Wednesday, 8 August 2012
Newsnight Scotland
Is it any wonder Scottish Labour is losing voters when Ian Davidson is the best they can provide as an MP? The man is also the chair of the Westminster Scottish Affairs Committee and his behaviour is inappropriate for a person with such a position in politics.
Surely the BBC will formally request Davidson to back up his claims or make a public apology to Isabel Fraser. Does he call Newsnight 'newsnat'?
Note: Andrew Tickell blogs as Lallands Peat Worrier.
Thanks to Moridura for posting the video so promptly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
21 comments:
Ian Davidson had a valid case to put, but he seemed incapable of expressing it succinctly and wihout provocation.
Life in the Commons makes you coarse.
Hamish, Ian Davidson does not have a valid case. Check is body language last night. His constant use of the pejorative, "separation and Newsnat" has stripped him if the tiny shred of credibility he had. The supremacy of Scots law is enshrined for "all time" in the acts of union.
In July 1999 the temporarily suspended session of the Scottish Parliament of March 1707 was resumed. This was not contested by Westminster in any shape or manner. Given the parliament of March 1707 held on behalf of the sovereign people of Scotland the right to represent their sovereignty under Scottish constitutional law and practice then in Scots Law the resumption of that parliamentary session in July 1999 must mean the people of Scotland’s sovereignty once again lies in the Scottish Parliament. A legal and constitutional reality the Supreme Court gave the nod to in AXA and Others vs the Scottish Government. In other words the Scottish Parliament represents the sovereign will of the people of Scotland. This being the reality how can either section 5 or 30 of the 1999 Scotland Act be enforceable as the UK parliament at Westminster is laying claims and powers over Scottish sovereignty they neither have claim over nor right to."
McCormack vs the Lord Advocate (1953) the Lord Advocate conceded the legal and constitutional point that the people of Scotland remain sovereign and that the taking up of solely the norms of a parliamentary democracy was at odds with the purpose of the 1707 Treaty of Union and the constitutional reality that Scotland is a representative democracy.
As the 1689 Claim of Right remains law and Lord Cooper stated that the independence of Scots Law was protected for all time by the 1707 Treaty of Union, the assertion of the sovereignty of the people of Scotland is at odds with the UK constitutional view as the people of Scotland’s sovereignty has never been suceded or lent in any lawful manner to the UK Parliament at Westminster. The Scottish Grand Committee was, after all, a fudge to get round this inconvenience in law and constitutional practice – much as has Mr Blair’s back of a fag packet, Supreme Court.
In the recent judgement by the Supreme Court in the case of AXA and others vs the Scottish Government one of the reasons the case was thrown out was because the Act of the Scottish Parliament contested by Axa and others reflected the will of the people of Scotland as expressed by the Scottish Parliament. The judges avoided the use of the term ‘the sovereign people of Scotland’ explicitly but if they were not respecting the will of the sovereign people of Scotland why come to this decision?
The Supreme Court gave the nod to in AXA and Others vs the Scottish Government. In other words the Scottish Parliament represents the sovereign will of the people of Scotland. This being the reality how can either section 5 or 30 of the 1999 Scotland Act be enforceable as the UK parliament at Westminster is laying claims and powers over Scottish sovereignty they neither have claim over nor right to.
Further it could be argued that any Scottish official or politician who does agree to give over the people of Scotland’s sovereignty to Westminster is acting treasonably in the eyes of Scots Law and constitutional practice as they will be in breach of the provisions of the Declaration of Arbroath entrenched in Scots Law by the parliament of 1328, reasserted in the 1689 Claim of Right with respect to the people of Scotland being sovereign.
All this before considering the right to self determination which is core to the UN Treaty of Human Rights of which the UK is a signator, the Helsinki Accord and the Treaty of Vienna all which drive a coach and horses through the position taken by the UK Parliament at Westminster’s legal position.
Jings kb warrior, I don't need any convincing about the sovereignty of the Scots people and the right of every nation to self-determination.
The valid point which Ian Davidson made badly was that it would be preferable to avoid a possible court challenge with consequent delay and expense. To which Isobel Fraser made the perfectly reasonable rejoinder that Westminster could do that straightaway if they did not try to impose conditions.
Agree in a sense with Hamish, it would be vastly preferable for Westminster to pass a section 30 order, to prevent a legal challenge being made. I am sure that LPW (nice to put a face to the blogger, cheers for sharing that Subrosa) has made that point several times.
But I don't think that is what Davidson was trying to say, he was trying to say that the legal advice he had was definitive in knowing what the outcome would be.
His performance was truly dreadful, put aside the fact that he is a Labour MP opposed to independence, that a committee convener could be so appallingly rude is a disgrace.
I thought Ms Fraser handled the situation with grace, especially as you could clearly see she was raging.
It is hardly a radical suggestion to sat that the BBC has 'history' for bowling soft balls to the governing parties.
When Labour were in power, their coverage left a distinct taste of pro-Labour bias to my mind.
The same is true for how soft they've gone on the SNP, and the Coalition parties come to it.
I don't think it is all that radical to suggest or float the idea the BBC plays 'follow the leader' to whoever happens to be in power.
Dare I suggest that he was coarse before he entered the Commons Hamish?
Thanks for your contribution KBW.
I've no objection to rational, intelligent debate but Davidson leads the top UK decision makers regarding the future of my country and that's scary.
But he invalidated the point Hamish and insisted 'he' would apply conditions.
I've criticised Isobel Fraser on occasion Observer, but yes, she was highly professional and dignified in her handling of the idiot.
That may be Dean, but it's the behaviour of Davidson that I was attempting to highlight. His level of communication leaves a great deal to be desired.
Looks like a set up. The expenses trougher has probably been put up to this 'Newsnat' nonsense for some reason that we'll never find out.
Me thinks he complains too much and thinks of little but his own grandisement.
I'd agree RM. He's rehearsed his theme. Must have been speaking to Mr Foulkes perhaps. :)
Well said Crinkly.
Could be SR :)
I doubt if he would have been able to keep a straight face if it was Mr Brewer or Mr Campbell he was talking to rather than Ms Fraser who is 'seen' as a bit more unbiased against the SNP.
But anyway, job done. And dutifully spread everywhere across the internet.
The BBC can now say they 'have it about right' if both sides are saying they're biased. One interview against thousands of anti independence articles and interviews is neither here nor there to them.
The thought that the BBC would deviate from their London mandate to dutifully report what they're told to report ( apart from trivial nothingness about 'coalition splits' etc) is absurd.
Anything that actually matters...protection of the Union, global warming scam, EU, overseas wars etc...they will follow the govt line.
In fact, he and Labour can't seem to catch up with the fact that the word "Nat" stopped being an insult a long time ago and using the word "separatist" just makes them sound silly.
It is all too obvious that Labour still can't quite cope with not having it all their way in Scotland.
I don't agree with the charges of bullying only because Ms. Fraser is not that easy to bully. She was obviously not intimidated by him.
He is a bully Jeanne.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-15451876
Between him, Eric Joyce and if you remember the alleged hounding of the late Gordon McMaster by a fellow Labour MP - my question is why is there such a seemingly large element of thuggery in the (central belt part) Scottish Labour Party
It's because the electorate have let them away with it Aberdonian don't you think?
Looking back at the strikes etc in the 60s and 70s it took the likes of Jimmy Reid to keep them under control.
Sadly Labour no longer have a Jimmy Reid.
Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with that he is a bully, only that you really can't successfully bully someone like Ms. Fraser. No doubt he tried, but she is quite capable of defending herself. Mr. Davidson's thuggish behavior has been well recorded over time.
I don't think she was intimidated by him Jeanne, but she certainly looked quite shocked at his nasty remarks.
The impression I got was that the programme's producer told her to keep quiet for a while and let the fool ramble on. Do you think that?
Post a Comment