Today I came across yet another example of how the British approach to immigration law is completely inconsistent, and penalises those of us with non-EU spouses disproportionately.
There are various ‘global entry’ style schemes where frequent travellers can pay for additional background checks, which lets them go through an expedited customs and immigration process when travelling to certain countries.
Here’s a recent explanation of how Canadian and US nationals who are a member of this scheme can get preferential treatment when coming to the UK:
Registered Traveller was launched by the UK Border Force to give faster and more convenient entry to the UK for eligible nationals from the United States and Canada. Membership of Registered Traveller costs £70 in the first year and £50 per year thereafter.
Membership of Registered Traveller includes the following benefits:
Access to ePassport gates
Use of the UK / EEA queue
No requirement to complete a landing card on arrival in the UK
No routine credibility interview with a Border Force officer.
All of that sounds great, until you consider how this approach differs from the way we treat British citizens who have non-EU spouses.
For example, my American wife has lived in the UK for the past 2 years. We have gone through two (soon to be three) separate visa processes, paying thousands of Pounds, and providing an incredible amount of evidence about our backgrounds, finances, and relationship. Yet, she still has to fill out a landing card on arrival in the UK. This landing card includes questions like: “How long do you intend to be in the UK?”, which is totally inappropriate for residents – but who cares about that?
That’s the logic of British immigration law. Give foreign business travellers a pass on basic checks if they spend fifty quid a year and do an interview, but completely shaft British citizens and their sposes that go through the most thorough of application processes and spend thousands of Pounds.
Makes you feel really proud to be a British citizen.
Legal myths and inaccuracies have been rampant in the days following the outcome of the EU referendum. I collected these as I sat sipping leche de pantera in sunny Barcelona, and have put together an explanation for each of the biggest howlers below.
‘The referendum was only advisory, not legally binding.’
No, the referendum is not legally binding – but that should be of no surprise, as no referendum in the UK ever is.
The response from a lot of folk at this point is to reference the 2011 referendum on whether or not to adopt a system of proportional representation for Westminster. This is thought of as a referendum where the result would be ‘legally binding’ on Parliament. Part of the relevant language of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 that lends itself to this view is:
8Commencement or repeal of amending provisions
(1)The Minister must make an order bringing into force section 9, Schedule 10 and Part 1 of Schedule 12 (“the alternative vote provisions”) if—
(a)more votes are cast in the referendum in favour of the answer “Yes” than in favour of the answer “No”, and
(b)the draft of an Order in Council laid before Parliament under subsection (5A) of section 3 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (substituted by section 10(6) below) has been submitted to Her Majesty in Council under section 4 of that Act.
(2)If more votes are not cast in the referendum in favour of the answer “Yes” than in favour of the answer “No”, the Minister must make an order repealing the alternative vote provisions.
(a)must bring the alternative vote provisions into force on the same day as the coming into force of the Order in Council in terms of the draft referred to in paragraph (b) of that subsection, but
(b)does not affect any election held before the first parliamentary general election following that day.
Rather than binding Parliament to a decision, this simply sets out the process by which they would be expected to implement the result in a statutory form. That in of itself does not impose a legal obligation on Parliament to actually do so. Even if it did, the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty means that it is impossible for Parliament to bind itself in such a way. Just as the statutory recognition of the Scottish Parliament’s ‘permanence’ is symbolically important but legally meaningless, the same applies here. Politically, expectations may be set by statutory wording, but legally there is absolutely nothing to stop Parliament ignoring the result of any referendum.
The nature of the referendum does come into play when considering another one of the myths though, so we will come back to it later on.
From my own personal, political standpoint (rather than a legal one):
When it comes to the ‘advisory’ part of the claim about the referendum, it is a word that has conveniently only cropped up in the aftermath of the result, usually to aid a particular position. Changing the expectation of referenda in this way is a dangerous game. We should not start to assume that a referendum result will not be implemented by default, and that the Electorate are only giving their ‘opinion’, just because it technically isn’t legally binding under the constitution. If Parliament wish to ignore the expressed will of the people, we should not let them away with the political consequences of doing so.
At no point in the lead up to the EU referendum was it ever suggested that the result would only be ‘advisory’. To pretend otherwise would be a disgrace, and do a massive disservice to our Democracy. Imagine the fallout of Scotland had voted to leave the UK, only for the outcome to be dismissed on the basis that the referendum ‘was only advisory’.
‘The Scottish Parliament can veto the referendum result.’
Ah, wouldn’t it be glorious if it were true. Sadly, it’s not. This is a myth that appears to be caused, or at least perpetuated by the media’s misleading coverage.
It’s worth noting that the BBC have since updated the story’s title to be more accurate:
There are some brilliant responses already that deal with this question in depth. As great as they are, they tend to approach things in a more academic fashion – which isn’t necessarily all that clear for those without a legal background. For this reason, I think it’s worth reiterating the position in a more straightforward fashion.
In short, the Scottish Parliament has no legal power to ‘veto’ any decision of the British Parliament – and particularly not this one. Westminster is sovereign, and can make or unmake any laws it likes, including the very existence of the Scottish Parliament if it so chose. (Again, see my previous blog on this very topic for more). There would of course be political fallout to any of these decisions, but legally nothing would stand in their way.
If there is no veto, what was all the media fuss about then?
There is a ‘constitutional convention’ that Westminster would seek legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament before legislating on any area that would affect devolved matters, which can be thought of as a sort of ‘gentleman’s agreement’; an understanding that the elected representatives of Scotland should at least be consulted before Westminster exercises their sovereign power to over-rule them. This could be (shakily) equated to a parent choosing to knock before entering into their teenagers’ bedroom. Nothing would stop them from waltzing in unannounced, but they make the choice not to out of respect for the other person’s individual autonomy. If parents continually disrespect this unwritten social understanding, then the overall relationship will suffer as a result.
In the interview with Nicola Sturgeon, you will notice that she never once mentioned the word ‘veto’. Rather, she stated that she would ask the Scottish Parliament to refuse to give their ‘legislative consent’, something which they are perfectly entitled to do. This may well pose a significant political and constitutional issue for Westminster, but nothing would prevent them from pulling out of the EU anyway.
As it stands, there is a very real chance that the Scottish Parliament would never have the chance to refuse to give their legislative consent anyway. If Westminster were to vote on the issue, this would be far more likely, but…
‘To leave the EU, the British Parliament will have to vote on it.’
The idea here is that in order to give the now infamous Article 50 notification to commence the process of the UK leaving the EU, it will have to be approved by the Westminster Parliament – and potentially even the House of Lords. Those looking to find a way to avoid exiting the EU are hoping that since a majority of MPs are opposed to leaving, they will refuse to do so, scuppering the whole thing.
What people who bring this up forget is the existence of the ‘Royal Prerogative’, a curiosity of the British constitution that allows for action to be taken (usually on the advice of a Prime Minister) without requiring Parliamentary assent. This is the norm for international treaties, and it’s precisely the mechanism David Cameron was expected to employ before he dropped the mic and kicked the ball down the field for somebody else to deal with.
Parliament could block the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 when it came time to do so, but if the Article 50 notification process had already been invoked, this would be completely pointless. After 2 years (unless there was a unanimous agreement to extend this period), we would be out of the EU under European law, whilst still domestically bound by the requirements.
‘Under European law, the result of the referendum is invalid as less than 65% of those who voted did so to leave.’
This particular idea seems to have come from people desperately reading various laws to come up with some way to nullify the vote’s outcome. It’s also completely incorrect, resulting from a simple misinterpretation of the law.
Edit: Apparently this error is the basis of a petition signed by over 4 million people to call for a second referendum. Even more important to clear it up.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
and Article 238(3)(b) says:
(b) By way of derogation from point (a), when the Council does not act on a proposal from the Commission or from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the qualified majority shall be defined as at least 72% of the members of the Council representing Member States comprising at least 65% of the population of these States.
Rather than imposing any requirement on the percentage of people who have to vote to leave the EU in a Member State, this sets out the framework for how the European Council will go about negotiations should that Member State decide to leave. The 65% figure relates to the makeup of the group that will enter into those negotiations.
Further, Section 1 of Article 50 TFEU is pretty clear:
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
If the UK decided to draw straws, or have a haggis flinging competition to decide whether or not to leave the EU – that would be perfectly acceptable (so long as it complied with other general EU law principles). The point is that the decision making process is something that is entirely up to the Member State in question to determine. Again, this provides a neat segue into the final incorrect assertion:
‘The EU will force the UK to leave if we don’t trigger Article 50.’
If you listen to the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, it would sound like the UK is about to be kicked out of the EU, even if it doesn’t invoke Article 50. However, there is nothing in the European treaty that allows for that possibility.
As things stand, the UK is arguably still involved in the decision making process of whether to leave the EU or not, in accordance with the British constitution. The referendum is hugely important, and Westminster should ignore it at their peril – but given that it isn’t legally binding on the British Parliament, then it means absolutely diddly squat under European law.
Until the Article 50 notification is invoked, legally absolutely nothing has changed between the UK and the EU. This is why Juncker’s smart-ass riposte to UKIP in the European Parliament isn’t all that clever at all. Politically, pressure is mounting, and feelings are obviously running high, but the UK remains a full Member State – something which everyone would do well to recognise.
If you’re looking for some good legal resources (some with particular political slants), check out the following blogs:
Earlier today, we woke up to the terrible realisation that the UK had narrowly voted to leave the European Union. This was an outcome that I ultimately expected, but facing the stark reality of the situation has still left me feeling numb, and in shock. Opening my eyes to see ‘Nigel Farage declares independence day’ and ‘British Pound drops to a 31 year low’ on my phone’s lock screen is something I’m not sure I’ll ever be able to forget; reminiscent of a dystopian nightmare rather than reality.
To make things worse, the dogged, often proud ignorance of those smugly celebrating victory in the immediate aftermath has been staggering. As I write this, I am overlooking the City of Barcelona, and being here only renders the sadness even more palpable, and even harder to believe.
However, this is not a drill. This is the real deal. Like it or not, the U.K. Has voted to leave the EU, and the question is what we are going to do about it now.
Many legal commentators have pointed out that the referendum isn’t binding. Whilst technically correct, this ignores the political reality, and does nothing but give a false sense of hope to those who are hurting most at this point. Of course the legal position should be stated, but it must be done holistically, not in a theoretical vacuum. There is no realistic chance of Westminster refusing to honour the outcome, nor should there be. I despise and despair at how the vote went, but the result must be respected.
Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has announced that she plans to prepare for the possibility of a second Scottish independence referendum, in response to 62% of those who voted choosing to remain. She is right to do. The SNP stood for election to the Scottish Parliament just a few months ago with a clear indication that they would seek another referendum in this precise scenario. There are many who will not like this, but the Scottish people chose to return them to power in Holyrood knowing this. Just as the result of the EU referendum must be respected, so must that be.
We were told during the last referendum that ‘the only way to ensure Scotland’s continued membership of the EU is to vote to remain part of the U.K.’. For those of us who do not wish to see us removed from the EU despite a majority vote to remain, independence is the only possible solution. If that last shred of hope is to be realised, we need to be prepared for the fight of our lives. This is it. There will be no third chance.
The last time we had a chance to vote on Scotland’s independence, it caught many of us by surprise. I don’t think I’m alone in feeling like even the vote itself couldn’t possibly be actually happening, up until the last few weeks. That is not the case this time around. We have woken up; we know the score, and if we want to have any chance of success we need to start preparing right now.
Yes, we were told that a vote for Scottish independence would mean economic chaos… Leaving the EU… Cutting off ties with our neighbours… Jumping into the unknown… and yes, all of those arguments seem null given the inevitable Brexit fallout. However, we cannot rely on this alone to make our case. We need to be smarter in how we approach things, and have better, concrete answers for issues like currency. I have faith that Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP will be able to put together a solid case, but it’s up to us to make it compelling.
Here are some general things that we need to start doing, from this point on:
Push for Scottish independence. We cannot rely on Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP alone to call for a second referendum. If we want it, we have to demand it. It’s now or never. Write to your MSP… Tweet them… Sign the SNP’s pledge of support. Do as much as you can to demonstrate the appetite that exists.
Nail your colours to the mast early. In the first referendum, many of us waited far too long to express and articulate our positions, in order to avoid causing problems with friends or family. By the time we did, it was too late. This time, we have to speak up loudly, firmly, but politely. People will value what you think, and this is too important an issue for you not to be heard. Set up your own blog, write letters to newspapers, create music or other art… Just make sure you speak up.
Understand your arguments. It’s not enough just to want independence and argue with whoever disagrees. Get informed and understand why you believe what you do, and be able to articulate it. Don’t just reel off platitudes; be smart.
Challenge misinformation. Far too often during the EU referendum, we failed to challenge those making sweeping statements, in order to avoid the potential conflict that would come along with engaging. As difficult and frustrating as it may be, that has to change. If somebody says something that you know is wrong, speak up. If you aren’t sure what the answer is, but your gut tells you that something isn’t right, ask for evidence. Challenge others to back up their claims and explain them – firmly, but politely. This applies equally to our own side of the debate as it does to those who disagree with us.
Think critically. Not everything the SNP does is good. Not everything The Tories do are bad. Don’t accept things just because other independence supports do. Don’t jump on the bandwagon. If people are criticising an article on Twitter, read it before commenting. Don’t just swallow what everybody else has, and don’t buy into the self aggrandising myths of the Scottish new media – including Bella Caledonia and the ilk.
Keep the heid. Be kind. Be prepared to accept when you are wrong or someone has a better argument than you. Make concessions and see from the opposite point of view. Challenge misinformation but don’t resort to attacking other people. Do not vilify those who disagree. Independence will never be reached unless we win over hearts and minds. Labelling people and dismissing them will do nothing to aid that.
Here are some specific challenges I think we have to overcome, and need to keep in mind:
Independence is not in the bag. The big yellow map of Scotland from the EU referendum is undeniably symbolic, and a comfort to those of us who are hurting – but we have to remember that it’s not the full story. 62% voted to remain in the EU, and not all of them will automatically support an independent Scotland. There’s a long way to go, and we have to never forget that.
Explaining why we want to be part of the EU. This is something we have failed to articulate in a way that is easily accessible to those not as invested in this debate. We need to find creative and clear ways of explaining why there is a difference between voting to be a sovereign nation, and being part of the European Union. It isn’t just about not having other people tell you what to to do. This is a challenge that will come up time and time again and we need to have s good response.
Avoiding the echo chamber. Sharing on Facebook is fine, but experience has shown that we primarily end up talking to those who share our views rather than anybody who may oppose them. We need to find ways to have meaningful conversations with those outside of our echo chambers.
I’m tired, and I’ve lost three drafts of this post already trying to type it on my damn phone… But we aren’t going to get another chance at this. We need to be prepared for the fight of our lives, we need to be smarter and kinder than we were before – and we need to do it now.
Hilary Clinton has officially reached the threshold required to clinch the Democratic Party’s nomination for Presidential candidate. Save some political miracle, this means that we will not see Bernie Sanders in office in this American election cycle.
I know that this is something that has caused many of my friends and family to experience a deep sense of hopelessness and despair; now faced with a choice between a Democrat firmly entrenched in corporate America and established political history, and… Donald Trump. That feeling is one that I know all too well, given the outcome of the Scottish independence referendum back in 2014.
Throughout this entire process, I have felt strong parallels between the increasing popularity of Bernie’s campaign – going from nothing to a significant force – and the grassroots growth of the Yes movement. I know the crushing realisation that comes with seeing the first salient, unexpected chance of real political change fall at the last hurdle, and I hurt alongside you.
After Scotland voted No to independence, I felt like I had lost my country. It felt as if the one chance we were going to get to make real progress had been squandered, and that the intoxicating hope in the lead up to the referendum was gone for good. As I wrote at the time:
For the past few weeks, we had dared to dream about what sort of country Scotland should be. It felt like we had found the beginnings of a new identity based on our shared values. The atmosphere was electric; the hope intoxicating.
We had the chance to do something brave, and amazing. We had the chance to rid our country of nuclear weapons; to declare our commitment to human rights; to challenge the political establishment, and to finally have a real say in our future. Instead, Scotland voted to remain part of the UK.
Reading over the words from that time still brings tears to the corners of my eyes. The pain of seeing peaceful revolution slip away never really disappears, and I stand side by side with Bernie supporters who feel that hurt just now.
In the aftermath of the independence referendum though, I began to see through the fog of despondency; to reassess what had actually happened, and to feel the fire return to my belly. To quote one of the articles that I found comfort in at the time:
The hurt will pass. People’s allegiances change. There are ways to regroup. Opportunities to advance the democratic case for transformational change will come again. That is a universal constant.
Think back to what has been achieved in this nomination process. Bernie Sanders started out as a completely unknown and anonymous Senator, who nobody thought would even actually ever run – never mind get as far as he has. The media ignored him completely until they were forced to take notice through the sheer popularity that he managed to garner from ordinary people. Look around you. America is not the same country that it was before this campaign. Not only was a ‘crackpot socialist’ able to get significant mainstream media coverage, but he brought issues of social justice to the very forefront of the American political consciousness. Despite an ultimate failure to clinch the nomination, this has been an overwhelming victory in a system designed to stifle and destroy precisely that sort of speech. Yes, take time to grieve and mourn the loss, but don’t wait too long. Don’t let this setback be a knockout blow in the battle for progress. Wipe yer eyes, and on yer feet.
Armed with little more than social media, blogs, and DIY creativity, we tried to take on the might of the British state and the vast power and wealth of the British establishment. And for a few weeks we had them terrified. Hold on to that feeling and be proud of it.
Hold on to the impetus created by the success of Bernie Sanders. Let that propel you and others who share those values to effect real, lasting political change in the future. Scotland has never been the same since the referendum; the landscape has shifted permanently. There is no putting the genie back in the bottle now. As Bernie tweeted yesterday:
My hope is that when future historians look back on the campaign of 2016 they will say that is where it all began. Thank you #OurRevolution
This isn’t the end; it’s just the beginning. Make sure of it.
I’ll finish up with the words from a blog post that I wrote after I came to terms with the result of the independence referendum.
I am proud of us dreaming and debating what a better future might look like – whether that is together or independent. Now that the majority has spoken, it’s time to ensure that the shared values that rose to the surface are pursued.
Let’s keep asking the difficult questions and challenging the status quo.
Today I came across an article published on CommonSpace.scot by a guy called Anthony Barrnett, founder of opendemocracy.net. Entitled ‘Why the EU vote is an English, not British, reckoning’, it discusses the upcoming EU referendum, and the potential implications, with a particular look at the Scottish element.
It seemed like a good read, but before I got too far into it, there was this section:
Scotland has its own sovereign parliament. I emphasise sovereign, The Vow opens by saying that the Scottish Parliament is ‘permanent’. Gordon Brown, who oversaw the formulation of The Vow, was fully aware of the explosive constitutional consequences of this term.
It means that Westminster’s sovereignty no longer extends to Scotland. Now, suppose this sovereign parliament is confronted with the circumstances you describe. I’m not saying they are likely, but if indeed the referendum is as close as the polls currently suggest (not that I believe in them) then it is possible that there will be a vote for Brexit.
As a supporter of Scottish independence, I am all for strengthening the position of our Parliament wherever possible. However, that doesn’t extend into flights of fantasy. To that end, I feel compelled to clarify a few things in response.
The formal statutory recognition of the Scottish Parliament as ‘permanent’ was undeniably symbolically important, but in reality it did little to impact the actual constitutional position. In fact, arguably this is precisely why Gordon Brown promised to make this change in the infamous vow; it sounds great rhetorically, without having any substantive practical effect.
The reason for this is pretty straightforward. Despite placing the Sewell Convention ‘on a statutory footing’, the British Parliament still retains ultimate sovereignty. If Westminster were to decide tomorrow that the Scottish Parliament should be abolished, passing an Act to that effect, there is nothing legally that would prevent them from doing so. No Parliament can bind another (or itself) through legislation (following Dicey’s Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty). For this reason, the following clause (taken from the Scotland Act 2016) seems noble, but ultimately without any effective enforcement:
it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum
For some time there was a theory that certain Acts of Parliament have come to be entrenched with such constitutional importance that they have taken on a special status, and that their repeal could potentially be resisted by rebellious judges, should Parliament dare to attempt it. Examples of these include the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA), the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Scotland Act 2016. However, given the political developments over the past 5+ years, (not to mention the referendum that we are in the middle of) it should be clear that this is not the case. For more reading on that particular point, see this article on the UK Constitutional Law site.
Of course, should Westminster seek to abolish the Scottish Parliament, the fallout would likely be astronomical, but that does not mean that they do not hold the legal power to do so. Holyrood could well be permanent, but if so, it is only through the protections of the will of the Scottish people: not the law.
Scotland has its own sovereign parliament. I emphasise sovereign.
Given that the Scottish Parliament is not permanent in any legal sense, then it naturally cannot possibly be sovereign. By definition, if another body ultimately has the legal authority to bring your existence to an end, then you do not hold sovereignty.
To illustrate this further, s.29(1) of the Scotland Act 1998 states:
an Act of the Scottish Parliament is not law so far as any provision of the Act is outside the legislative competence of the Parliament
going on to explain that this includes [the Parliament] having: ‘no power to make any subordinate legislation, or to do any other act, so far as the legislation or act is incompatible with any of the Convention rights.’ In other words, it is legally impossible for the Scottish Parliament to bring about any law or action that is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Note, that this restriction doesn’t apply to the Parliament in Westminster. Why? Because Westminster is sovereign, and Holyrood is not. A sovereign Parliament cannot be legally bound in this way. Whilst Westminster can willingly choose to restrict its sovereignty by entering into international treaties and accepting the corresponding obligations, that does not mean that sovereignty is relinquished, and it does not have the restriction imposed by a third party.
Another grand statement included in the CommonSpace article is this:
It means that Westminster’s sovereignty no longer extends to Scotland.
What a wonderful thought! I am not sure how the author has come to this conclusion, as they don’t expand on this further in the article, but as it stands, it is completely inaccurate.
Again, whilst convention may dictate that the Westminster Parliament will not legislate in areas which fall within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, that does not mean that they are unable to do so. In fact, the whole nature of the Scottish Parliament is based on the granting of powers from Westminster. The only legal authority that the Scottish Ministers have is that derived from the sovereignty of the British Parliament; ‘a creature of statute’.
Why does this matter? It matters because if the Scottish Parliament was sovereign, then we would be an independent, sovereign country – exactly what those of us who voted ‘Yes’ in 2014 were fighting for. That simply isn’t the case, and perpetuating disinformation does a disservice to us all. So no Anthony, sadly the Scottish Parliament is not sovereign. Yet.
At the time, the group appeared to clearly be linked to two individuals: Martin Keane and Deane Syme, and this was reflected in the article.
Today, I received a legal threat over that article from Martin Keane, claiming that he and Deane Syme had nothing to do with what the SIP became, and that I must immediately remove the article or face legal action in the Sheriff Court. Here is the full text of his e-mail:
The article itself deals with details of the Scottish Independence Party or SIP. I am writing to inform you that your article is factually incorrect and indeed rises to the level of libel.
I will go through each part of the article and specify to you the factual inaccuracies in the hope that you will remove the article immediately. If you do not, then I will be required to take the matter further which may include you being summonsed to appear in the Sheriff Court.
You open the article “Tonight I became aware of the existence of the so-called ‘Scottish Independence Party’. No, not the Scottish National Party, but the Scottish Independence Party – aka Martin Keatings and Deane Syme.” – Considering the fact that your article was launched on 27/10/2014, this statement, straight off the bat is factually incorrect. Both Dean & I did consider setting up the SIP, however, based on the preponderance of evidence of the current political climate at that time in Scotland & also the fact that I did not have the time to continue forward, Dean and I both decided, 2 weeks prior to that date, that we were in fact not going ahead with it.
The group on facebook was left open to the public and the existing members of that group, to do with it as they pleased. But Dean & I’s involvement went no further than thinking about it, trying to find out if there would be enough support & indeed then deciding not to go ahead. This all happened within the 2 weeks AFTER the referendum.
Any posts after that time were down to third parties and not Dean or I. That makes the rest of your article totally false because any post, any statement, any action, any idea thereafter was nothing to do with Dean or I. The real kicker, of course, is that the situation is further confused by the fact a unionist tried to establish a party in the same name later on. You article, factually incorrect and indeed incorrectly naming us resulted in both of us receiving full blown abuse from the Yes community. Something I was unaware of until I got back from visiting my then-fiancee in Moscow.
Now it seems your factually incorrect article is dragging us into another dispute. This has now reached the point where it needs to stop. I am asking you to kindly remove the article – or, you may if you wish, remove mine and deans name from said article and put a line at the bottom that says. MARTIN KEATINGS AND DEAN SYME ARE IN NO WAY INVOLVED WITH SIP.
Its a simple case of, we had an idea, it didn’t go anywhere, someone else (the loons) decided to pick it up, you reported on it and linked us to it (which is incorrect) and then that idea didn’t work. Another loon picked it up again and the web community googled and guess what came up.
Please remove the article, or our names (with an addendum)or i’m going to have no other choice but to make this legal stephen, and to be honest I don’t really want to do that to you bud.
I’m not really sure what this is meant to mean. Martin states that himself and Deane considered setting up a party under this name, created the Facebook page and associated discussions, but then decided not to go ahead with it… which means that referencing them in the article was perfectly legitimate.
Given that the standard for defamation requires that a statement must be untrue and lower the defamed in the estimation of right thinking members of society, and that saying somebody is a member of a political party when they are not does not qualify, I would suggest that bringing an action for libel would not be the best use of time or effort.
I have clarified the original article to highlight Martin’s concerns, and that should put an end to the matter.