Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP Criticised by eminent Law Professor

SNP: ‘Obedient adulation’ led to legislation (Aberdeen Press & Journal, Saturday 23 July 2016)

Nicola Sturgeon’s former law lecturer has said the ‘obedient adulation’ of her MSPs has contributed to Scottish Legislation being among the worst in Europe.  Alistair Bonnington, a former honorary law professor at Glasgow, launched a stinging attack on the SNP hierarchy’s grip on their members, as well as their failure to grasp the basics of constitutional law.  He said SNP MSPs “slavishly” followed orders, meaning government bills were “afforded obedient adulation, no matter how flawed”.  And he added: “This results in Scotland producing the lowest quality legislation in Europe”.  Mr Bonnington, who taught Ms Surgeon in Glasgow, also argued that the Government had encroached on the independence of the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry.  He added: “I seem to have failed to install in her (Sturgeon) the most basic rules of how institutions of government work in the free world”

The statement by Ms Sturgeon’s former law lecturer, surely explains why the SNP Government blindly pressed ahead with the introduction of the “Named Person Legislation”, widely condemn by all sectors of Scottish society as having the real potential to undermine parents, and allow the state unlimited access to pry into the privacy of families in their homes.  Also, the SNP hierarchy’s grip on their members, explains the slavish obedience, by the majority of those members and supporters, to the SNP's decision to support the REMAIN campaign in the recent EU referendum, which is undoubtedly the main reason why 62% of the Scottish electorate voted to remain in the EU, while the UK as a whole voted to leave.

SNP Leader and 1st Minister criticised over EU Stance

SNP Leader Indulged in same ‘Scare Tactics(Aberdeen Press & Journal, Newspaper, Tuesday 14 June 2016)

Sir – As an elderly citizen who has voted and worked for Scottish independence since the mid 1960s, I would like to express my anger and disgust having watched the leader of the SNP on the recent EU referendum debate indulging in the exact same scare tactics which have deprived Scotland of independence in every referendum in which I have been involved.

The memory of Nicola Sturgeon talking about ‘scare’ tactics during her ‘YES’ campaign is still fresh in everyone’s minds.  Even worse, after campaigning with such vigour for Scotland to leave Britain, she had the audacity to tell 'LEAVE' supporters that there is strength in numbers.

I am sorry to say that Sturgeon has ceased to be an asset to the SNP Party.

D Douglas, Aberdeenshire.

Greatest Sell-Out of a National Resource (Aberdeen Press & Journal, Newspaper, Tuesday 14 June 2016)

Sir – Ever since the United Kingdom joined the Common Market, as it was then called, as a fisherman I have consistently spoken out against the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).

As an industry we did not want the CFP.  We had everything to lose and little to gain, for it was the greatest sell-out of a priceless national resource and industry ever perpetuated on the British people.

The Common Fisheries Policy was born of expediency because of the greater issues of Europe.  Britain no longer controls her fishing destiny, for it has been sacrificed to the European Union.  The CFP has been tried and found to be an abject failure.  Our fishermen were persecuted by a system that does not work.  Thousands of fishermen have been forced out of the industry, along with many other ancillary trades, and our coastal communities have been decimated.

This European Union is an empire out of control.  This is not a people’s Europe, but rather a politician’s Europe, and is absolutely for their own ends.

However, this referendum is about whether we govern ourselves or not.  If Europe does to this country what it has done to my industry, we shall be asset stripped, but far worse – democratically.

J. Thomson, Lossiemouth

None of this is new money – it is ours (Aberdeen Press & Journal, Newspaper, Tuesday 14 June 2016)

Sir – We hear much exaggerating or inventing figures over the cost involved in EU membership.  It is actually ‘just’ £161million a week they say, not £350million. So which of us is correct? Neither.

In October 2015, the Office of National Statistics (ONS) issued a report showing that membership of the EU actually cost us “£367million per week”, considerably more than the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) suggest, while on April 26 this year Sir Andrew Dilnot, Head of the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) gave the figure of “£19.1billion per year”, around the same figure that UKIP claim, when giving evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

But the ‘IN’ crowd would have you believe the ONS and UKSA are ‘wrong’.  But whatever the true figure, and whether it counted before or after the rebate and the money we get returned from the EU, the fact is that it is all, every penny of it, our money.

Nothing we get returned is “new money” or coming from anywhere except our taxpayer’s pockets.  All the evidence shows we are far better off financially freed from the EU, even when using figures supplied by those who want to stay in.

I have no evidence to support the claim that that the Institute for Fiscal Studies is biased in favour of the EU when it keeps reporting disaster and ruin if we leave, but it is a fact that the body has been financially supported by the EU since 2007, currently to the tune of 7.4million euros per year.

And one final point; if leaving is really as bad as Mr Cameron wants us to believe, why did he say in December last year, “If I cannot get the reforms this country needs in the EU, then I will campaign to leave” (he didn’t get them) and as recently as January this year, “I believe the UK could prosper outside the EU”?

G. Stewart, Avoch

Leaked Information on Negotiations between EU and USA to set up a Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Leaked documents from EU / USA negotiations on the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) confirm the dangers threatened to health, environment and safety standards.  The documents are from the twelfth round of negotiations in February 2016 (the thirteenth round concluded in New York on 29 April).  The EU Commission had slapped a thirty year ban on public access to the negotiating texts at the beginning of the talks in 2013, in the full knowledge that they would not be able to survive the outcry if people were given sight of the deal.  In response, campaigners called for a “Dracula strategy” against the agreement: expose the vampire to sunlight and it will die.  The purpose of the two proposed “partnerships,” TTIP and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which were drafted by global corporations, is to make corporations immune to the laws of sovereign countries in which they do business.  Any country’s sovereign law or regulations—whether social, environmental, food safety, or labour protection—that might adversely affect a corporation’s profits is labelled a “restraint on trade.”  The “partnerships” would permit corporations to take legal action to overturn the law or regulation, and. would also award damages to the corporation—paid by the taxpayers of the country that tried to protect its environment or the safety of its food or its workers.  These “trade agreements” originate in the United States, because American global corporations and the American mega-banks are the largest players in the world economy.  The agreements that the corporations push through this process give these companies economic hegemony over the countries that sign the agreements.  The Trans-Atlantic and TransPacific “partnerships” are tools of American financial imperialism.  The highly controversial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism—and its successor, the Investment Court system—has proved particularly thorny.  The United States wants to keep the arbitration system that allows corporations to sue governments for perceived loss of profits.  The case is not heard in the courts of the country, or in any court: it is heard in a corporate tribunal in which corporations act as prosecutor, judge, and jury.

There are some 51,000 American-owned subsidiaries operating in the EU. About 47,000 of them would be empowered to launch attacks on European policies in international tribunals, according to the anti-poverty charity ‘War on Want’.  German magistrates in February had also declared the new version of the investor court system (ICS), proposed by the EU, to be unlawful.  Concerns about potential effects on food safety standards have plagued TTIP since its inception, notably in discussions on genetically modified organisms.  The EU applies a precautionary approach to GM goods.  Where the EU regulates to protect the public from potential harm, the United States seeks to manage rather than avoid risk.  The EU commissioner for trade, Cecilia Malmström, described the leaks in her blog as “a storm in a teacup.”  She told the BBC: “I am simply not in the business of lowering standards.”  Some 1,600 cities, municipalities and regions in Europe have already declared themselves TTIP-free zones.  Most of these are in Austria, Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain. And earlier this month a survey by Yougov suggested that German public support for TTIP had fallen from 55% two years ago to 17%. This news came out before tens of thousands of people in the German city of Hannover marched against the deal during an international trade fair attended by Barack Obama.

See the attached PDF file "TTIP Leaks", below, for full revelation:

Download this file (TTIP Leaks.pdf)TTIP Leaks.pdf[ ]1181 kB

SDA Donation

Please consider making a donation to assist the Scottish Democratic Alliance


Login Form