I think that is looking more and more the case with each passing year.
It seems to me that you have cultivated a profound dislike of the majority opinion in all the places you’ve lived (including as it turns out the Scots). I just think it’s rather strange that your life experiences have somehow led to a combination of hard-left socialism (communism maybe?), Irish republicanism and EU patriotism which informs all your posts.
Do you have an interest in non-political Scottish culture by the way?
The great British virtues of pragmatism and protocol. If in doubt, they go to he country to decide.
Always easier to engage in petty ad homonym comments than actually debate.
I am not a hard left socialist- I fought the union movement in its illiberal politics, I give reluctant support to the current coalition in its economics, I castigate Labour for trying to pretend that they did not exacerbate the economic crisis, I voted for Margaret Thatcher in 79 to remove what became Michael Foot socialism. I identify with Methodist Socialism, Christian Democracy, One Nation Conservatism and European Liberalism, despising extremes of left and right. I abhor Irish republicanism as it transpired (not its theory or intention). I don’t know what you mean about EU patriotism- I support European integration and mutual support but that is all.
Apart from that you are spot on.
And yes, I like Robbie Burns, Fiddle music and the pipes and get goose bumps when I hear Highland Cathedral.
Now back to real debate rather than pettiness.
I’m not sure what this refers to
Quite, rarely was a man less suited to the position he craved.
Well, you may find that the level of debate would improve if some of the above complexity was actually reflected in your posts (since you are far and away the most prolific poster on some of these topics). As it is, they mostly sound heavily influenced by the socialist commentators du jour, or left-wing spam that gets passed around by email (“watch Tommy Sheridan destroy a No voter!!!”)
Did they? That gap must have been plugged pdq because the highest criminal court in Scotland remains the High Court of Justiciary.
Just shows how wrong wild assumptions can be. It rather reflects poor discretion on your part.
I think that you may both be in moderate error. Certain criminal decisions are appealable to the House of Lords previously, Supreme Court now if they involve Human Rights issues. I don’t think this came from the Scotland Act, but from European Treaty obligations.
Bit complicated, but let me explain.
-Act of Union said HCJ would remain the highest court in Scotland for all time.
-
At common law, a Court could not review the vires(meaning competence to enact) of a statute passed by the UK parliament . They could and did however review vires of laws passed under powers given by Statutes. Such as laws passed by Subordinate legislatures. Such as colonial ones. Or devolved bodies.
-
Under the Scotland Act 1998, Criminal Law and Procedure as well as prosecutions were devolved to Scotland.
-
At the same time, the UK wide Human Rights Act 1998 was passed. Under it, all devolved bodies and agencies under their control (such as courts and police) must adhere to the right given under the European Convention on Human Rights. Final decisions on whether or not certain action was violative was in the House of Lords and now Supreme Court.
-
So in practice, while earlier a criminal defendant was out of luck after the judgement of HCJ, nowadays if he can raise a devolution or a Human rights issue, he can hi further to the UKSC. In 2012, that was formalised.
For all practical purposes there now is an appeal to the UK Supreme Court in criminal casees.
I thought it was the HRA rather than the Scotland Act.
I am not sure that the appeal to the Supreme Court is an appeal against judgement or sentence, but an appeal against the fairness of that judgement under the ECHR Convention. If the UK Supreme Court is passing a Judgement of Human Rights issues rather than the technical issue of judgement and sentence, could the Scottish Judiciary contest that by seeking an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. I believe that if such a decision is returned by the European Court of HR it does not overturn the conviction but returns the case to be dealt with by the appropriate court in a manner compliant with the ECHR Convention.
No, Scottish courts, like all UK courts, are bound by the Supreme Court judgement. And, the European Courts are not sitting in appeal over Member states Courts, they are only deciding whether an action is within the scope of European law or the Convention as the case may be. As it is, the Scottish judiciary would have no standing to challenge anyway
I am not sure what you mean by “appeal against judgement and sentence” versus “appeal against fairness of judgement”. An appeal is not a rehearing. An appellant in filing an appeal must state grounds of appeal, that is why s/he thinks the judgement below in is error and is liable to be reversed/varied /vacated.
Currently, for Scottish criminal appeal before the UKSC, an Appellant can only raise grounds which relate to Human Rights and or devolved powers. This is similar for what you need in cases arising from Scottish civil cases and from England and N Ireland, where it is that a case raises an issue of law on a matter of general public importance.
As a poster who has littered this three with ad hominem remarks, (bad puns not withstanding), you would be advised to refrain from this sort of comment.
EVERYONE: drop the personal comments that do nothing to promote the discussion.
[ /Moderating]
Thanks AK, for taking the time to explain 
So, under Cameron’s English votes for English laws proposal, could a Scot ever again hold the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer or Prime Minister? It seems that it would be impossible to hold either of those offices if you were constitutionally barred from voting in matters affecting 95% of the population. Further, could Scottish MPs sitting in committee still influence English laws, and could Scottish Lords block their passing?
My knee jerk reaction to Miliband trying to block this move was that he was just doing it to prevent Labour being eviscerated in England, now I’m not so sure and a real constitutional convention sounds like a good idea…
Exactly. England’s problem is that it elects conservatives. There’s an easy way for the English to deal with that, if it bothers them.
Right. Exactly why no one complains about Republicans in the States. You just quietly vote for someone else.
Just to be picky, it’d be about 85%.
I don’t think we are going to get any sense out of the political parties on this issue because they will inevitably favour whichever solution improves the chances for them at the next election.
There needs to be an independent body looking at this constitutional question.
I don’t complain to the English about American conservatives, because you can’t do diddly about it. I do of course try to persuade my retarded American compatriots to stop voting for them.