From the BBC...
"Meanwhile, Scotland Office Minister David Mundell said he was seeking clarity from Mr Salmond that he properly understands that his legal duty to "uphold the continued independence of the judiciary" also includes the UK Supreme Court.
The 2008 Judiciary and Courts Act, passed by the Scottish Parliament, makes it clear the first minister is among those who have an explicit duty to protect the independence of the judiciary and to give them the "support necessary to carry out their functions."
Mr Mundell said he wanted Mr Salmond to "state publicly and unequivocally" that he accepts the legislation introduced by his own government."
A couple of points spring to mind -
1) I trust someone is writing to Mr Mundell to ensure he properly understands that, whoever Alex Salmond is answerable to for the way he carries out his many legal duties, it isn't the junior minister at the Scotland Office.
2) Westminster is forever lecturing devolved politicians over how they should keep their nose out of reserved matters, and indeed laws cannot be passed by the Scottish Parliament if they cover reserved matters. Given that the UK Supreme Court is a reserved matter, I think we can safely assume that the provisions of the Scottish Parliament's 2008 Judiciary and Courts Act cannot possibly extend to the Supreme Court.
Or to put it another way - nice try, David.
Showing posts with label David Mundell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Mundell. Show all posts
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Monday, May 3, 2010
Salmond wins the best debate
It has to be said my own immediate impression of the TV debates during this campaign hasn't always borne a lot of relation to the 'definitive' version of events I've read in the newspapers the following morning. But, for what it's worth, I thought last night's was by some distance the best of all the debates (UK or Scottish), with an electric atmosphere, an air of spontaneity, and a moderator who was not only empowered by the rules to hold the combatants to account, but actually did so very effectively. Indeed, Glenn Campbell said a couple of things out loud that I've been waiting for someone to point out for weeks now. Firstly, that the supposed 'right to sack MPs' is being massively oversold, as it will seemingly only apply when an MP has explicitly been found guilty of wrongdoing by the parliamentary authorities, which won't be very often. Secondly, that the Liberal Democrats cannot credibly claim to be a 'new' party, when via their predecessor party the Liberals they've actually been around for longer than Labour, and just as long as the Tories. The SNP were in fact the youngest party involved last night, although even they go back all the way to 1928!
My other strong impression was that Alex Salmond emerged as the clear winner, with Alistair Carmichael failing to sparkle quite as much as he had in the two previous debates, and David Mundell once again living down to expectations. It's much harder to meaningfully assess Jim Murphy's performance, as I've always felt that he's a wooden, transparently insincere debater - and yet Hamish Macdonell somehow felt able to score him the narrow winner of the first STV debate. Evidently there's something I'm missing, and I missed it again last night. But at least Murphy resisted the temptation to tell us yet again about how "as a Scottish patriot, and as a Murphy, it gives me no pleasure to have to say that Ireland is very nearly as rubbish at governing itself as Scotland would be". Perhaps he's happy to give someone else a shot at being the toast of Dublin.
One mildly encouraging point is that, to my surprise, a couple of my (non-political) relatives were just as keen to catch this debate as they had been for the UK one on Thursday. Given that it received only a tiny fraction of the hype, I was amazed they even knew it was on.
*
No wonder Ieuan Wyn Jones looked utterly baffled when Richard Bacon asked him on BBC3 whether the English or the "French Celts" were the more natural allies for Wales. Would that be the Bretons you're talking about, by any chance, Richard?
My other strong impression was that Alex Salmond emerged as the clear winner, with Alistair Carmichael failing to sparkle quite as much as he had in the two previous debates, and David Mundell once again living down to expectations. It's much harder to meaningfully assess Jim Murphy's performance, as I've always felt that he's a wooden, transparently insincere debater - and yet Hamish Macdonell somehow felt able to score him the narrow winner of the first STV debate. Evidently there's something I'm missing, and I missed it again last night. But at least Murphy resisted the temptation to tell us yet again about how "as a Scottish patriot, and as a Murphy, it gives me no pleasure to have to say that Ireland is very nearly as rubbish at governing itself as Scotland would be". Perhaps he's happy to give someone else a shot at being the toast of Dublin.
One mildly encouraging point is that, to my surprise, a couple of my (non-political) relatives were just as keen to catch this debate as they had been for the UK one on Thursday. Given that it received only a tiny fraction of the hype, I was amazed they even knew it was on.
*
No wonder Ieuan Wyn Jones looked utterly baffled when Richard Bacon asked him on BBC3 whether the English or the "French Celts" were the more natural allies for Wales. Would that be the Bretons you're talking about, by any chance, Richard?
Monday, February 23, 2009
Party leader, or observer status at the Shadow Cabinet?
Is this the new-found Tory respect for devolution? The Herald reports that Annabel Goldie will be invited to attend Shadow Cabinet meetings in London - once a month. They just don't get it, do they? The logic of devolution is that Goldie is an autonomous party leader in her own right, not some ultra-junior, part-time member of someone else's Shadow Cabinet. And I can't help wondering if this arrangement will work a bit like the participation of Scottish ministers in EU negotiations - will Goldie have to agree a joint line with David Mundell first, and will she require his permission to speak?
Of course if there was any natural justice in this world it would be the other way round, and if Annabel refused Mundell permission to speak our ears could all have a well-earned rest.
Of course if there was any natural justice in this world it would be the other way round, and if Annabel refused Mundell permission to speak our ears could all have a well-earned rest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)