Scottish Parliament “subordinate” claims UK Govt in Supreme Court challenge

The Scottish Parliament is “subordinate” to Westminster the Supreme Court in London has been told.

Documents published by the Scotland Office have also revealed this is the “fundamental objection” to the Scottish Parliament’s Contunuity Bill which is being challenged by the UK government.

According to the documents, “The fundamental objection to […] the Scottish Bill is a simple one: it is for [the UK] Parliament to amend the terms of the devolution settlement in the [Scotland Act] and not for the Scottish Parliament to do so by way of an [Act of the Scottish Parliament].”

The document adds: “It is an obvious recognition of the subordinate role of the Scottish Parliament vis-à-vis the sovereign Parliament.”

The description of the Scottish Parliament as “subordinate” has prompted anger on social media with many people contrasting the term with Scottish Tory claims that Holyrood is ‘one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world’.

One poster said: ” “Subordinate”.. I’m sure that’s exactly how Westminster sees Scotland.”

Blogger James Kelly said: ” ‘An insubmissible attempt by a subordinate legislature’ – this is the UK government’s Advocate-General talking about ‘the most powerful devolved parliament in the world’ only a few seconds ago.”

The Supreme Court challenge relates to powers currently devolved to the Scottish parliament that should return to Scotland on the day the UK leaves the European Union.  However the UK government has insisted it will seize some of the powers for a limited period and legislate on the areas without the consent of the Scottish parliament in order to help establish so-called UK fameworks.

Indyref2 would like to do more news pieces. Feel free to make a contribution towards this goal.




Views: 3823
Please follow and like us 🙂

12 thoughts on “Scottish Parliament “subordinate” claims UK Govt in Supreme Court challenge

  1. John

    If they see Scotland’s Parliament as being subordinate to the English Parliament then we truely are not a nation of equals . That being the case then we dissolve the Union of the Crowns , they can’t stop Scotland from doing that as we were never conquered , end of union , FREEDOM ! .

    1. Robert Peffers

      The claimed Union of the Crowns, John, was only a personal union for the royal person who wore the crowns. The kingdom of England had annexed the crown of Wales, (Statute of Rhuddlan 1284), annexed the crown of Ireland, (Crown of Ireland Act 1542), and in 1603 it was the crown of Scotland that inherited the crown of England so, under the English rule of law in force in the three countries of the Kingdom of England in 1603, (the Divine Right of Kings), The King of the Kingdom of Scotland united all four crowns, those of Scotland & England were still independent in 1603, (before the Treaty of Union). However, as the Law of Scotland had changed in 1320, (by the Declaration of Arbroath), Scottish Monarchs were NOT sovereign and thus could not unite the two Kingdoms of Scotland & England because the King of Scotland did not have, “Divine Right of Kings”, a.k.a. sovereignty.

      Thus the Union of the Crowns was only a personal union for the joint monarch and that is why Westminster illegally forced the Treaty of Union of 1706/7. If there had been a legal Union of the Crowns in 1603 why would there need to be a Treaty of Union in 1706/7?

      The answer is that in 1688 the still independent, three country, Kingdom of England parliament, unelected in those days and composed of English Aristocracy, had a, “GLorious Revolution”, and deposed their rightful monarch, (who also wore the crown of the still independent Scotland).

      They then invited a minor royal, well down the real line of succession, Mary of Orange to become their monarch of the three country Kingdom of England – but Mary refused the crown because she did not want her husband, Billy, to be her consort. The English rebel parliamentarians then offered the crowns of England. Wales and Ireland to the minor royals as joint monarchs a.k.a. William & Mary, but illegally applied their decision upon the still independent Kingdom of Scotland that had not deposed their King.

      Thus began the wars that Westminster called The Jacobite Rebellion that were still being fought at Culloden in 1745, almost 40 years after the forced, (illegal), signing of the Treaty of Union of 1706/7. As Scotland was still independent between 1603 and 1706/7 the Jacobites could not be rebels because you cannot rebel against a monarchy not your own and William & Mary becoming the joint monarchy of the independent Kingdom of England could not be legally applied to the independent Kingdom of Scotland.

      Go learn the real history and not that taught to Scots by Westminster. English History is total lies and Westminster has always re-written it to suit Westminster and here we go again. However, with any kind of real justice, the World Court, (a.k.a. The
      International Court of Justice (abbreviated ICJ; and commonly referred to as, “The World Court”), might just side with Scotland on this issue and, ATM, the Europeans are not too enamoured with the Westminster cabal.

      1. Lorna Campbell

        The Crowns were indeed separate, but also one. It was Queen Anne, the last of the Stuart line who wanted the Union, in order to cement both kingdoms into one and to prevent Scotland from choosing a different successor to England’s choice — the Hanoverians.

        Holyrood is, indeed, a subordinate administration. No sovereignty was ceded to it, but legitimacy was and competence in some areas of legislation, not in others. If we are not very careful here, we could end up lauding the sovereignty of the people of Scotland only to find that it was last exercised in 2014, in relation to independence, and, again, in 2016 (pan-UK vote) and, again, in the snap GE. This is a minefield for constitutional law. We need to use the heid as never before, and wasting time and effort in pointless claims that cannot stand up to legal scrutiny is very pointless. The UKSC has already ruled on Westminster’s sovereignty overall, so let’s get on with working towards the dissolution of the Union itself. The UKSC case is not about sovereignty per se, but about whether Holyrood has the competence to enact a Bill that will remain inert until after Brexit, whether Westminster can overturn it and whether the power grab can be said to be legal.

  2. Alan Johnson

    Subordinate? How dare they! How offensive and typically patronising of the Tories. What we need is some immediate insubordination!

  3. Jason Smoothpiece

    We are subordinate to our English masters, we have to digest that fact.

    We then have to do something about it like voting for independence.

    Its really quite simple.

  4. Bob p

    Scotland can either remain a colony of england, or vote for independence. Thats the choice facing us.

    1. Alan Johnson

      If only more of the “Feartie Scots”, or whom there are so many, would take that on board and act on it!

  5. Clydebuilt

    O/t. I see that Councillor Chris McEleny is calling for MOD work to go to Fergusons in Port Glasgow. Aye great Idea Chris, make the yard CAPTIVE just like Govan and Scotston, giving Westminister another weapon to use against us.
    Far Far better for Fergusons to stand on their own two feet.

  6. Robert Graham

    This farce will continue today its all theatre intended to make sure Scots know their place in this union , that being ,sit in silence and do as you are told , the verdict was arrived at months ago , and surprise surprise the Supreme Court rules in favour of the Westminster Government .

    The verdict returned raises uncomfortable questions , what is the point of Scots voting in the first place when we are outnumbered 10-1 by our neighbour England , they get what they want 100% of the time ,we get what they want every single time , the only time we get what we want and vote for is if we agree with them , thats democracy ? not by the accepted definition , thats occupation and colonialism at work , no other view can be taken .

    This leaves the unionist parties with a bit of a problem , except the Tory party of coarse , who never wanted the reconvening of the Parliament in the first place and still dont recognise it as a real parliament but are happy to draw a good salary for the opportunity to make a noise and disrupt proceedings by always being out of step with the majority of Scots who dont support them , i believe they have about 23-25 % support so even the other unionist parties dont agree with them .

    What do Labour in Scotland do now ? , do they support the Parliament they trumpeted as a masterstroke by Donald Dure as a way of stopping the march to independence , or do they stick the knife in to stop the SNP at all costs , the union must always come first , I dont think anyone in Scotland can count on Labour to stand up for their interests they have previous in that respect , one look at how they work with the tory party in lots of councils gives it away .

  7. Robert Peffers

    Just to attempt to put my previous comment in a shorter form: –

    As, “The Rule of Law”, in the only two partner Kingdoms that contracted to unite by “The Treaty of Union”, is fundamentally different and they could not, and cannot, be reconciled, (see Article of the Treaty of Union Number 19), the laws of the only two United Kingdoms partners that signed the Treaty of Union will always remain irreconcilable.

    Starkly the Queen of England remains today legally sovereign in the three country Kingdom of England and the people of Scotland remain legally sovereign in Scotland and thus, if a majority of Scots say the Treaty of Union is over then it legally is over.

    The Westminster created Supreme Court has no say in the matter – because the people of Scotland are still legally sovereign and English style sovereignty, (the law that legally forced the English Monarchy to delegate their sovereignty to the Parliament of England has no place under Scots law and there has never been an elected Parliament of England in the entire History of the British Isles.

    The last, (unelected by the people of England), Parliament of England sat in April 1707 and permanently dissolved itself.

    There has been no parliament of England elected since that date so there has never been a democratic Westminster – ever.

    There thus hasn’t been a parliament of England that was legally endowed with their Majesty’s of England’s sovereignty since 30 April 1707.

  8. Robert Graham

    I never realised you could follow the proceedings of the Supreme Court, well don’t all rush to tune in ,if you expect plain language or anything remotely comprehensible, I remember trying to follow the Carmichael hearing, god that was mind numbing and very difficult to follow.

    What people in Scotland need right now is more Lawyers .

    More Lawyers at the bottom of a lift shaft waiting on a rapidly descending faulty lift.

    Well that’s it ,submissions made ,the verdict that was arrived at weeks ago will be delivered when no one is paying attention and on a good day to bury bad news , The verdict will be as usual Westminster are in charge, so don’t bloody question It Jocks .

  9. Lochside

    Without a Section 30 from Westminster, we can’t legally have a referendum..Scotland Act 1998 refers. The Edinburgh Agreement of 2012 was an agreement between Scots Parliament and Westminster engineered by Alec Salmond and manipulated by Cameron. Salmond hailed it as a great victory. But it was a trojan horse: a rigged plebiscite that put an iron halter round our sovereignty..fixing us in a bind of forever neverendums, which we will be always denied, to get our sovereignty back.

    This cemented our subordinate role in the Westminster hegemony. Instead of going to the UN and presenting our plea for our colonial status to be challenged, because of impositions of frequent ongoing breaches of the Act of Union and the undemocratic treatment of our polity by the Westminster elective dictatorship.

    We are now and have been locked in for the past 4 x years in a downward spiral to abject surrender. Despite one Westminster and Scottish parliament victory after another and a 62% remain vote, the SNP have allowed our nation to be basically written out of history.

    We have the grotesque pantomine of the ‘Supreme Court’ pontificating not on our sovereign status and rights, but on our parish council memoranda of understanding…except that takes two parties to agree…and the English won’t. We will end up ridiculed and half our population will wonder WTF next?

    All along the SNP have ignored the Act of Union as the only battleground. Why? Unless people’s minds are focused on this issue and its real significance, we are doomed to another failed managerial campaign muddled up and muddied by Brexit and devolved bullshit distractions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com