Oath sworn by Gordon Brown MP, 1988: We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.Philip Davies’ Early Day Motion 266 concerning Gordon Brown’s signature on the Scottish Claim of Right. The EDM reads:
That this House recognises that the Prime Minister is a signatory to the Scottish Claim of Right in which he declared and pledged that in all his actions and deliberations the interests of the Scottish people `shall be paramount’; believes that by declaring that the interests of the Scottish people should come first he has committed himself to discriminating against the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland; considers this to be incompatible with being the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in which office the interests of all UK people should be equal; and calls on him publicly to disassociate himself from and withdraw from the Scottish Claim of Right.The alternative, of course, is that Brown withdraw from the Prime Ministership of the United Kingdom on the grounds of his undoubted conflict of interest. This is no legalistic nicety – I would welcome legal opinion, e.g. from Tom Paine, that a challenge to Brown could be mounted on the basis of this evidence.
That's before we even start getting into Blair's and his Bilderberger associations, the lying ... hounds. In any other country, precedent and protocol demand that a PM resign after lying and in the UK too there has been precedent for ministers resigning for lying.
Blair even accused Brown of lying.
Why does Brown not resign?
Surely that was a tradition and he had to say it as a Scottish MP. You don't seriously believe that makes him a traitor?
ReplyDeleteI am slightly concerned by the idea of legally challenging Brown's Premiership (even though there is probably nothing he and I would agree on).
ReplyDeleteAfter all, he was properly elected to the House of Commons, and has been properly invited to form a Government by HM.
As much as I'd like to be rid of him, this would be setting a precedent any of us might regret if someone we support became PM.
Litigation seems to have become the preferred way of getting your way when you can't convince the rest of the country, these days.
By all means, things like this and the "no mandate in England" campaigns are valid political tools - I tend to think that's where they should stay.
I am no fan (to put it mildly) of Mr Brown. I suspect that oath was in the context of (and applicable only to) said deliberations. It is offensive that he believes of Scotland that which his party consistently denies to England, but I don't think there is illegality here per se. It would be interesting however, to challenge as race discrimination some of the actions of the Scottish Executive, e.g. in allowing EU Citizens the same educational subsidies at Scottish Universities, but charging fees to English students. This is apparently ok under EU law, as it is within the boundaries of a single Member State. However, it is pretty clearly discrimination against the English on the basis of their national origin. I am surprised no-one has run this. I guess the English have just not got into the whole "victim mentality" racket yet.
ReplyDeleteTom: and lets hope they never do.
ReplyDeleteThanks Charles and Tom for those insights. Welshcakes - not for that reason perhaps but for his support of EU legislation which is against the citizen.
ReplyDelete