.

Of course one of the quibbles is in the word devolved. There are self-governing territories quite close to home which have considerably more powerful parliaments than Scotland does. The British crown dependencies of the Isle of Man, Jersey, and Guernsey are independent in most respects. In fact they have what many in Scotland defined as devo max, control over everything except foreign affairs and defence. The British crown territories of Bermuda, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, St Helena, Montserrat, the British Virgin Islands, the Turks and Caicos, and the Cayman Islands, enjoy similar control over their own affairs. They control their own taxation policies, some of them have control over their own immigration policies. For the most part they are independent in all important respects, with the main exceptions of foreign affairs and defence.

The self-governing kingdoms of the Danish and Dutch crowns likewise enjoy a similar degree of autonomy. The Dutch kingdoms of Aruba, Curacao and Bonaire, and Sint Maartin are self-governing islands in the Caribbean. They have close ties to the Netherlands which retains responsibility for defence and most foreign affairs, although the islands can and do represent themselves at an international level on occasion. The same is true for the Danish crown possessions of Greenland and the Faroe Islands. They are independent in almost all respects. Greenland was even able to leave the EEC.

But apart from the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Bermuda, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, St Helena, Montserrat, the British Virgin Islands, the Turks and Caicos, the Cayman Islands, Aruba, Curacao and Bonaire, Sint Maartin, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands, Scotland has the most powerful devolved parliament in the world. So that’s OK then.

There are a few other countries which aren’t independent but which still enjoy considerably more autonomy than Scotland does. Puerto Rico is a country in free association with the United States. It has the right to self-determination, and has had several referendums on independence, none of which required the permission of Washington. Most recently it voted to become the 51st state of the Union. Guam, American Samoa, and the US Virgin Islands are other self-governing territories of the United States. Like Puerto Rico they have considerable control over their own financial affairs. French Polynesia and New Caledonia are French possessions in the South Pacific, they likewise have autonomy. New Caledonia is due to hold a referendum on independence.

 

Well … being devolved means that at any time Scotland’s autonomy can be revoked or altered by the Westminster parliament. There is no constitutional guarantee of the permanency of Holyrood, despite the fact that the Unionist parties promised to ensure that would be the case. After winning the first independence referendum, they went back on their word. So since there is no constitutional guarantee of the status of Scotland, that means that every single federal territory in the world has more power than the Scottish parliament. The constitutional status of a constituent member of a federal state cannot be altered except by a change to the constitution, a single government can’t do that unless extra steps are taken, most commonly involving a referendum.

Each of the US states, the Canadian provinces, the German Länder, the Swiss Cantons, the states of Mexico, and the states of Australia have considerably more power than Scotland’s parliament does. Quebec controls its own immigration policy. The US states as well as the Canadian provinces and the Mexican states control vehicle registration. All have powers over taxation, including sales taxes. They have control over the natural resources exploited within their own territory. The US state of Alaska has an oil fund which it periodically disburses to state residents as a financial windfall. The constituent states of the Federated States of Micronesia, Yap, Chuuk, Pohnpei, and Kosrae even have the power to represent themselves independently on an international level. Tiny wee islands in the Pacific, but they’re more powerful than Scotland is.

 

But … there are some other countries, territories, and regions which have a measure of self-government and like Scotland are not constituent parts of federal states. Gagauzia is a self governing territory of Turkish speaking Orthodox Christians which is a constituent part of Moldova, which isn’t a federal state, but Gagauz autonomy is written into the Moldovan constitution and can’t be altered by a Moldovan government without the consent of the Gagauz parliament. Which is more than can be said for Scotland.

Then there are countries and territories which like Scotland are actually devolved.  Nunavut was carved out of the North West Territories as an autonomous territory for Canada’s Inuit people. The new territory was named Nunavut, which in Inuktitut, the Inuit language, means “Has more devolution than Scotland”. As with the other territories of Canada, Yukon and the remaining part of the North West Territories, the Federal government is ensuring that Nunavut has control of its own mineral and oil and gas resources. Washington DC and the Federal District of Mexico City are not federal states in their respective countries, but each enjoys most of the powers enjoyed by states. The Northern Territory of Australia likewise enjoys many of the same powers that the fully fledged Australian states possess although it enjoys these powers as devolved powers from the Federal government which retains the right to legislate on its behalf.

Catalonia, Galicia, the Basque Country and the Canary Islands are autonomous communities in Spain. Each has control over its own broadcasting, something not allowed to Scotland. The Basque Country raises all taxes within its territory and is responsible for remitting part of the receipts to Madrid to cover its share of the costs of the Spanish state. Far more control than Scotland has.

Madeira and the Azores are autonomous parts of Portugal. They have control over immigration and residency policy, control over their marine economic zones, and control over oil and mineral rights as well as fishing.

 

So apart from the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Bermuda, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, St Helena, Montserrat, the British Virgin Islands, the Turks and Caicos, the Cayman Islands, Aruba, Curacao and Bonaire, Sint Maartin, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, French Polynesia and New Caledonia, Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Newfoundland, and the rest of the Canadian provinces, Alaska, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and the rest of the states of the USA, Yucatan, Sonora, Leon, and the other states of Mexico, Berne, Grisons, Aargau, Schwyz, and the other cantons of Switzerland, Bavaria, Baden-Wurtemberg, Schleswig-Holstein and the other Länder of Germany, Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania, Yap, Chuuk, Pohnpei, and Kosrae, Gagauzia, Catalonia, the Basque Country, Galicia, the Canary Islands, the Azores, Madeira, Washington DC, the Districto Federal de Mexico, Yukon, Nunavut, the North West Territories, and the Northern Territory of Australia, Scotland has the most powerful devolved parliament in the world.

 

As with the OPs original post, very good points. 

 

 

[Ray Gin]

[Cade]

In further news,  the UK today lost a huge test case at the UN on the status of the Chagos islands.

 

When Mauritius gained independence in the late 1960s, the UK (under pressure from the USA),  kept a chain of islands previously owned by Mauritius as part of the independence deal.

They then immediately leased it to the USA, who forcibly evicted all the natives and built the Diego Garcia airbase as a strategic cold war site hosting B-52 nuclear strike bombers..

 

After many years of protest and several court cases, the UN today voted for the USA and UK to leave the islands and pay reparations to the natives.

116 nations voted for the resolution.

5 (USA, Israel, Hungary, Australia and the Maldives) voted against.

56 nations abstained.

 

Nominally, the two nations have 6 months to leave the islands, but they'll simply ignore it, be sued, lose the case and pay out more money to the natives, who will still be denied the right to return. 

 

 

[redjambo]

7 hours ago, Cade said:

In further news,  the UK today lost a huge test case at the UN on the status of the Chagos islands.

 

When Mauritius gained independence in the late 1960s, the UK (under pressure from the USA),  kept a chain of islands previously owned by Mauritius as part of the independence deal.

They then immediately leased it to the USA, who forcibly evicted all the natives and built the Diego Garcia airbase as a strategic cold war site hosting B-52 nuclear strike bombers..

 

After many years of protest and several court cases, the UN today voted for the USA and UK to leave the islands and pay reparations to the natives.

116 nations voted for the resolution.

5 (USA, Israel, Hungary, Australia and the Maldives) voted against.

56 nations abstained.

 

Nominally, the two nations have 6 months to leave the islands, but they'll simply ignore it, be sued, lose the case and pay out more money to the natives, who will still be denied the right to return. 

 

 

Wait a minute ... are we the bad guys?

 

They're right, when you're on the wrong side, it's so easy to argue and think that you're on the right side.

 

[jambo89]

9 hours ago, redjambo said:

 

Wait a minute ... are we the bad guys?

 

They're right, when you're on the wrong side, it's so easy to argue and think that you're on the right side.

 

 

 

 

[Boris]

@Justin Z very interesting read and well argued.

 

Unsurprisingly, it suppose to some, I agree with what you have written.

 

In a current climate of Westminster meltdown and Tory chicanery over Brexit, it surprises me not that Holyrood was told to eat its cereal and get back in its box.

 

[Dunks]

Excellent posts chaps and factual too - you won't see that in the press!

[Unknown user]

Good posts JZ & Cade

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Enjoyed both of the long posts here (I'm an academic, what can I say).

 

Cade is quite right about the states in the US having considerably more power than devolved parliament. There are some arrangements where I could imagine Scotland having a similar position within a far more federated UK, but those have been considered in the past and discarded. Specifically, the US would be dysfunctional if one state had 80% of the population -- Republicans already freak out about abolishing the electoral college because of California, which barely has more than 10% of the population. In other words, regional devolution in England would be required, and this seems to have never gained much traction, as much as I think it would be a good idea.

 

Like everyone else I'm wondering what will happen in the wake of May's resignation. The new Tory leader will be under enormous pressure to deliver Brexit, and for all of May's faults, her deal was probably the best possible within her explicit an implicit red lines. The two big implicit ones that I can see were that a post-Brexit Britain would have to be more neoliberal than the EU, which made a deal with Labour impossible, and that anything which weakened the union was anathema, partially because of the need to keep the DUP onside.

 

On the first, Corbyn is plainly ready to throw a lifeline to anyone who wants a Brexit deal so long as they're ready to make Britain more socialist than the EU, rather than less. I suppose there are candidates for Tory leadership who would take that deal, but I doubt they'll win. On the second, while everyone strenuously denies it, clearly most watchers wonder what would happen if a Tory leader offered the SNP some kind of deal which paved the way for an independent Scotland in the EU and a Brexited rUK.  If one wants to speak of democratic mandates, there is certainly a case that that would represent a fair interpretation of 2016.

 

Hard to know what that would mean for NI or an immigration border in Gretna and Berwick. The more mischievous part of my brain also wonders what would happen if you gave NE England and Cumbria a chance to come along with Scotland in that agreement, but that's just idle silliness.

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

1 hour ago, Ugly American said:

Enjoyed both of the long posts here (I'm an academic, what can I say).

 

Cade is quite right about the states in the US having considerably more power than devolved parliament. There are some arrangements where I could imagine Scotland having a similar position within a far more federated UK, but those have been considered in the past and discarded. Specifically, the US would be dysfunctional if one state had 80% of the population -- Republicans already freak out about abolishing the electoral college because of California, which barely has more than 10% of the population. In other words, regional devolution in England would be required, and this seems to have never gained much traction, as much as I think it would be a good idea.

 

Like everyone else I'm wondering what will happen in the wake of May's resignation. The new Tory leader will be under enormous pressure to deliver Brexit, and for all of May's faults, her deal was probably the best possible within her explicit an implicit red lines. The two big implicit ones that I can see were that a post-Brexit Britain would have to be more neoliberal than the EU, which made a deal with Labour impossible, and that anything which weakened the union was anathema, partially because of the need to keep the DUP onside.

 

On the first, Corbyn is plainly ready to throw a lifeline to anyone who wants a Brexit deal so long as they're ready to make Britain more socialist than the EU, rather than less. I suppose there are candidates for Tory leadership who would take that deal, but I doubt they'll win. On the second, while everyone strenuously denies it, clearly most watchers wonder what would happen if a Tory leader offered the SNP some kind of deal which paved the way for an independent Scotland in the EU and a Brexited rUK.  If one wants to speak of democratic mandates, there is certainly a case that that would represent a fair interpretation of 2016.

 

Hard to know what that would mean for NI or an immigration border in Gretna and Berwick. The more mischievous part of my brain also wonders what would happen if you gave NE England and Cumbria a chance to come along with Scotland in that agreement, but that's just idle silliness.

The mackems voted to leave the EU, the Geordies voted to remain. Not sure there would be any support, outside Newcastle. Sunderland seems to be happy getting screwed by the tories.