Saturday, 30 July 2016

SNP Scottish government suffer humiliating defeat in UK Supreme Court

                          The UK Supreme Court have overruled the SNP Scottish government "state guardian" scheme.  It is a humiliating defeat for Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP.  The decision by the UK Supreme Court in London blocks the SNP planned introduction of the so called named person scheme. The ruling is a serious blow to Nicola Sturgeon and reveals in such matters the UK Supreme court has the final say.  It is the first time the court has prevented a major piece of legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament from coming into force.

                      Critics claim that the scheme would allow the named person usually a head teacher or health visitor to interfere in family life.  It was meant to take effect in August when named persons were due to be appointed to look after the well being of one million children and young people under the age of 18.  Five judges at the UK Supreme Court in London ruled it was incompatible with human rights law due to the proposals on sharing information. The judges were unanimous in declaring that Holyrood had exceeded its powers by making a law that allowed public bodies to share sensitive private information about children and parents without consent.The judgement emphasises the importance of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the right to a private and family life. Lord Hodge said the scheme contradicted the rights of children young persons and parents under Article 8 of the ECHR.  In a withering passage the Court judgement states

                   "the first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get to the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their ruler`s view of the world.  within limits families must be left to bring up their children in their own way"
                            What a shocking indictment of  the SNP government!

Simon Calvert spokesperson for the No to Named Persons campaign said "this proposaed scheme was intrusive, incomprehensible and illegal"   Colin Hart of the Christian Institute said "this is a devastating blow for the Scottish government which sought to brush off all criticism as scaremongering"  
                   (report by Auslan Cramb scottish correspondent Daily Telegraph 28 july.).

Note:  the supremacy of the UK Supreme Court over the Scottish government in this ruling has clearly implications  in other political scpheres  such as the UK  EU referendum result.  The message to Ms Sturgeon and indeed also to Mr McGuinness is that the UK  Supreme Court has the final say in constitutional and political matters.

Monday, 25 July 2016

Historic photograph. Inaugural meeting of Bangor DUP

      This photograph taken 36 years ago shows Dr Ian Paisley with Terry Jackson(first chair) and Mrs Beryl Holland at the first inaugural meeting of Bangor DUP.  Hamilton House Bangor  Co Down

Thursday, 21 July 2016

Announcement. New party affiliation.

                    I am announcing today that in the interests of defence of the union with Britain and because of the look warm  support of the union from "unionist" parties I have now joined the Conservative party.    As the former chair of Bangor DUP and as a former staff research assistant to Dr Paisley and in view also of the way he was treated by the DUP I have now started a new relationship as a member of the Conservative party.  I strongly believe this will strengthen the union. Unionist parties such as the DUP and the UUP should take the Conservative whip in the House of Commons.
                    Ulster history. Ian Paisley marches 1960s  see latest pdf.

Wednesday, 6 July 2016

Economists for Brexit. Britain`s future is bright. Professor Patrick Minford Cardiff University

Here he goes again, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney has renewed
his gloom forecasts for our economy. So the game of Brexit gloom goes on with Mr
Carney, Mr Cameron and the international establishment all willing cheerleaders.
George Osborne was at again yesterday warning an audience in Manchester
that “the referendum is expected to produce a significant negative economic shock to
our economy”
These people are anti free trade, pro foreign regulation and pro mass
immigration---all things the British people have rejected. Their forecasts of doom are
nonsense. As economists said it would the Pound has fallen in response to the
immediate impact of the vote. Any big policy change causes this sort of impact. It
happened when we left the EU`s fixed exchange rate system in 1992. Doomsters said
it would be a disaster but the Pound fell and the economy grew.
Today the fall in the pound will be a good thing. It stimulates exports,
encourages us to buy British and is pushing inflation towards the two percent target
the government is supposed to achieve. So why is he saying he may have to cut
interest rates? There is no evidence the economy is slowing. Retail sales and
investment spending have all held up. If the Brexit vote is honoured by the new
Conservative leader we will get free trade, home grown laws again and a green card
system that restricts immigration to those whose skills are needed. Free trade means
we get rid of those EU trade barriers on food and manufacturing that raise prices by
around eight percent. It would feel like a massive tax cut. It will mean more
competition, but we know that spurs hi-tech productivity gains and is good for the
growth of the economy. Two thirds of our car exports and half our manufacturing
exports already go to world markets outside the EU and hold their own.
Home grown regulation will underpin our country`s competitiveness and the
city will be protected from mad continental plans. We, not continental socialists will
decide how our labour laws should protect our rights while preserving our jobs. Skill
based immigration control will lift the expensive scourge of mass unskilled
immigration. This will boost our economy by saving millions on the welfare state.
The prospects are either as good as now, with two to three percent growth and rising
employment, or even better if we actually carry out what the Brexit vote implies.
What is the governor banging on about? Is he just homesick(he is a Canadian) and wants his P45?

 Professor Patrick Minford is co-chair of Economists for Brexit.  this article was first published in the Sun newspaper 2 July 2016.

Sunday, 3 July 2016

Brexit. The withdrawal process from the EU. Constitutional Realities

Brexit. The withdrawal process from the EU. Constitutional realities.

The referendum on the EU was a UK referendum. It was not a series of four
separate referendums in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as some members of the
press and some politicians seem to think. In the referendum the UK was taken as a whole as one
country and not as four separate countries. The UK parliament in London has total power.. Both
the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly have no power to override the outcome
and the result. The UK result was to leave the EU. That means all the UK to leave. The UK is
taken as one country. Former Scottish First Minister Mr Salmon has recognised that fact. Those
who talk of a Scottish referendum or a Northern Ireland referendum are playing with the truth.
Such referendums did not take place. The only referendum that took place was a UK referendum
Two questions arise. . Firstly how can the UK quickly and efficiently extricate
itself from the EU? Secondly can Scotland secede from the UK through a second referendum if
they do not like the result?.
Taking the first question of the UK extricating itself. Repealing the ECA 72 will not
take us out of the EU! To withdraw from the EU Britain must denounce the EU treaties, both TEU
and TFEU(Schrimpton). Article 50 of the TEU should be enacted sooner rather than later. To wait
until a new Conservative leader and Prime Minister is in place is much too long and would give the
enemies of the democratic process time to regroup. The people have spoken and there can be no
turning back as the Prime Minister has said. Talk of a second referendum is just mischief.
The ECJ has ruled that The Vienna Convention on the law of treaties applies to the EU treaties so
the Vienna convention can be used to proceed to reject the role of the EU over British courts.

The second question of a possible second referendum in Scotland cannot happen without
the expressed permission of the UK parliament. If Scotland voted in any referendum
permitted by the UK parliament to become a separate EU state(which would not be a independent
state) it would have to adopt the euro and Schengen immediately. That would mean passport
controls at the border. Few would want that outcome. Also with oil down from $100 a barrel a
year ago to $50 a barrel and with the north sea oil industry contracting and with Scottish debt
mounting Scotland could economically suffer in taking such a perilous step.
Terri Jackson Msc MPhil(econ)