I followed the discussion about the draft plebiscite on the future of the Union Treaty.
According to the UN Charter of Human Rights, it is not for the current state to define or interfere with a plebiscite organized by one of its components of the nation-state on the issue. of independence. The British government is one of the main signatories of this charter.
The Treaty of Union provided for the termination of the treaty by protecting certain immutable rights of the people of Scotland in terms of our legal code, constitutional rights and much more in Article 19.
Lord Cooper in his summary of McCormack vs The Lord Advocate (1953) pointed out that there was no equivalent in Scottish law of the English law constitutional practice of “The Crown in Parliament” as the people of Scotland are Sovereign – legal status given by the Petition of Right 1689 (which remains ‘in law’) by which the current Queen was made ‘Queen of Scotland’ – and that their considered will is paramount. He argued that at some point in the future, unless this critical constitutional black hole and the series of red herrings used to hide it, at the center of the British parliamentary system, are not fully and properly resolved, it could lead to the end of the UK. Parliamentary Union. This warning came from a person who was a staunch trade unionist.
We are now at the point which Lord Cooper was concerned about, the future point where the “considered will of the Scottish people (which remains paramount)” would prevail over an English law and constitutional practice used to give the British government and parliament powers excessive which have no equivalence in Scottish constitutional law or practice, especially as we watch the impact on the unwritten English constitution of being trampled upon by a venal and corrupt British government, led by a serial liar and a psychopath, for whom the law is for others and Not them.
So a plebiscite on Scotland’s future in the British Parliamentary Union is guaranteed under the UN Charter of Human Rights or on the basis of the ‘reflected will of the Scottish people‘ who , when the vote splits the parties supporting the plebiscite in Scotland, both in Holyrood and Westminster, it is clearly and therefore cannot be considered ‘illegal’ or requiring the agreement of the UK Parliament or UK Government, for the Treaty of Union itself allows the sovereign parliament of one of the original signatories to repeal their Act of Union by which the treaty is empowered. We Scots vote Yes to end the Union in a plebiscite and then our sovereignty resides fully in Holyrood, which as the successor sovereign parliament in Scotland to the ‘Thrie Estaites’ can repeal the Act of Scottish Union of 1707.
Given the extent to which England depends on Scotland for its energy (and many other things), I wouldn’t think the negotiations to settle the divorce would be so painful or protracted.
IN his lengthy letter on the Single Transferable Vote (April 18), Brian Kelly writes: “The quotient, Q, is calculated by dividing the total votes cast (T) by the number of seats (S) available plus 1. Then a additional quotient one is added. This reveals a slight misunderstanding of how a quota is calculated using the STV formula. The last “additional” is conditional. In STV, if the quotient contains a decimal fraction, whether or not it is greater or less than 0.50, it is rounded up to the next whole number. Only if the quotient is a whole number (whole number) does the final “extra one” apply (see Electoral and Party Systems by Arend Lijphart).
I AND most people recognize that young adults and sub-adults have a point of view and can make observations about the world around them. Unfortunately, as we all know, once we reach our senior years, we realize that our naivete in this age of the real world, events, history, work and more is seriously lacking.
At this young age, we don’t know how the world works, how people interact, nor do we have the ability to fully understand how our own actions and reactions affect everyone and everything around us. It’s bad enough with some seniors with decades of experience. We all make bad choices, but no more so than in our teens and early twenties. How can a 16 or 17 year old effectively represent and advise someone else? There needs to be a much more effective way of involving young people in our decision-making instead of allowing them to directly control, analyze, create and vote on legislation.
NO taxation without representation. In Scotland, at 16, you can marry under your own agency, join the armed forces, vote and have sex. Not all 16 year olds do all of these things. If “standing for election” as a community representative were added to this less than comprehensive list, I wouldn’t see it as a more shocking liability than any of the others. A lot of 16-year-olds wouldn’t choose it either, but they should be allowed to.