tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post7813477982342637919..comments2024-03-29T05:53:21.060+00:00Comments on SCOT goes POP!: Time to call the London establishment's bluff with a UK 'Free Alliance'?James Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-51395081720558587252010-05-01T16:51:16.633+01:002010-05-01T16:51:16.633+01:00In other European states there is a precedent of w...In other European states there is a precedent of what you describe.<br /><br />Take for example the federation Regions et Peuples Solidaires in France: http://www.r-p-s.info/<br /><br />Even if not successful in gaining more airtime I still think the SNP, Plaid and Mebyon Kernow plus progressive Eng Nats (or regionslists?) should work far more closely together, but being on the slowest boat in the convoy Cornish nationalism, as once described by a Scot Nat, I would say that.cornubianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13985409305363332274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-973305458891645372010-04-28T18:16:32.312+01:002010-04-28T18:16:32.312+01:00James:
You're right. Para [37] is the only one...James:<br />You're right. Para [37] is the only one that really counts. The rest is all legal wafflese to fill the judgment.<br /><br />Para. [37] is the killer. The SNP's case is that the BBC is not impartial so there should be a judicial review of their decision to exclude the SNP but since the judge thinks that the BBC are impartial the whole case stops there. That's the paragraph that stopped the SNP case in its tracks.<br /><br />It's worth having a look at the rest though.<br /><br />Para [39] is a strange one. I always thought that judges didn't like being used as a first resort and anyone should try to negotiate a settlement outside court before going legal. Not in the opinion of this judge and she also also regards the debates as a package not as a single case against the BBC after weeks of negotiation.<br /><i>"There is no satisfactory explanation advanced as to why the petitioners did not take action prior to the first debate".</i><br />The first debate was by ITV not the BBC. What this says is that the fact the SNP tried to negotiate with the BBC rather than going to court in December counts against them.<br /><br />She also seems to regard the fact that the first two debates have already damaged the SNP as a reason not to stop the third because interdicts are to stop damage occurring. That bit's not very clear to me. Again she seems to be taking the debates as a package not on an individual basis as the SNP case is that the BBC debate will cause further damage.<br /><br />para [40] again regards the debates as a package. The worry is not that the SNP are being unfairly treated, because she's already decided they're not in para [37], but that the rest of the UK will not get their third debate.<br /><br />She's got a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Smith,_Lady_Smith" rel="nofollow">bio</a> on Wikipedia.DougtheDughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02952281599715356995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-85712344562225603282010-04-28T17:17:23.854+01:002010-04-28T17:17:23.854+01:00Yes, Doug, with the benefit of hindsight you were ...Yes, Doug, with the benefit of hindsight you were clearly right. It's striking that three out of four of those points can be regarded as technicalities, ie. they refer to deficiencies in the way the legal action was brought, rather than to the central issue.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-45412641784089138882010-04-28T16:31:01.016+01:002010-04-28T16:31:01.016+01:00The text of the court judgment is here.
http://ww...The text of the court judgment is here.<br /><br />http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2010CSOH56.html<br /><br />I'll have to read throught it more carefully but there are some points which stand out.<br /><br />The judge thinks the BBC coverage has been and will be impartial [37]<br /><br />The fact the SNP delayed their court action counts against them and they should have started court action as soon as possible after 21 Dec. when the decision to go ahead with the debates was made. [39]<br /><br />It would be bad form to stop the third debate when everyone is waiting to see it [40]<br /><br />The SNP weren't precise enough about what they wanted in the third debate. They didn't specify if they wanted a Westminster MP or someone else or whether they wanted someone on the platform or a spot after the debate or even what they meant by, "equal terms". It would confuse the BBC if an interdict was granted. [43]<br /><br />I said before in a comment on this blog that the the SNP made a strategic mistake with the debates by not going to court at the start to try and stop them. I hope they don't make the same mistake again.DougtheDughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02952281599715356995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-4602010854582004812010-04-28T16:02:01.312+01:002010-04-28T16:02:01.312+01:00Wouldn't matter even if they did form such an ...Wouldn't matter even if they did form such an alliance James. There is no clear rule for inclusion in the whatever-we-need-them-to-be-called debates. In reality the rule is whatever criteria give us Labour, Tory and Lib Dem and noone else. Sadly the SNP and PC are in a Graeme Obree type situation: no matter what they do they will fall foul of rules that will be amended to thwart them.forfar-loonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03825964478078065335noreply@blogger.com