Independent Scotland “would have to reapply for Eurovision”

Posted on May 26, 2012 by

Following another dismal showing from the United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest, Lord Graham of Norton, who was also in that Father Ted episode which had them enter “My Lovely Horse” as Ireland’s entry, said Scotland voting to secede from the UK would also mean leaving Eurovision.

This is because the United Kingdom is the existing Eurovision member and would continue to remain should Scotland decide to separate, he told Absolvitor.

His intervention is blow to Alex Salmond, who has claimed an independent Scotland would retain Eurovision membership and had hoped to be the first Scottish representative, singing his acclaimed version of “Bonnie Wee Jeannie McColl”.

Norton claimed: “The Scots would leave Eurovision when they left the union of the (British) island and they would need to apply.”

“To some extent, that would be a matter of form. The problem is that when you are applying all the existing members need to say yes, every one. That gives them an opportunity, if they want, to be obstructive in the voting.”

He warned that even if Scotland was admitted, it would lose the UK’s automatic entry to the final, raising the prospect of the Scottish artist being put out in the preliminary rounds by some minnows from Eastern Europe – as is the tradition already with the national football team.

But speaking at a conference in Edinburgh, Mr Salmond said yesterday: “The Eurovision Song Contest has been one area of scaremongering from ‘sources close to the UK Government’. In reality, of course, we would continue to be a full member of the Eurovision, trading cheesy pop songs freely with our neighbours.”

“Furthermore,” he added “Scotland has not done nearly as much as the UK to annoy the rest as Europe and should benefit from some politically motivated voting.” Mr. Salmond is understood to be optimistic about the Auld Alliance delivering a guaranteed 12 points every year.

Related articles
Posted in Constitutional Law, Just for Fun | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

UK Govt: equality test score 6 out of 9

Posted on May 15, 2012 by

The Equality and Human Rights Commission have published the findings of an investigation into whether the UK Government have complied with their public sector equality duties in various recent policy changes.  The answer?  Mostly yes.

To remind ourselves, at the time of the 2010 public spending review, public bodies, including the Treasury, were subject to race equality, sex equality and disability equality duties.  These obliged the Government to demonstrate that they had fully considered the potential effects of their decisions on women, minority ethnic groups and disabled people, and that any decisions with an effect on these groups could be justified.

The Review was the first time an assessment of this kind and scale had ever been undertaken. The methodology included “unprecedented access” to confidential documents from Treasury and other government departments and discussions with ministers, the chief secretary to the Treasury, and senior civil servants from the Treasury, Department of Work and Pensions, and Ministry of Justice.

In six cases the Commission concluded that the UK Government complied with their equality duties:

  • removing Child Benefit from households with a higher rate taxpayer;
  • reform of Legal Aid;
  • the £2.5 billion pupil premium for disadvantaged children;
  • removal of mobility component of Disability Living Allowance from claimants in residential care homes;
  • 10% reduction in Council Tax Benefit expenditure, and localisation; and
  • limiting the contributory Employment and Support Allowance to one year.

However, the Commission found that this was not the case in the following policies:

  • introduction of a household benefits cap (no gender analysis evident);
  • changes to bus service operators grant (no disability impact assessment);
  • replacing EMA with local discretionary funds (no reference to ethnicity, gender or disability).

Despite these failings, the Commission has decided that it would be “disproportionate” to take any further formal action in these three specific decisions, as the Government has undertaken to work with the Commission to address the issues raised by the report.

Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, of course…

The full report “Making fair financial decisions” can be downloaded in PDF here.

Posted in Discrimination, Legal Aid, News | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Gay Marriage – what’s next for Scotland?

Posted on May 10, 2012 by
Same Sex Marriage

Same Sex Marriage (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Game, set and match to the equal marriage campaign – no?  Now that Obama has come out in favour of gay marriage in the USA, the liberal democracies of the western world (including Scotland) must surely follow?

As you will be aware, the Scottish Government are consulting on whether to open up marriage to same sex couples.  It strikes me that having a consultation is opening up the opportunity for people to complain about one side or other (or both) of the argument not being listened to – but there we are.

To summarise: the current position is that only male/female couples may marry – and that marriage may be civil or religious.  Only same sex couples may enter a civil partnership – which may not be religious.  The rights and responsibilities of couples within a marriage and a civil partnership are almost entirely the same.  In terms of the Equality Act 2010, it is unlawful for service providers to discriminate between the two in terms of service delivery etc.

Those in favour of same sex marriage argue that such discrepancies that do exist amount to discrimination and that equality in this field is nothing short of a human right.  Those arguing against say that there is already equality between marriage and civil partnership and that marriage is a religious estate which should not be redefined by the state – having been a mixed sex institution for some time now.

Regular readers of the blog will be aware of my church membership and fervent disestablishmentarianism, and it occurs to me that some of the difficulties arising could be resolved on both sides by insisting on a more rigorous separation of Church and State.

Why not, as the French do, make the whole thing a more prosaic matter of civil law?  Allow any two people (of whatever gender) to exchange promises and adopt standard rights and responsibilities towards and in respect of each other on a strictly civil matter.  We could call it a “civil union” or a “civil wedding” or – my personal favourite – a “state approved contract of mutual obligations”.  Strip out some of the weird historical anomalies – the State has no business insisting that any couple must have sex to remain a legal “item”!  Hey presto – equality for all.

Thereafter, if any given couple wish to celebrate their contract of obligations with a religious ceremony of some sort, then they are free to do so (assuming that they can find a willing religious body) and can call that part of it whatever they like.  In one fell swoop, the separation of Church and State is achieved – no more priests or rabbis or imams acting as agents of the Government in achieving social policy.

I like this as a solution, what do you think?

Related articles
Posted in Discrimination, Family Law, Scottish Government | Tagged , , | 7 Comments

What’s in a name?

Posted on April 19, 2012 by

Cigarettes, not in plain packaging

The Scottish Government, along with its equivalents in Wales, Northern Ireland and .. um .. the rest of the United Kingdom are consulting on proposals to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes.

Standardised packaging is likely to mean no branding, a uniform colour, and standard font and text for any writing on the pack.  Together with prominent safety warnings, I presume.

There have already been questions raised about whether this infringes the tobacco companies’ right to property in terms of their intellectual property bound up in the brand.  Robert Buchan’s article in The Journal discusses these, and similar legislation already faces legal challenge in Australia.  No doubt, we are therefore only months away from another entertaining escapade wherein the cigarette pedlars bleat about their human rights all the way to the Supreme Court.

However, I am more intrigued by the marketing challenges and possibilities now facing the cigarette giants.  Sure, they’ve ploughed millions into a particular brand and no doubt paid large sums of cash to ad agencies to mull over the niceties of colouring, sizes, typeface etc.  But soon, the name – just the name – will be all that sets them apart from their competitors.  What is the approach?

Benson & Hedges may be well recognised, but to a potential new customer – in 16pt Arial – it might as well be a firm of solicitors.  I imagine that this may herald a return to 1950′s style of advertising and brands called “Smooth & Husky” “Old Gold” “Cheap Fags” and “Feed your Addiction”.

I predict the brand names “Death” and “Camel” will stick around though.

Related articles
Posted in Human Rights, Intellectual Property, News, Scottish Government | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Dundas & Wilson “not shooting staff”

Posted on April 3, 2012 by

David Hardie WS

Dundas & Wilson are letting some employees go – up to 30 according to The Herald.  But there is no need to go all “Jeremy Clarkson” on us in responding to press questions.

D&W Chair, David Hardie WS is quoted as commenting on the news by saying: “It is not that we have taken out 30 people and shot them.”

Good thing too.  It’s been a while since I did any employment law, but I’m pretty sure that’s not allowed – in front of their families or no.

Posted in Employment Law, Law Firms | Tagged | Leave a comment

Max Evans has had a busy week

Posted on March 10, 2012 by

Max Evans has had a busy week.  Fresh from being acquitted by a jury of his peers at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, he received a yellow card in today’s Six Nations Ireland v. Scotland test match.

Earlier this week, a jury took less than an hour to decide that he did not assault a man in a nightclub by glassing him in the face.  Evan’s lawyer described him in court as “decent, measured, polite and honest”.

Fast forward to today’s yellow card, which was for bringing down Keith Earls off the ball.  Having being shown the card, Evans protested to the referee, saying “I didn’t even touch him.”, which subsequent video replays prove was not the case.

My 10 year old son’s verdict?

“He deserved that – even though I support Scotland, and he plays for Scotland, and I am in Scotland – because he just grabbed his arm and pushed him out the way to try and stop a try.  He was just lying because he didn’t want to go into the sin-bin.  Nobody wants to go into the sin-bin.”

This, of course, is in no way relevant to his credibility as a witness in a criminal trial.

Photo courtesy of Bruce Cowan from Glasgow, UK (Max Evans) [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Posted in Criminal Law, Edinburgh, News, Sports Law | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Church of (an independent) Scotland – Part 2

Posted on February 6, 2012 by

With all this talk of an independent Scotland on the horizon, there is one question which leaps immediately to the front of one’s mind:

What impact would independence have on the constitutional position of the Church of Scotland?

At least, that’s what leapt to my mind.  The Church of Scotland has a constitutionally unique position.  It is the national church, but it is not established (as the Church of England is).  Its spiritual independence is recognised (but not conferred) by Act of Parliament.  What effect (if any) would there be if Scotland were to become an independent country?

So, on 18 January 2012, I e-mailed the Scottish Government and the Scotland Office to ask:

“I was wondering if you would be able to let me know what the likely effect of independence might be on the unique constitutional position of the Church of Scotland?

Regards,

Iain Nisbet”

First up, with a response (of sorts) is the Scotland Office.  After getting a few digs in about the legality of a referendum, it goes on to answer the main point:

“In regard to your query as to what effect independence would have on the constitutional position of the Church of Scotland, it is the Scottish Government that is proposing independence and it is therefore for the Scottish Government to set out what independence would look like and what it’s effects would be.”

By the way, in an independent Scotland, civil servants will all be schooled in how to use apostrophes correctly!

So, over to you Scottish Government …

Letter from the Scotland Office dated 6 February 2012

Absolvitor archive post: Church of (an independent) Scotland – Part 1

Posted in Constitutional Law, Ecclesiatical Law, Scottish Government | Tagged , , , | 13 Comments

More Sheridan shenanigans

Posted on February 1, 2012 by

So, Tommy Sheridan has been released from prison after serving one year of a three year sentence.  And thus the well loved politician returns to entertain and agitate.

He is to be electronically tagged for the final six months of his sentence (on home release).  To my mind there is really no need for him to be tagged like some ned with an ASBO.  If the aim is to ensure that he does not abscond or to confirm his whereabouts, then surely the tag is irrelevant – as he is sure to be monitored night and day by news media organisations large and small for pretty much the whole period.

Stories of a gag order proved to be short-lived and Tommy has expressed a desire to participate in the independence referendum debate.  Further, he has indicated that he intends to launch an appeal against his conviction on the back of prejury prosecutions of witnesses who gave evidence against him in his own perjury trial.

This seems to me to be inherently unlikely as a development, but would be strangely appropriate for this already vaguely farcical tale.  Just what is the penalty prescribed in law for commiting perjury in a perjury trial?  And how does one prove that someone lied about you lying in a trial to show that you lied in a proof about whether a newspaper lied about you or not?

But if, by some chance, Strathclyde Police do decide to resurrect the Sheridan circus then rest assured that Absolvitor will be there to not quite cover it.

Related articles
Posted in Criminal Law, Defamation, News | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Strictly Come Legislating

Posted on December 15, 2011 by

New laws giving Scotland’s police and prosecutors the additional tools they have asked for to extract ‘poisonous comments of hatred’ from Scottish ballroom and threats of harm being posted on the internet have been passed by the Scottish Parliament today.

MSPs approved the Offensive Behaviour at Ballroom and Threatening Choreography (Scotland) Act in a final vote at Stage 3.  The Act will now go forward for Assent from Len Goodman and the new laws could be in place in time for Strictly Come Dancing in 2012.  The new laws create two new distinct offences, punishable through a range of penalties up to a maximum five-year prison sentence:

The first offence targets any offensive and threatening behaviour expressed at and around ballroom dances which is likely to cause public disorder.

For example, earlier this series, Alesha Dixon said Nancy Dell’Olio looked unladylike with her legs too far apart, while Bruno Tonioli accused her of looking like “the walking dead”. Nancy said of Alesha: “She thinks she’s funny. She was not funny. And Bruno is also offensive. I have been speaking to my lawyers about him.” Under the new law, the pair of flirty judges could now be serving a long stretch in HMP Barlinnie – so long as any of the dancers in the competition was originally from Scotland.  Lulu would do for these purposes.

The second offence relates to the communication of threats of serious harm or which are intended to stir up religious hatred on the internet or other communications.  First Minister Forsyth the Bruce said:

“I am pleased that this important piece of legislation has been endorsed by Scotland’s Parliament today and will soon become law.

“This Bill sends out an important message about the kind of Scotland we want to live in, because the vast majority of people in this country have no time whatsoever for the kind of mindless bigotry that has attached itself to the small minority who only damage and undermine our beautiful pastime of dancing – or those who peddle hatred by sitting behind a computer screen posting threats of harm on the internet.

“The police and the Lord Advocate, the most senior law officer in Scotland, now have the additional tools they have asked for to do their difficult job.

“The message today is, by all means enjoy the banter and passionate support for your favourite dancers, even passionate opposition of Alex Jones – it is the lifeblood of Strictly. But if you call Jason Donovan “f*cking twat” on twitter and say you’d like to “smash that stupid grin down (his) throat” – then you will face the full force of the law.

“The well-behaved fans of ballroom, who are the vast majority, have nothing to fear from new laws which will make Scottish dance and society better.”

Posted in Criminal Law, Just for Fun, Scottish Government, Scottish Parliament | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Vote for Absolvitor – best foreign law blog!

Posted on November 1, 2011 by

Very exciting news to report – this very blog has been shortlisted for inclusion in the Top 25 International & Foreign Law Blogs of 2011, featured on the LexisNexis International & Foreign Law Community.

To vote for this blog, please register and comment on this page.

Posted in Blawgs | 2 Comments