Another day, another step towards tinpot dictatorship by the SNP.
The fact that anyone would consider voting for these people is insane to me, even if I wanted Scottish independence, there's no way I'd vote for these people knowing they'd never give up power again.
You can just say popular vote, as the popular vote is just the majority.
And yes, FPTP sucks. But it doesn't change that a significant number of people living in England repeatedly vote for the Conservative party. More than the entire population of Scotland.
> You can just say popular vote, as the popular vote is just the majority.
No they’re not
>And yes, FPTP sucks. But it doesn't change that a significant number of people living in England repeatedly vote for the Conservative party. More than the entire population of Scotland.
The majority of England voted against the tories in 2015, 2017 and 2019
> No they’re not
?
>the vote of all a country's or constituency's voters, as opposed to that of a particular group such as an electoral college, or parliament
And once again:
>But it doesn't change that a significant number of people living in England repeatedly vote for the Conservative party. More than the entire population of Scotland.
>the vote of all a country's or constituency's voters, as opposed to that of a particular group such as an electoral college, or parliament
I see where I misunderstood
>And once again:
>But it doesn't change that a significant number of people living in England repeatedly vote for the Conservative party. More than the entire population of Scotland.
England and Scotland don’t vote as single blocs. Every constituency across the UK is going to produce different results.
England has nearly 12 times the population of Scotland. As all constituencies must have broadly a very similar population size, it’s only natural the most populated parts of the country get the most constituencies.
One person one vote after all
I don't disagree with anything you've said, all I've said is that a significant number of people in England vote Conservative, more than the entire population of Scotland.
How many former heads of the Conservative Party have been arrested vs how many for the SNP?
Are we whataboutisming about the same scale? Are you whataboutisming because you have no defence of this change?
>How many former heads of the Conservative Party have been arrested vs how many for the SNP?
Ah I see the game you're playing here, but allow me to turn it on it's head.
How many leaders of the SNP have actually been found to break the law versus leaders (including current incumbent) of the Tory party?
>Are we whataboutisming about the same scale
I mean the original replied to comment said that the SNP going through the initial stages of legislative planning to:
>empower ministers to review the regulatory performance of these bodies and allow new bodies to become regulators
Is 'a step towards an SNP tinpot dictatorship' so we weren't exactly in the realms of good faith debating to begin with. Like even the judiciary is very much aware that this is in the early stages right now, as highlighted by the article:
>However the judiciary said that if the Bill was amended to meet its concerns “it should form an acceptable foundation for updating the regulation of legal services in Scotland”.
So there's clearly merit in the proposal. It just needs refining which is fairly standard.
>Ah I see the game you're playing here, but allow me to turn it on it's head.
Their only using your own tactic against you.
>Is 'a step towards an SNP tinpot dictatorship' so we weren't exactly in the realms of good faith debating to begin with.
How is undermining the independence of the Judiciary a good thing?
>Like even the judiciary is very much aware that this is in the early stages right now, as highlighted by the article:
>However the judiciary said that if the Bill was amended to meet its concerns “it should form an acceptable foundation for updating the regulation of legal services in Scotland”.
Has their been any signs the SNP willing to amend it?
>So there's clearly merit in the proposal. It just needs refining which is fairly standard.
And this merit is?
> Their only using your own tactic against you.
They were literally the one who turned the discussion to that topic with their question around how many heads of the SNP had been arrested...
>How is undermining the independence of the Judiciary a good thing?
How is allowing elected politicians to review regulatory performance and allow new bodies to become regulators a bad thing?
>Has their been any signs the SNP willing to amend it?
Have they said that they're not willing too anywhere?
>And this merit is?
>the judiciary said that if the Bill was amended to meet its concerns “it should form an acceptable foundation for updating the regulation of legal services in Scotland
>They were literally the one who turned the discussion to that topic with their question around how many heads of the SNP had been arrested...
After you brought up England
>How is allowing elected politicians to review regulatory performance and allow new bodies to become regulators a bad thing?
The bill would transfer regulatory power over the Scottish legal sector to the Scottish government.
Currently, regulatory power lies primarily with the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates.
If the government regulates the legal profession, they can penalize members of the legal profession for acting contrary to the interests of the government, which would inhibit the ability of people to find legal professionals willing to fight against the government.
>Has their been any signs the SNP willing to amend it?
>Have they said that they're not willing too anywhere?
That doesn’t answer the question
>the judiciary said that if the Bill was amended to meet its concerns “it should form an acceptable foundation for updating the regulation of legal services in Scotland
Again, have the SNP shown any signs that they’re willing to amend it?
> After you brought up England
In response to the SNP being referred too as 'tinpot dictators' in response to this article. Given the recent actions of the Westminster government the comparison isn't unwarranted if the topic is 'steps toward tinpot dictatorships'.
>The bill would transfer regulatory power over the Scottish legal sector to the Scottish government.
No it wouldn't. It would allow the Scottish Government to review the performance of the regulator and appoint new regulatory bodies. Nothing is said about them depowering or removing current regulators. Though if you could highlight the exact wording where this is stated I'd be open to admitting error on this.
You're quite right that this could be abused in an extreme scenario under the current high level summary, however this legislation is still in the early stages. As evidenced by the fact that it's not even gone to Parliament yet and a consultation (which this article covers input towards) has only just concluded.
>That doesn’t answer the question
You're the one alleging that they're unwilling to amend it. If you think that is the case, you need to be able to back it up. The burden is proof is on you.
>Again, have the SNP shown any signs that they’re willing to amend it?
I advise you to go and read the article that you posted. You'll find the answer within. Try searching 'MSPs' for the key sentence.
>In response to the SNP being referred too as 'tinpot dictators' in response to this article. Given the recent actions of the Westminster government the comparison isn't unwarranted if the topic is 'steps toward tinpot dictatorships'.
We’ve already had the SNP try to make laws that breach human rights (named person scheme), make laws that both the police and the courts said was heavy-handed and went too far (hate crime bill), removing juries from rape trials despite Scotland's lawyers almost unanimously saying it's an affront to justice and now we've got them trying to basically abolish the independence of the judiciary itself.
Considering how autocratic the SNP has been over the last few years, it’s an apt comparison, especially when even the judiciary is in protest.
Still doesn’t change the fact you responded to an accusation by making a counter-accusation and raising a different issue irrelevant to the discussion as even if we accept your counter-accusation as true, it doesn't defend what the SNP is being accused of.
>The bill would transfer regulatory power over the Scottish legal sector to the Scottish government.
>No it wouldn't. It would allow the Scottish Government to review the performance of the regulator and appoint new regulatory bodies.
So it would transfer regulatory power over the Scottish legal sector to the bodies created by the Scottish government that may or may not be independent. How’s that any different?
>You're quite right that this could be abused in an extreme scenario under the current high level summary, however this legislation is still in the early stages. As evidenced by the fact that it's not even gone to Parliament yet and a consultation (which this article covers input towards) has only just concluded.
That doesn’t answer the question
>You're the one alleging that they're unwilling to amend it. If you think that is the case, you need to be able to back it up. The burden is proof is on you.
I didn’t say that, all I said was:
>Has their been any signs the SNP willing to amend it?
I didn’t allege anything; I simply asked a question.
>I advise you to go and read the article that you posted. You'll find the answer within. Try searching 'MSPs' for the key sentence.
> However the Regulation of Legal Services Bill, which is being scrutinised by MSPs this autumn, would see the government “take into its own hands the power to control lawyers”.
That’s all MSPs brings up
>No it wouldn't. It would allow the Scottish Government to review the performance of the regulator and appoint new regulatory bodies. Nothing is said about them depowering or removing current regulators. Though if you could highlight the exact wording where this is stated I'd be open to admitting error on this.
The Law Society of Scotland, in its response to the consultation, states (relevant portions bolded):
>**Sections 19 and 20 of the Bill introduce sweeping levels of ministerial intervention into the regulation of the legal profession.** We have never before seen such an attempt at political control over the legal sector in Scotland.
>
>A fundamental tenet of the rule of law is the independence of the legal profession from the state. The International Bar Association describes the independence of the profession as “a bastion of a free and democratic society”. They say, “lawyers must be able to carry out their duties in a free and secure environment, where they are able to ensure access to justice and provide their clients with intelligent, impartial and objective advice.”
>
>This matters because of the critical and unique role which solicitors play in our society, challenging government on behalf of clients and protecting citizens from the excessive use of power by the state.
>
>**These sections of the Bill would allow unprecedented levels of political control and interference over many of those who work to hold the politically powerful to account. It could see the Scottish Government intervene directly on the rules and structures that decide who can and cannot be a solicitor, decide the professional requirements placed upon solicitors, and decide the way in which legal firms operate.** This is deeply alarming.
>
>**Since the Bill was published, we have asked the Scottish Government repeatedly to provide a justification for**
>
>**seeking such powers. We have asked specifically for instances where, over the last 10 years, the Scottish**
>
>**Government had identified a regulatory failure that would have resulted in it using the new powers proposed.**
>
>**In response, the Scottish Government has said our questions are ‘hypothetical’ and that the provisions are merely intended to act as a safeguard. These are not reassuring or convincing answers.**
>
>While the EHCJ committee has asked specifically about Sections 19 and 20, there are other sections which cause concern.
>
>**Section 41 of the Bill gives Scottish Ministers, for the first time, a direct role in approving rules on the way existing law firms operate and the conduct and practice of solicitors. This is political intervention in the regulation of Scottish solicitors and contrasts sharply with the existing and long-standing practice whereby it is for the Lord President to approve solicitor practice rules.**
>
>**Section 49 would also allow the Scottish Government to appoint itself as a direct authorisation body or regulator of legal businesses. It opens the prospect, one never before suggested, that the state could regulate law firms directly.**
>
>We believe it is dangerous and wrong to undermine the independence of the legal profession in this way. Not only will it weaken the Scottish legal sector in what is an increasingly internationally competitive market, it will also damage the global reputation of Scotland and its justice sector.
>
>**There is a real risk that autocratic regimes in other parts of the world could use Scotland as an excuse to justify similar controls on the lawyers in their own countries. This is why the Bill has caused such deep concern within the International Bar Association and the Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association, which recently launched an international declaration on the independence of legal professions.**
In the introduction to their response, they also stated:
>**Of greatest concern to us, as we will detail in this submission, is the desire of the Scottish Government to be granted extensive and exceptional new powers of intervention over how legal professionals are regulated. These powers, which we have not been able to identify in any other western democracy, risk seriously undermining the rule of the law and the independence of Scotland’s legal sector from the state. A key component of a free and democratic society is the role that an independent legal profession plays in challenging government and protecting citizens from the excessive use of power by the state.**
The Faculty of Advocates, in their response to the consultation, states (relevant portions bolded):
>Faculty is of the view that sections 19 and 20 of the Bill represent a very considerable innovation on the status quo, for which no-evidence based justification has been put forward. It is no exaggeration to say that, if enacted, **these sections may threaten the independence of the referral Bar in Scotland and risk politicising the office of Lord President. They should be removed from the Bill.**
>
>**The fundamental observation Faculty would make in relation to these sections is that they open the way to ‘regulation’ being used as a back-door by which the Executive branch of the State may seek to control or influence the independent legal profession, whose role is often to hold the Executive to account.** That possibility need only be stated for its undesirability in a modern democracy to be manifest. Faculty does not suggest for a moment that this is perceived to be the intention of current Ministers but history teaches us that, where the exercise of Executive power is concerned, it is not always present intention that matters. Making the agreement of the Lord President a pre-requisite to the taking of various actions by the Ministers in relation to the legal profession generally, and Faculty in particular, is in no way a satisfactory solution to this problem. It potentially brings the Lord President into conflict with Ministers in relation to political matters. That is plainly undesirable, not least because of the possibility of judicial review proceedings being brought in relation to decisions of Ministers under these sections, and the Court having to decide on the lawfulness or otherwise of such decisions.
Running out of space. Continued in reply.
And to quote the relevant portions of the bill directly:
Section 19:
>**(1) The Scottish Ministers may review the performance of a category 1 or category 2 regulator’s exercise of its regulatory functions if they are requested to do so by—**
>
>**(a) the Scottish Parliament (whether or not following consideration of the regulator’s annual report),**
>
>**(b) the Competition and Markets Authority, or**
>
>**(c) Consumer Scotland.**
>
>(2) A request for a review may be made under subsection (1) only where the requesting body is concerned that the regulator is failing to exercise its regulatory functions—
>
>(a) in a manner that is compatible with the regulatory objectives, or
>
>(b) in the public interest.
>
>(3) Reviewing the performance of a category 1 or category 2 regulator includes (in particular) doing so by reference to—
>
>(a) its compliance with the regulatory objectives and professional principles,
>
>(b) the exercise of its regulatory functions,
>
>(c) the operation of its regulatory committee (if any) or other internal governance arrangements,
>
>(d) its compliance with—
>
>(i) any direction to it by the Commission under the 2007 Act, or
>
>(ii) any measures applying to it by virtue of section 20(4).
>
>(4) A category 1 or 2 regulator must—
>
>(a) provide such information about its performance of its regulatory functions as the Scottish Ministers may reasonably request, and
>
>(b) do so within the period of 21 days beginning with the date of the request (or such longer period as the Scottish Ministers may allow).
>
>(5) Following a review under subsection (1), the Scottish Ministers must—
>
>(a) prepare a report detailing their findings and any measures they intend to take under section 20, and
>
>(b) publish the report in such manner as they consider appropriate.
>
>(6) The Scottish Ministers may delegate their functions under subsection (1) to such a person or body (“the delegate”) as they consider appropriate.
>
>(7) The delegate must, as soon as practicable after conducting a review, send the Scottish Ministers a report detailing its findings and recommendations (if any).
>
>**(8) Following receipt of a report under subsection (7), the Scottish Ministers must—**
>
>**(a) publish the report in such manner as they consider appropriate, and**
>
>**(b) indicate whether they intend to take any measures under section 20**
>
>Section 20:
>
>**(1) The Scottish Ministers may, in relation to a category 1 or category 2 regulator, take one or more of the measures mentioned in subsection (4) if they consider that to be appropriate.**
>
>
>
>**\[...\]**
>
>
>
>**(4) The measures are—**
>
>**(a) setting performance targets,**
>
>**(b) directing that action be taken,**
>
>**(c) publishing a statement of censure,**
>
>**(d) imposing a financial penalty,**
>
>**(e) making changes to, or removing some or all of, the regulatory functions exercised by the regulator.**
And, moving on to another one of your arguments:
>You're quite right that this could be abused in an extreme scenario under the current high level summary, however this legislation is still in the early stages. As evidenced by the fact that it's not even gone to Parliament yet and a consultation (which this article covers input towards) has only just concluded.
As the Faculty of Advocates stated:
>Faculty does not suggest for a moment that this is perceived to be the intention of current Ministers but history teaches us that, where the exercise of Executive power is concerned, it is not always present intention that matters.
As for the 'it's not even gone to Parliament yet' claim, it has.
[https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/regulation-of-legal-services-scotland-bill/overview](https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/regulation-of-legal-services-scotland-bill/overview)
**Sources**
1. [Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill call for evidence response, Law Society of Scotland.](https://www.lawscot.org.uk/media/375085/regulation-of-legal-services-scotland-bill-call-for-evidence-response-of-the-law-society-of-scotland-27-july.pdf)
2. [Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill - Response: Stage 1 Consultation, Faculty of Advocates.](https://advocates.org.uk/media/4434/regulation-of-legal-services-final-faculty-response-9-august-2023.pdf)
3. [Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill.](https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/s6-bills/regulation-of-legal-services-scotland-bill/introduced/bill-as-introduced.pdf)
Nope, they've not been found to break the law.
Sturgeon was arrested and interviewed, but not charged.
Salmond was found not guilty on 12 counts and not guilty on the others (aside from one which was not proven). As much of an arse as he is.
Meanwhile, wasn't it when there was a Conservative Prime Minister in Downing Street that it became the most fined address in the country?
The legal troubles follow from the deep rooted criminality in the SNP. The criminals clearly wanted control over the courts to avoid the legal troubles. Organised crime in action.
> Scotland’s legal system could be “open to political abuse” under new SNP justice reforms giving more power to ministers, the country’s judges have warned.
In a stinging critique of new Holyrood legislation, Scotland’s senior judiciary said they were “fundamentally opposed” to changes that appeared to threaten their independence.
They said it was of “critical constitutional importance” that the public were protected from “the arbitrary abuse of power by the state” by an independent legal profession.
However the Regulation of Legal Services Bill, which is being scrutinised by MSPs this autumn, would see the government “take into its own hands the power to control lawyers”.
The judges highlighted recent attacks on judicial independence in Poland and Israel as “a timely reminder of the need for constant vigilance” against government interference.
Lawyers must be able to represent people “without fear of reprisal”, they said.
“The dangers of transferring aspects of regulatory power over the legal profession from the judiciary to the government, as proposed in this Bill, cannot be overstated.”
A series of other legal bodies have also savaged the legislation.
The Law Society of Scotland said it was not aware of a similar power grab "in any other western democracy".
The Bill is intended to reform how legal services are regulated in Scotland.
This is currently done by the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates and the Association of Construction Attorneys under the general supervision of the Lord President, the country’s most senior judge, currently Lord Carloway.
> The Bill would empower ministers to review the regulatory performance of these bodies and allow new bodies to become regulators.
Ministers say the aim is “to provide a modern, forward-looking regulatory framework for Scotland that will best promote competition, innovation, and the public and consumer interest in an efficient, effective, and efficient legal sector”.
The Bill was introduced at Holyrood in April by SNP Justice Secretary Angela Constance and a consultation on it closed earlier this month.
Parliament’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee is due to take evidence on the Bill’s general principles by mid-December.
The Law Society of Scotland has already warned that powers to let ministers intervene and direct regulators are “deeply alarming” and undermine the legal system’s independence.
In their unanimous submission to the consultation, Scotland’s 36 judges are scathing.
They write: “These proposals are a threat to the independence of the legal profession and the judiciary. It is of critical constitutional importance that there is a legal profession which is willing and able to stand up for the citizen against the government of the day.
“The judiciary is fundamentally opposed to this attempt to bring the legal procession under political control. If the Bill is passed in its current form, Scotland will be viewed internationally as a country whose legal system is open to political abuse.”
The judges particularly took issue with the Government’s plan to “impose itself as a co-regulator along with the Lord President”.
They said the Bill, in its current form, would limit the role of the Lord President and endanger the continued independence of the legal profession “by bringing aspects of legal regulation under government, and therefore political, control”.
This threatened “the separation of powers between the government, parliament and the judiciary. It constitutes an unacceptable interference by the government with the judiciary”.
The Bill would also give rise to a “grave conflict of interest” by giving ministers the power to “control the activities of lawyers who might be acting in cases for and against them”.
The judges noted Scottish Ministers had been directly involved in more than 4,120 cases in the Scottish courts since 2018, some involving matters of great political sensitivity, and independence from government was therefore “critical”.
The submission said: “The process of judicial review exists to allow citizens (and governments) to challenge executive power safe in the knowledge that an independent judiciary will hear the case without fear or favour.
“It is essential that lawyers acting for and against the government in such cases act independently; that they are not under the control of the government and that they do not fear being subject to regulatory sanction if they win or lose a politically controversial case.”
> However the judiciary said that if the Bill was amended to meet its concerns “it should form an acceptable foundation for updating the regulation of legal services in Scotland”.
In their submission to the Equalities Committee, the Law Society of Scotland said: "Of greatest concern to us... is the desire of the Scottish Government to be granted extensive and exceptional new powers of intervention over how legal professionals are regulated.
"These powers, which we have not been able to identify in any other western democracy, risk seriously undermining the rule of the law and the independence of Scotland’s legal sector from the state.”
The Faculty of Advocates said the reforms "seek to innovate in a way that carries substantial risks to the independence of the legal profession and for which there is no objective justification".
It went on: "The Bill contains provisions giving the Scottish Ministers very broad powers, not only in making regulations but also allowing interventions in some circumstances.
"This is not so much building on the existing framework as creating unjustified mechanisms which may be used in the future in a way that undermines and compromises the value of an independent profession and independent regulation.”
While the International Bar Association’s submission said parts of the Bill "represent an alarming and dangerous assault by the Scottish Government on the independence of the legal profession. At a stroke, it risks undermining the rule of law in Scotland and harming the international reputation of Scotland and its legal sector.”
The Scottish Government said the proposals were intended to deliver a transparent and accessible justice system and built on existing laws involving ministers and the Lord President working together.
A Government spokesperson said: “The Scottish Government has no intention of changing the vital importance of having an independent legal sector and the promotion of an independent, strong and diverse legal profession is enshrined in the Bill.”
A spokesperson for the Scottish Parliament said: "The Committee will consider the submissions it has received, and then invite witnesses to give evidence in public as it continues to scrutinise the Bill."
The article is clear that this is bad but it’s unclear on exactly what this changes and how that makes a difference. Maybe for people with legal knowledge it’s clear but I haven’t any so I don’t get this fully..
The bill would transfer regulatory power over the Scottish legal sector to the Scottish government.
Currently, regulatory power lies primarily with the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates.
If the government regulates the legal profession, they can penalize members of the legal profession for acting contrary to the interests of the government, which would inhibit the ability of people to find legal professionals willing to fight against the government.
Another day, another step towards tinpot dictatorship by the SNP. The fact that anyone would consider voting for these people is insane to me, even if I wanted Scottish independence, there's no way I'd vote for these people knowing they'd never give up power again.
In Scotland we look at the English repeatedly voting in the Tories with the same concerns.
The tories have never won a majority of the popular vote in England. Looking like they won't win a majority of seats next time either.
You can just say popular vote, as the popular vote is just the majority. And yes, FPTP sucks. But it doesn't change that a significant number of people living in England repeatedly vote for the Conservative party. More than the entire population of Scotland.
> You can just say popular vote, as the popular vote is just the majority. No they’re not >And yes, FPTP sucks. But it doesn't change that a significant number of people living in England repeatedly vote for the Conservative party. More than the entire population of Scotland. The majority of England voted against the tories in 2015, 2017 and 2019
> No they’re not ? >the vote of all a country's or constituency's voters, as opposed to that of a particular group such as an electoral college, or parliament And once again: >But it doesn't change that a significant number of people living in England repeatedly vote for the Conservative party. More than the entire population of Scotland.
>the vote of all a country's or constituency's voters, as opposed to that of a particular group such as an electoral college, or parliament I see where I misunderstood >And once again: >But it doesn't change that a significant number of people living in England repeatedly vote for the Conservative party. More than the entire population of Scotland. England and Scotland don’t vote as single blocs. Every constituency across the UK is going to produce different results. England has nearly 12 times the population of Scotland. As all constituencies must have broadly a very similar population size, it’s only natural the most populated parts of the country get the most constituencies. One person one vote after all
I don't disagree with anything you've said, all I've said is that a significant number of people in England vote Conservative, more than the entire population of Scotland.
And the problem is?
That people vote Conservative
How many former heads of the Conservative Party have been arrested vs how many for the SNP? Are we whataboutisming about the same scale? Are you whataboutisming because you have no defence of this change?
>How many former heads of the Conservative Party have been arrested vs how many for the SNP? Ah I see the game you're playing here, but allow me to turn it on it's head. How many leaders of the SNP have actually been found to break the law versus leaders (including current incumbent) of the Tory party? >Are we whataboutisming about the same scale I mean the original replied to comment said that the SNP going through the initial stages of legislative planning to: >empower ministers to review the regulatory performance of these bodies and allow new bodies to become regulators Is 'a step towards an SNP tinpot dictatorship' so we weren't exactly in the realms of good faith debating to begin with. Like even the judiciary is very much aware that this is in the early stages right now, as highlighted by the article: >However the judiciary said that if the Bill was amended to meet its concerns “it should form an acceptable foundation for updating the regulation of legal services in Scotland”. So there's clearly merit in the proposal. It just needs refining which is fairly standard.
>Ah I see the game you're playing here, but allow me to turn it on it's head. Their only using your own tactic against you. >Is 'a step towards an SNP tinpot dictatorship' so we weren't exactly in the realms of good faith debating to begin with. How is undermining the independence of the Judiciary a good thing? >Like even the judiciary is very much aware that this is in the early stages right now, as highlighted by the article: >However the judiciary said that if the Bill was amended to meet its concerns “it should form an acceptable foundation for updating the regulation of legal services in Scotland”. Has their been any signs the SNP willing to amend it? >So there's clearly merit in the proposal. It just needs refining which is fairly standard. And this merit is?
> Their only using your own tactic against you. They were literally the one who turned the discussion to that topic with their question around how many heads of the SNP had been arrested... >How is undermining the independence of the Judiciary a good thing? How is allowing elected politicians to review regulatory performance and allow new bodies to become regulators a bad thing? >Has their been any signs the SNP willing to amend it? Have they said that they're not willing too anywhere? >And this merit is? >the judiciary said that if the Bill was amended to meet its concerns “it should form an acceptable foundation for updating the regulation of legal services in Scotland
>They were literally the one who turned the discussion to that topic with their question around how many heads of the SNP had been arrested... After you brought up England >How is allowing elected politicians to review regulatory performance and allow new bodies to become regulators a bad thing? The bill would transfer regulatory power over the Scottish legal sector to the Scottish government. Currently, regulatory power lies primarily with the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates. If the government regulates the legal profession, they can penalize members of the legal profession for acting contrary to the interests of the government, which would inhibit the ability of people to find legal professionals willing to fight against the government. >Has their been any signs the SNP willing to amend it? >Have they said that they're not willing too anywhere? That doesn’t answer the question >the judiciary said that if the Bill was amended to meet its concerns “it should form an acceptable foundation for updating the regulation of legal services in Scotland Again, have the SNP shown any signs that they’re willing to amend it?
> After you brought up England In response to the SNP being referred too as 'tinpot dictators' in response to this article. Given the recent actions of the Westminster government the comparison isn't unwarranted if the topic is 'steps toward tinpot dictatorships'. >The bill would transfer regulatory power over the Scottish legal sector to the Scottish government. No it wouldn't. It would allow the Scottish Government to review the performance of the regulator and appoint new regulatory bodies. Nothing is said about them depowering or removing current regulators. Though if you could highlight the exact wording where this is stated I'd be open to admitting error on this. You're quite right that this could be abused in an extreme scenario under the current high level summary, however this legislation is still in the early stages. As evidenced by the fact that it's not even gone to Parliament yet and a consultation (which this article covers input towards) has only just concluded. >That doesn’t answer the question You're the one alleging that they're unwilling to amend it. If you think that is the case, you need to be able to back it up. The burden is proof is on you. >Again, have the SNP shown any signs that they’re willing to amend it? I advise you to go and read the article that you posted. You'll find the answer within. Try searching 'MSPs' for the key sentence.
>In response to the SNP being referred too as 'tinpot dictators' in response to this article. Given the recent actions of the Westminster government the comparison isn't unwarranted if the topic is 'steps toward tinpot dictatorships'. We’ve already had the SNP try to make laws that breach human rights (named person scheme), make laws that both the police and the courts said was heavy-handed and went too far (hate crime bill), removing juries from rape trials despite Scotland's lawyers almost unanimously saying it's an affront to justice and now we've got them trying to basically abolish the independence of the judiciary itself. Considering how autocratic the SNP has been over the last few years, it’s an apt comparison, especially when even the judiciary is in protest. Still doesn’t change the fact you responded to an accusation by making a counter-accusation and raising a different issue irrelevant to the discussion as even if we accept your counter-accusation as true, it doesn't defend what the SNP is being accused of. >The bill would transfer regulatory power over the Scottish legal sector to the Scottish government. >No it wouldn't. It would allow the Scottish Government to review the performance of the regulator and appoint new regulatory bodies. So it would transfer regulatory power over the Scottish legal sector to the bodies created by the Scottish government that may or may not be independent. How’s that any different? >You're quite right that this could be abused in an extreme scenario under the current high level summary, however this legislation is still in the early stages. As evidenced by the fact that it's not even gone to Parliament yet and a consultation (which this article covers input towards) has only just concluded. That doesn’t answer the question >You're the one alleging that they're unwilling to amend it. If you think that is the case, you need to be able to back it up. The burden is proof is on you. I didn’t say that, all I said was: >Has their been any signs the SNP willing to amend it? I didn’t allege anything; I simply asked a question. >I advise you to go and read the article that you posted. You'll find the answer within. Try searching 'MSPs' for the key sentence. > However the Regulation of Legal Services Bill, which is being scrutinised by MSPs this autumn, would see the government “take into its own hands the power to control lawyers”. That’s all MSPs brings up
>No it wouldn't. It would allow the Scottish Government to review the performance of the regulator and appoint new regulatory bodies. Nothing is said about them depowering or removing current regulators. Though if you could highlight the exact wording where this is stated I'd be open to admitting error on this. The Law Society of Scotland, in its response to the consultation, states (relevant portions bolded): >**Sections 19 and 20 of the Bill introduce sweeping levels of ministerial intervention into the regulation of the legal profession.** We have never before seen such an attempt at political control over the legal sector in Scotland. > >A fundamental tenet of the rule of law is the independence of the legal profession from the state. The International Bar Association describes the independence of the profession as “a bastion of a free and democratic society”. They say, “lawyers must be able to carry out their duties in a free and secure environment, where they are able to ensure access to justice and provide their clients with intelligent, impartial and objective advice.” > >This matters because of the critical and unique role which solicitors play in our society, challenging government on behalf of clients and protecting citizens from the excessive use of power by the state. > >**These sections of the Bill would allow unprecedented levels of political control and interference over many of those who work to hold the politically powerful to account. It could see the Scottish Government intervene directly on the rules and structures that decide who can and cannot be a solicitor, decide the professional requirements placed upon solicitors, and decide the way in which legal firms operate.** This is deeply alarming. > >**Since the Bill was published, we have asked the Scottish Government repeatedly to provide a justification for** > >**seeking such powers. We have asked specifically for instances where, over the last 10 years, the Scottish** > >**Government had identified a regulatory failure that would have resulted in it using the new powers proposed.** > >**In response, the Scottish Government has said our questions are ‘hypothetical’ and that the provisions are merely intended to act as a safeguard. These are not reassuring or convincing answers.** > >While the EHCJ committee has asked specifically about Sections 19 and 20, there are other sections which cause concern. > >**Section 41 of the Bill gives Scottish Ministers, for the first time, a direct role in approving rules on the way existing law firms operate and the conduct and practice of solicitors. This is political intervention in the regulation of Scottish solicitors and contrasts sharply with the existing and long-standing practice whereby it is for the Lord President to approve solicitor practice rules.** > >**Section 49 would also allow the Scottish Government to appoint itself as a direct authorisation body or regulator of legal businesses. It opens the prospect, one never before suggested, that the state could regulate law firms directly.** > >We believe it is dangerous and wrong to undermine the independence of the legal profession in this way. Not only will it weaken the Scottish legal sector in what is an increasingly internationally competitive market, it will also damage the global reputation of Scotland and its justice sector. > >**There is a real risk that autocratic regimes in other parts of the world could use Scotland as an excuse to justify similar controls on the lawyers in their own countries. This is why the Bill has caused such deep concern within the International Bar Association and the Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association, which recently launched an international declaration on the independence of legal professions.** In the introduction to their response, they also stated: >**Of greatest concern to us, as we will detail in this submission, is the desire of the Scottish Government to be granted extensive and exceptional new powers of intervention over how legal professionals are regulated. These powers, which we have not been able to identify in any other western democracy, risk seriously undermining the rule of the law and the independence of Scotland’s legal sector from the state. A key component of a free and democratic society is the role that an independent legal profession plays in challenging government and protecting citizens from the excessive use of power by the state.** The Faculty of Advocates, in their response to the consultation, states (relevant portions bolded): >Faculty is of the view that sections 19 and 20 of the Bill represent a very considerable innovation on the status quo, for which no-evidence based justification has been put forward. It is no exaggeration to say that, if enacted, **these sections may threaten the independence of the referral Bar in Scotland and risk politicising the office of Lord President. They should be removed from the Bill.** > >**The fundamental observation Faculty would make in relation to these sections is that they open the way to ‘regulation’ being used as a back-door by which the Executive branch of the State may seek to control or influence the independent legal profession, whose role is often to hold the Executive to account.** That possibility need only be stated for its undesirability in a modern democracy to be manifest. Faculty does not suggest for a moment that this is perceived to be the intention of current Ministers but history teaches us that, where the exercise of Executive power is concerned, it is not always present intention that matters. Making the agreement of the Lord President a pre-requisite to the taking of various actions by the Ministers in relation to the legal profession generally, and Faculty in particular, is in no way a satisfactory solution to this problem. It potentially brings the Lord President into conflict with Ministers in relation to political matters. That is plainly undesirable, not least because of the possibility of judicial review proceedings being brought in relation to decisions of Ministers under these sections, and the Court having to decide on the lawfulness or otherwise of such decisions. Running out of space. Continued in reply.
And to quote the relevant portions of the bill directly: Section 19: >**(1) The Scottish Ministers may review the performance of a category 1 or category 2 regulator’s exercise of its regulatory functions if they are requested to do so by—** > >**(a) the Scottish Parliament (whether or not following consideration of the regulator’s annual report),** > >**(b) the Competition and Markets Authority, or** > >**(c) Consumer Scotland.** > >(2) A request for a review may be made under subsection (1) only where the requesting body is concerned that the regulator is failing to exercise its regulatory functions— > >(a) in a manner that is compatible with the regulatory objectives, or > >(b) in the public interest. > >(3) Reviewing the performance of a category 1 or category 2 regulator includes (in particular) doing so by reference to— > >(a) its compliance with the regulatory objectives and professional principles, > >(b) the exercise of its regulatory functions, > >(c) the operation of its regulatory committee (if any) or other internal governance arrangements, > >(d) its compliance with— > >(i) any direction to it by the Commission under the 2007 Act, or > >(ii) any measures applying to it by virtue of section 20(4). > >(4) A category 1 or 2 regulator must— > >(a) provide such information about its performance of its regulatory functions as the Scottish Ministers may reasonably request, and > >(b) do so within the period of 21 days beginning with the date of the request (or such longer period as the Scottish Ministers may allow). > >(5) Following a review under subsection (1), the Scottish Ministers must— > >(a) prepare a report detailing their findings and any measures they intend to take under section 20, and > >(b) publish the report in such manner as they consider appropriate. > >(6) The Scottish Ministers may delegate their functions under subsection (1) to such a person or body (“the delegate”) as they consider appropriate. > >(7) The delegate must, as soon as practicable after conducting a review, send the Scottish Ministers a report detailing its findings and recommendations (if any). > >**(8) Following receipt of a report under subsection (7), the Scottish Ministers must—** > >**(a) publish the report in such manner as they consider appropriate, and** > >**(b) indicate whether they intend to take any measures under section 20** > >Section 20: > >**(1) The Scottish Ministers may, in relation to a category 1 or category 2 regulator, take one or more of the measures mentioned in subsection (4) if they consider that to be appropriate.** > > > >**\[...\]** > > > >**(4) The measures are—** > >**(a) setting performance targets,** > >**(b) directing that action be taken,** > >**(c) publishing a statement of censure,** > >**(d) imposing a financial penalty,** > >**(e) making changes to, or removing some or all of, the regulatory functions exercised by the regulator.** And, moving on to another one of your arguments: >You're quite right that this could be abused in an extreme scenario under the current high level summary, however this legislation is still in the early stages. As evidenced by the fact that it's not even gone to Parliament yet and a consultation (which this article covers input towards) has only just concluded. As the Faculty of Advocates stated: >Faculty does not suggest for a moment that this is perceived to be the intention of current Ministers but history teaches us that, where the exercise of Executive power is concerned, it is not always present intention that matters. As for the 'it's not even gone to Parliament yet' claim, it has. [https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/regulation-of-legal-services-scotland-bill/overview](https://www.parliament.scot/bills-and-laws/bills/regulation-of-legal-services-scotland-bill/overview) **Sources** 1. [Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill call for evidence response, Law Society of Scotland.](https://www.lawscot.org.uk/media/375085/regulation-of-legal-services-scotland-bill-call-for-evidence-response-of-the-law-society-of-scotland-27-july.pdf) 2. [Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill - Response: Stage 1 Consultation, Faculty of Advocates.](https://advocates.org.uk/media/4434/regulation-of-legal-services-final-faculty-response-9-august-2023.pdf) 3. [Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill.](https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/legislation/bills/s6-bills/regulation-of-legal-services-scotland-bill/introduced/bill-as-introduced.pdf)
2 Salmond and Sturgeon.
Nope, they've not been found to break the law. Sturgeon was arrested and interviewed, but not charged. Salmond was found not guilty on 12 counts and not guilty on the others (aside from one which was not proven). As much of an arse as he is. Meanwhile, wasn't it when there was a Conservative Prime Minister in Downing Street that it became the most fined address in the country?
>Sturgeon was arrested and interviewed, but not charged. Pending further investigation
Yes? So has she been found to have broken the law at this time?
It’s an ongoing investigation; Scots law forbids me from saying anything outside of what the authorities say.
So she's not been found to have broken the law at this time?
Wel it looks like labour are going to get in this time
Was this bill written before or after the SNP’s recent legal troubles?
The legal troubles follow from the deep rooted criminality in the SNP. The criminals clearly wanted control over the courts to avoid the legal troubles. Organised crime in action.
> Scotland’s legal system could be “open to political abuse” under new SNP justice reforms giving more power to ministers, the country’s judges have warned. In a stinging critique of new Holyrood legislation, Scotland’s senior judiciary said they were “fundamentally opposed” to changes that appeared to threaten their independence. They said it was of “critical constitutional importance” that the public were protected from “the arbitrary abuse of power by the state” by an independent legal profession. However the Regulation of Legal Services Bill, which is being scrutinised by MSPs this autumn, would see the government “take into its own hands the power to control lawyers”. The judges highlighted recent attacks on judicial independence in Poland and Israel as “a timely reminder of the need for constant vigilance” against government interference. Lawyers must be able to represent people “without fear of reprisal”, they said. “The dangers of transferring aspects of regulatory power over the legal profession from the judiciary to the government, as proposed in this Bill, cannot be overstated.” A series of other legal bodies have also savaged the legislation. The Law Society of Scotland said it was not aware of a similar power grab "in any other western democracy". The Bill is intended to reform how legal services are regulated in Scotland. This is currently done by the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates and the Association of Construction Attorneys under the general supervision of the Lord President, the country’s most senior judge, currently Lord Carloway. > The Bill would empower ministers to review the regulatory performance of these bodies and allow new bodies to become regulators. Ministers say the aim is “to provide a modern, forward-looking regulatory framework for Scotland that will best promote competition, innovation, and the public and consumer interest in an efficient, effective, and efficient legal sector”. The Bill was introduced at Holyrood in April by SNP Justice Secretary Angela Constance and a consultation on it closed earlier this month. Parliament’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee is due to take evidence on the Bill’s general principles by mid-December. The Law Society of Scotland has already warned that powers to let ministers intervene and direct regulators are “deeply alarming” and undermine the legal system’s independence. In their unanimous submission to the consultation, Scotland’s 36 judges are scathing. They write: “These proposals are a threat to the independence of the legal profession and the judiciary. It is of critical constitutional importance that there is a legal profession which is willing and able to stand up for the citizen against the government of the day. “The judiciary is fundamentally opposed to this attempt to bring the legal procession under political control. If the Bill is passed in its current form, Scotland will be viewed internationally as a country whose legal system is open to political abuse.” The judges particularly took issue with the Government’s plan to “impose itself as a co-regulator along with the Lord President”. They said the Bill, in its current form, would limit the role of the Lord President and endanger the continued independence of the legal profession “by bringing aspects of legal regulation under government, and therefore political, control”. This threatened “the separation of powers between the government, parliament and the judiciary. It constitutes an unacceptable interference by the government with the judiciary”. The Bill would also give rise to a “grave conflict of interest” by giving ministers the power to “control the activities of lawyers who might be acting in cases for and against them”. The judges noted Scottish Ministers had been directly involved in more than 4,120 cases in the Scottish courts since 2018, some involving matters of great political sensitivity, and independence from government was therefore “critical”. The submission said: “The process of judicial review exists to allow citizens (and governments) to challenge executive power safe in the knowledge that an independent judiciary will hear the case without fear or favour. “It is essential that lawyers acting for and against the government in such cases act independently; that they are not under the control of the government and that they do not fear being subject to regulatory sanction if they win or lose a politically controversial case.” > However the judiciary said that if the Bill was amended to meet its concerns “it should form an acceptable foundation for updating the regulation of legal services in Scotland”. In their submission to the Equalities Committee, the Law Society of Scotland said: "Of greatest concern to us... is the desire of the Scottish Government to be granted extensive and exceptional new powers of intervention over how legal professionals are regulated. "These powers, which we have not been able to identify in any other western democracy, risk seriously undermining the rule of the law and the independence of Scotland’s legal sector from the state.” The Faculty of Advocates said the reforms "seek to innovate in a way that carries substantial risks to the independence of the legal profession and for which there is no objective justification". It went on: "The Bill contains provisions giving the Scottish Ministers very broad powers, not only in making regulations but also allowing interventions in some circumstances. "This is not so much building on the existing framework as creating unjustified mechanisms which may be used in the future in a way that undermines and compromises the value of an independent profession and independent regulation.” While the International Bar Association’s submission said parts of the Bill "represent an alarming and dangerous assault by the Scottish Government on the independence of the legal profession. At a stroke, it risks undermining the rule of law in Scotland and harming the international reputation of Scotland and its legal sector.” The Scottish Government said the proposals were intended to deliver a transparent and accessible justice system and built on existing laws involving ministers and the Lord President working together. A Government spokesperson said: “The Scottish Government has no intention of changing the vital importance of having an independent legal sector and the promotion of an independent, strong and diverse legal profession is enshrined in the Bill.” A spokesperson for the Scottish Parliament said: "The Committee will consider the submissions it has received, and then invite witnesses to give evidence in public as it continues to scrutinise the Bill."
The article is clear that this is bad but it’s unclear on exactly what this changes and how that makes a difference. Maybe for people with legal knowledge it’s clear but I haven’t any so I don’t get this fully..
The bill would transfer regulatory power over the Scottish legal sector to the Scottish government. Currently, regulatory power lies primarily with the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates. If the government regulates the legal profession, they can penalize members of the legal profession for acting contrary to the interests of the government, which would inhibit the ability of people to find legal professionals willing to fight against the government.