Friday, 21 January 2011

Tony Blair and Changes in Scots Law



Tony Blair is due to appear before the Chilcott Inquiry today.  Before he travels he consults with his lawyers for reassurance he will not be arrested on arrival.  What a legacy. I've never heard of a British ex-PM having the need for legal advice regarding their lawful standing in their own country.

Perhaps he's a wee bit concerned with the changes which are soon to take effect in Scots law. You can read the detail here because I have no knowledge of legal matters (I leave that to Lallands Peat Worrier and Love and Garbage), but here's a quote from the article:


As an outcome of the meeting, we have sent an open letter to the Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, asking him to amend the ICC (Scotland) Act 2001, adding the ‘crime of aggression’.

“If we did so it would be an excellent example to the rest of the world. It would send the clear message that we respect international law. It would prevent Scotland being dragged into murky and counterproductive military ventures in the future. I call on all MSPs to support such a move. Scotland could lead the fight against illegal war.”


Well done Scotland. I shouldn't think Tony Blair will be visiting anytime soon.

18 comments:

William said...

Why should Scotland, or the UK, submit itself to 'international law' (whatever the hell that is)? I thought the aim here was to become more independent, not tie ourselves up even further in foreign interference?

Apropos nothing, the author of the article, Felicity Arbuthnot, is quoted elsewhere on the Internet as describing the Mohammed cartoons as 'blasphemous'. So I think we know what kind of international construct Felicity Arbuthnot would really like. It's not one I would share.

Nomine said...

So basically, when its tony's spherical bits on the line he becomes a great believer in legal advice does he?
If we had been as mendacious as Bliar as kids we would have had our legs slapped and sent to bed without our supper to think about it again, how have standards fallen so low that he does not face the adult equivalent, ...oh sorry I forgot , years of PC liberal labour sh*te...

On the second point when Scotland bring back hanging for treason, re-institute the common law for the good of the people and declare the UK parliament to be an illegal cabal of profiteers and carpetbaggers, then and only then will I believe that things are changing for the better!

RMcGeddon said...

" It would prevent Scotland being dragged into murky and counterproductive military ventures in the future."

Is Defence not a UK matter SR ?
I didn't know we were able to decide where our troops are sent.
Scottish Law is subservient to the European Court so would have to be accepted by them first.

subrosa said...

You're right William, she is a leftie but I didn't know she was that much of one.

Every country needs to contribute to international law in some areas though don't you think.

One of the main points of the post was to highlight the addition of 'crime of aggression'. Of course it doesn't mean too much because military decisions are taken in London but it shows the differing attitudes.

subrosa said...

I'm watching him bluffing his way through the Inquiry right now Nomine. Thankfully those on the Inquiry aren't swallowing his spin.

subrosa said...

Yes it is RM and this could be viewed as just a token gesture I suppose, but it's in the right direction.

tris said...

Blair was called back because everything he said last time, except confirming his name, was an out and out lie.

It would be interesting if we made it illegal to get involved in aggressive wars rather than defensive ones.

As RMcGeddon said, defence is, regrettably, a matter for the imperial government in faraway London, which means we go to war when America goes to war, or orders us to. It would be interesting if our soldiers had to obey English law and go to war, against the law of their own country. It’s interesting that so many people think that the UK shouldn’t have any truck with international law, ie should isolate themselves, but the minute that America tells them to go to war, they jump up and down with excitement and froth at the mouth and blast off.

It would mean that no English Cabinet member who sent them to war would ever be able to set foot in our country again. Splendid.

I suspect, however, that neither Labour nor Tory in the Scottish parliament will accept any law that stops them whopping the arse of Johnny Foreigner. They will receive their orders for Cameron and Milly Band. I suspect that Clegg will probably join in and send Tavish a directive now that he’s a Tory too.

A war (that you win) is always good as an election booster. Ask mrs Thatcher, the Deloris Umbridge of England.

I daresay, by the way, that we are paying for Mr Blair's lawyers. We pay for everything else he does.

Brian said...

If The Horned One is ever charged with waging aggressive war, wouldn't the member for Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath be similarly liable on grounds of conspiracy or joint enterprise (is the latter possible under Scots Law?)

Edward Spalton said...

I agree with William. It would, of course, be poetic if Blair were haled before the International Criminal Court, as he signed us up to it. The Americans had more sense.

The court is a standing supra national authority with boundless ambitions and, in my view, a very dangerous organisation indeed. There are proposals to make "ecocide" a justiciable offence before it and to empower it to enforce "legally binding" CO2 targets etc. It aspires to be an arm of world government, no less..

Having followed parts of the Milosevic trial, I have zero faith in any such institution. Blair should be tried here. There are plenty of precedents, if you go back far enough.

Joe Public said...

"I've never heard of a British ex-PM having the need for legal advice regarding their lawful standing in their own country."

That's because Bliar is the only PM ever to have taken Britain into an illegal war.

subrosa said...

I watched Blair this morning Tris and he's really honed his acting skills even more.

Although this is a token gesture, it's a step in the right direction.

The amount of police protecting Blair today shows something really wrong with our policing system. Far too many around.

subrosa said...

I wouldn't know Brian but the madman from Kirkcaldy would plead ignorance as he wasn't there.

subrosa said...

True Joe.

subrosa said...

You've jogged my memory Edward. We haven't heard much about the ICC and any new policies recently have we.

English Pensioner said...

I've never managed to find out what exactly "an illegal war" is.
Clearly, it is desirable that others should approve of your actions, but as long as we remain a sovereign country, surely we have the absolute right to go to war. Whether the mechanisms within the country are the right ones for coming to such a decision is another matter, but we have the absolute right to go to war.
Suggestions that we need UN approval is ludicrous. The UN does not make laws or indeed enforce them. The only treaty we need to obey is the Geneva Convention, and even then it is arguable whether it is applicable in the case of conflict with countries which are not party to the convention or in a war against terrorists.
So what laws did Blair, or the government of the day actually break?

Weekend Yachtsman said...

What English Pensioner said.

I could not have put it clearer, thank you sir or madam.

subrosa said...

Does the principle of invasion not come into it somewhere EP. It's a while now since I did a little research on this but I think the British constitution states Britain will protect itself against those who threaten it.

When was Iraq a threat to this country? Let's not forget, we were part of the group which gave Saddam the job in the first place.

subrosa said...

I think EP is a sir WY.

Related Posts with Thumbnails