"It is not for the pursuer to stand in the shoes of parliamentarians". These were the words put forward to the court by the Lord Advocate on behalf of the Scottish Government in the #PeoplesAS30.
What it was meant to convey to the court was that despite the fact I....
...was standing as pursuer for 10,000 members of the Scottish Electorate backing the case, I did not have the right to ask a simple question about our own parliament because I am NOT A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT.
This is one of the primary reasons I am running for Mid-Scotland and Fife in the Scottish Elections - no other elected person can join the case (because it's at appeal stage) and become a pursuer, so I am trying to do it the other way around.
These constant punchup between SNP1/2 advocates and alba advocates (and I don't mean those who actually debate in a robust but congenial fashion) - please leave me out of it. I don't care if someone is snp, green, alba, independent, or another denomination, I'll work...
...with them, if they are pushing forward the cause of independence. Bickering, arguing, slagging each other off - I have no interest in it. I'm interested in only two things: (1) Furthering the cause of independence; and (2) Trying to improve the lives of people in...
...Mid-Scotland and Fife and Scotland as a whole. That's it...period!
I have no interest in the said and she said and I am unable to opine on things I haven't seen or was unaware about.
SNP 1/2 advocates going nuts about my post earlier about Mid-Scotland and Fife - but they can go as nuts as they want to - it doesn't change the maths and I only have to ask one single question about Mid-Scotland and Fife to prove my point.
How are the SNP going to gain an additional 46000 votes in Mid-Scotland and Fife (minimum) over and above their 120000, just to get their first seat on the Mid-Scotland and Fife regional Ballot?
The answer is - They can't! It is mathematically impossible.
That 46000 additional votes by the way, goes up to 80000 additional votes if they take willie rennies seat.
Lord Advocate has gone rogue again - Backers of #PeoplesAS30 check your emails please. For everyone else here's the breakdown.
Yesterday, the Lord Advocate (Yes! The person who is supposed to defend the Scottish Parliament and who is a member of the Scottish Government) took it upon himself to lodge documents with the court with regards to a case brought in the high court of England...
and try to found upon it as a precedent which the court should consider as part of the people's action. Today, the Advocate General (Yes! The conservative advocate general that represents the Tory Government at Westminster) predictably lodged paperwork that basically says....
Update on #PeoplesAS30: It would seem that the UK Gov is trying to enter irrelevant rulings into the case after the hearings. A case under English law (so different jurisdiction) on a judicial review (ours is not a judicial review)....
...in which the people's action is mentioned. The substance of the case submitted is wholly irrelevant to the people's action.
Oh! and the case itself was based on English Constitutional convention, not Scottish. So just hogwash, basically.
This whole #GetOutOfMyPub incident just goes to show how angry the hospitality industry is and people will say that closing pubs was necessary, and they'd be right....the first time round. However, we live on an Island. Had the UK Government setup proper track and trace...
...with testing at the UK's ports and airports, they could have gone for broke like the likes of New Zealand and eradicated this virus from the UK mainland. Testing would have seriously mitigated the chance of COVID coming back with a vengeance and disruption...
...to UK businesses would have been much less than it has been. They like to blame the public for the second wave etc, but the reality is that if they'd actually implemented proper testing (like the WHO kept repeating TEST TEST TEST) at ports...
A very stark opinion from a friend in medicine this week who's been reviewing my medical notes and believes that as a child I might not just have had "balance issues" which you've already seen me talk about previously...
...instead, combined with medical issues in adulthood, they believe I may have dyspraxia (or similar). It not only explains my medical issues which appeared 15 years ago but also explains something more worrying. Nobody picked up on it, and because...
...clinicians selectively disregarded certain information over the last decade and a half, they chose to deal with my symptoms like they would a normal person. The problem is that the medications they've been giving me are Central Nervous System depressants...
The policy of the greens that they would seek to use the powers of holyrood to get rid of trident is complete and utter nonsense. There's only one way not to have trident in Scotland and that is NOT TO BE in a nuclear state like the UK.
Trident can only be removed from our shores by one means - independence followed by a direct order to the UK Government to remove its nuclear garbage from next to our second-largest city with a deadline after which we'll dump it on WM's front porch.
This is not an issue like fracking where you can simply block it by declaring a moratorium. These weapons are already there and good luck trying to rid Scotland of them under the UK Government.
I'll not be opining on the death of Philip. This is because I do not believe in monarchy. I see them as having no right to a higher station than any other person. I consider everyone to be equal.
To me this is a case of a normal 99-year-old person who has had a good run in life, passing away. I have sympathy for his family for their loss, as I would for any person who has lost a loved one. But not knowing Philip personally, I can opine no further than that.
I can attribute no special meaning to his passing above what I would consider being appropriate for any other person I don't know passing away.
Aidan O'Neill QC commences his submission to the court by referencing the declaration of Scotland (Arbroath) on the day of its anniversary for its absolutely unequivocal assertion and statement that in Scotland,
sovereignty rests with the people.
Aidan O'Neill states that it is fascinating to compare the Claim of 1689 to the English Bill of rights.
There is a different notion of sovereignty in England compared to Scotland. In England, sovereignty filters down from the king or queen. In Scotland, it rests with the people.
Comon people! it's this sort of thing that just ends up screwing us all. Sure it's awesome to get out of lockdown but all you're doing is causing cases to go through the roof again and into another lockdown. It's not a winning strategy!
All it does is put case's back up and give the politicians more excuses to curtail more of our civil liberties. Now that lockdown is ending, how about we not all screw ourselves. Let's just keep distance, wear masks, and clean hands.
And perhaps if we look at a park and go....."I can't stay at least 2m from other people..."then maybe not go in, for your own welfare"?
You know there are carers and disabled people who can count on one hand the number of times they've been out since last march because of this.
Just reading the documents for the #PeoplesAS30. The Lord Advocate actually says, and I quote:
"The pursuer contends that the Scottish Government has given an "undertaking that it will introduce and promote it as Government Bill before the next Scottish Parliament" and that this undertaking constitutes an enforceable legal promise.
"The document contains no such undertaking; nor could the present Scottish Government bind the Government to be formed after the forthcoming general election."
For 22 years, politicians have failed to answer a simple question. When 10,000 ordinary people sought to have it answered, they proclaimed that only politicians should be allowed to answer the question they have failed to.
We live in a nation where the people are supposed to be sovereign. The literal definition of sovereignty is "where power is derived". Telling 10,000 people and their representative you don't have the right to ask a simple question about your own country is not respect...
...for that sovereignty. It's a statement that you believe yourself to be above the peoples right to ask questions - that's just a fact.
But then to use the tax base of those same people to waste time, money and energy...
Politicians make promises and often they break them. I don't. I made a promise to do everything I possibly can to protect the peoples action and to push for the voices of the 10,000 who backed it.
It's extremely easy to criticise when you're not in full possession of the facts, and trust me, if you were, your hair would probably curly. I've asked people to give me a better option. They haven't. I therefore must take the least bad option to try and protect the case.
I do note, however, that those who have used the case for electoral advantage over the past year seem deafly silent on this and have also failed to come up with an alternative. Or should I say have avoided doing so. Go figure.
My announcement today has annoyed people - and I want to be upfront and tell you I understand completely. I also want to be upfront and tell you it is that I tried and failed to find a win win option.
The only thing I could do, and which seems to be a recurring theme in the UK, is to select the least bad option.
There are those who will rightly say that my standing as an independent betrays the fact that AFI stood down or ISP stood down. And for some part of that, you're probably right. But when push comes to shove. My first promise was to the 10,000 backers of the #peoplesas30.
If there's one thing the peoples' action has taught me, it is that if you leave it to politicians, you'll be waiting 20 years for an answer and still not get one.
Then if you try to get that answer for yourself, you'll end up being told it's not for the people to ask reasonable questions of law about their parliament that politicians have continuously failed to answer.
Simultaneously, you'll be told that politicians love a good mandate - So that's what I am doing.
To be clear - i'm signalling my intention, if elected to stand as presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament. I'm doing it now to make clear my intent. An independent as PO means nobody from any yes party giving up their membership to become an independent to be PO.
That means no lost votes on the floor of parliament.
Secondly, and some might disagree, but I feel I have proven I can walk the fine line down the middle of party politics.
Thirdly, let's face it, that skill will come in handy because my impression is that parliament is definitely going to need a referee. And better it be a yesser than a unionist.
I face a dilemma, and I am going to say from the outset that I do not want SNP supporters fashioning this into a tool to beat ALBA supporters and I do not want ALBA supporters doing the same - and that goes for all other yessers as well.
Last night I had cause to update the backers in the peoples action - and let me make this clear to the lord advocate and the advocate general - the idea that ordinary citizens don't have the right to ask reasonable questions of the court on matters regarding their own....
....parliament is the single most self-entitled, narcissistic, egomaniacal and ludicrous thing I have ever heard and I will defend to the death the right of the ordinary person to do so - because we're right - politicians work for us, not the other way around. And so do you!
@Lovingi79716481 I can explain it for you now if you like. It's actually more simple than the politicians make out.
@Lovingi79716481 First thing - stop thinking of it as d'hondt, because it's not. Sorry, but it really annoys me people call it that - it's the additional member system. Now for this example I am going to use my region mid Scotland and fife.
@Lovingi79716481 So! We have the region MSF (mid-scotland fife). It has 9 constituencies in it. The 9 constituencies form the region. First we have the constituency ballot where you vote for the person. In MSF 120,000 people vote SNP.
The question is not about SNP or ALBA on the regional ballot. The question is do we want to let unionists in the back door by default? That makes this a mathematical decision, not one of the heart or feeling or intuition or bias or dislike of a single candidate.
This is one of the most amazing moments in Scottish History, a clear mathematical certainty that will lead to our independence. It's like the 2014 independence referendum. The future of your country is in your hands. You can embrace it or throw it away.
The are those saying they wont vote SNP on the constituency ballot because of a political difference, and I would say fair enough to that. But then I would also say to you, what is the primary reason that person you dislike keeps getting re-elected?