Westminster Housing Benefit Change Of Circumstances: Fill & Download for Free

———————————————————If You are interested in Online Dating, PLEASE LOOK IN MY BIO. I put there a Special Offer for You, CHECK IT UP.———————————————————Scotland has its own distinct legal system including its own laws and courts. However, Scots law comes from a variety of sources and this can be a bit confusing. If you're going to court, or considering taking any other form of legal action, it might help to know what the law is based on.Why does it matter?The law in Scotland has a long and complicated history. Although it is a distinct system, it has developed from a variety of sources. Some of the laws in Scotland are different from those in England and Wales. This page outlines the main sources of Scots law. This will help you to understand where the law comes from if you ever have to deal with lawyers or go to court.Lawyers study legal principles and other sources of law in a lot of detail at university and discuss what they mean in a modern world. The basic principles remain the same but the situations that they apply to change as the world we live in changes. For example, we didn't use mobile phones twenty years ago and computers were much more scarce. Now, most people have a mobile and people use computers every day at home, work, school, in libraries and internet cafes. Lots of information is available to all of us because of these improvements in technology and the law has to try to keep up with all of this.Housing law has also changed a lot as the type and number of houses available changes. In fact, the Scottish Parliament has promised that everyone will have a home by the year 2012. The law has to try to keep up with all these different developments.Roman law and legal principlesScots law has a complicated history that goes back as far as Roman times. This is important for modern law in Scotland because it explains a lot about some of the legal principles we have today. Roman law principles were used to develop Scots law (see 'institutional writers' below).Roman law was basically a system of 'rights' and 'obligations'. In other words, the law gave people certain rights to things but, in return, they had certain duties to fulfil (these are called 'obligations'). These basic principles are applied to all sorts of different situations in modern day courts in Scotland.This is quite different from the history of law in England. In England, law was developed using the decisions of judges in specific cases (this is called 'common law'). However, much of the law in Scotland and England today is similar.Scots law of contract is a good example of a modern law that was originally based on Roman law. So if, for example, you have bought a bed for your house from a local shop and you've agreed to pay for it over a period of time, you've entered into a legal contract. If there is any disagreement about what you've agreed, the law of contract could be used to find a legal solution.Another example is if you are suing your landlord because your baby has developed asthma because of damp in your flat. You could be suing your landlord under lots of different laws but your solicitor might argue that your landlord owed you and your baby a legal 'duty' to keep the flat free from damp. This is an example of an obligation the landlord has to you.Both these examples show how the principles of Roman law are relevant to modern law in Scotland and how they might be able to help you with your housing problems.Institutional writersLawyers in the 17th and 18th centuries (called 'institutional writers') wrote books setting out the principles on which Scots law is based. Many of these principles were based on Roman law (see above). Lawyers in Scotland today still look at what the institutional writers said about the law and apply these principles to modern day situations.There are several institutional writers but the main ones are Stair, Bell and Erskine.Courts and case lawThe courts, both in Scotland, England, and also some European courts, are another source of Scots law. The courts are very important in the Scottish legal system because they can change the law. Our page on how law is made has more information.The UK parliamentThe UK parliament makes laws called 'Acts of Parliament'. Proposed laws are debated and approved by parliament then draft laws (called 'Bills') are written down. Bills are then considered in detail by parliament. Bills can change substantially when going through parliament. Bills eventually become Acts and are then brought into force officially by the Queen.You are more likely to hear Acts of Parliament being called 'statutes'. Statutes set out what the law is in numbered paragraphs called 'sections' and 'schedules' and, sometimes, several statutes have to be looked at to find out what the law says. It can be a very complicated process.The basic process is that the government suggests a new law, which is then debated in parliament. The changes pushed forward by the government are heavily influenced by their political beliefs and policies. So, when you vote for a political party at an election, it's important to think carefully about whether you agree with what their policies are.The parliament for the UK is based in London at Westminster. You can visit the UK parliament website if you want more information. The parliament in Westminster can pass laws that either affect the whole of the UK or only certain parts of it, including Scotland. In fact, they have total control over some areas of law that affect Scotland. You can read more about this is the section called 'Acts of Scottish Parliament' below.The Scottish ParliamentIn 1999, a new Scottish Parliament was set up for the first time in hundreds of years. The Act also created the Scottish Executive, now called the Scottish Government. The UK parliament gave the new Scottish Parliament some powers to make their own laws on certain topics.The Westminster or UK parliament (see 'Acts of Parliament' above) did this by passing a law (the Scotland Act 1998) saying that Scotland could set up and run its own parliament. It was a huge development for Scottish politics and also Scots law. However, it's worth remembering that the Scottish Parliament only exists because of a law passed by the UK parliament. This means that the UK Parliament has ultimate control of the Scottish Parliament, including the power to dismantle it. It's also important to be aware that Scotland is not 'devolved' or separate from the rest of the UK - some legislative powers have simply been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The UK parliament still makes lots of laws that affect Scotland.Round about the same time, Wales was also allowed to set up its own parliament (called 'the Welsh Assembly') but it cannot make their own laws. The two systems in Scotland and Wales are different and have different powers.The Scottish Parliament is based in Edinburgh at Holyrood. Have a look at the Scottish Parliament website if you'd like more information.The Scottish Parliament has the power to make its own laws (called 'Acts of Scottish Parliament' or 'ASPs') that affect Scotland. However, it can only make laws on certain areas. These areas are specified in the Scotland Act and are called 'devolved issues'. For example, the Scottish Parliament can make laws on housing issues but it can't make laws on housing benefit (this is because social security is a 'reserved matter', which means that the UK Parliament has control of it). The Scottish Parliament has complete authority over the areas that are devolved.Laws affecting Scotland can either be made in the Westminster parliament in London or the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh. People living in Scotland have to stick to laws made by both parliaments and both are equally valid.Human rights lawEveryone is talking about 'human rights' these days. There's a lot in the news about it, and lots of controversy too. It's important to understand that 'human rights' in the law have a very specific meaning. Your human rights could help you if you are making a complaint about the way you've been treated by a public body (such as a council) or if you're taking a case to court. It depends on the circumstances.The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) was set up in the 1950s. It gave everyone a set of basic human rights, including the right to a private life and the right to freedom of speech. Although the government had a responsibility to make sure that the ECHR rights were upheld in the UK, they could not be enforced in cases in the UK courts. If you wanted to prove that your ECHR rights had been breached you had to take your case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. This was a long and expensive process and only a small number of cases got that far.However, this was changed when the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force in the UK. This brought ECHR rights into UK law and means that people who feel that their rights have been breached by a public body can have their case heard in a British court, rather than having to go to Strasbourg.The Act was a very important change in the law and is now a significant source of UK law, including Scots law. It means that all public bodies, such as local councils, the police, health authorities and schools must comply with the ECHR in everything that they do. It also means that both the UK and Scottish parliaments have to respect and take into account people's human rights when making new laws. Courts across the UK also have to do this when deciding on cases and interpreting the law.As well as this, the Scotland Act 1998, which created the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive (see 'the Scottish Parliament' above), says that the Scottish Parliament has to make sure that all laws it passes comply with the ECHR. So, if you feel that any law passed by the Scottish Parliament, or any policy of the Scottish Government, breaches your human rights under the ECHR, you can go to court. If the court agrees with you, the law can be struck down or the Government can be made to change its policy. So these laws are very important.When the Act first came into force, the courts had to look at what it meant for the first time and a lot of court decisions were affected by the change in the law. The courts made some controversial changes to the law (you can find out how court decisions affect the law by reading the section called 'courts and case law' above). For example, you may have read about the case in which someone claimed that he did not get his right to a fair trial because the judge had been appointed by the same person who ran the prosecution service. This led to a change in the law about how certain types of judges are appointed. There were several important legal points in that case and it was all to do with human rights. This example shows how important human rights have been, and still are, to the development of Scots law today. Your human rights could form an important part of your case if you go to court, depending on what your case is about.For more information, please see also the page on human rights in our section on discrimination.European lawEuropean law is very complicated and is a specialised area in its own right. However, it is another source of Scots law because it was brought directly into UK law by the European Communities Act 1972. We've included it here just to complete the picture of how Scots law is made but European law is unlikely to be relevant if you have a housing problem. If it is relevant, your solicitor will be able to give you appropriate advice.

I voted “no” in the last referendum. In 2014, people I know were very much split on the question of independence. Now, virtually all of the same people, myself included, along with most of the English people I know in Scotland incidentally, are pro-independence, and this is entirely because of Brexit.The question contains a basic flaw - it assumes that being pro-independence means being in favour of independence in every circumstance and rejecting every supra-national union. This is often then used to present being pro-independence and pro-EU as a logically flawed position, often combined with the further claim that Brexit is a fig leaf for rabid anglophobic nationalism. However, this is only a sound argument if you claim that a) the UK and EU are essentially equivalent organisations and that b) independence means “independence at all costs”. A more nuanced position is that it in interconnected world of the 21st century true independence is a nostalgic mirage and that decisions are best made at different levels - some local, some national, some supra-national and the question then becomes “which decisions should be delegated to whom?”. Pre-Brexit, living in Scotland, we had 3 levels of decision makingA) Holyrood - the Scottish government deciding on matters like education, health etc and passing local laws.B) Westminster - the UK parliament deciding on matters not devolved to Holyrood such as foreign policyC) the EU - deciding on macro-scale matters such as international trade deals etc.It was entirely possible to wonder if this solution was the optimal one and if Westminster was not merely an extra layer of bureacracy and inefficiency in decision making and that decisions are not made either as local as possible or as multinationally as possible. What stopped a lot of Scots voting for independence last time, however, was the fear of economic upheaval which outweighed the comparatively abstract benefits. The habit of SNP supporters of yelling PROJECT FEAR (sound familiar?) at anyone who asked perfectly reasonable questions like “how would an independent Scotland safeguard a banking industry that was so large relative to GDP?” or “What currency are we going to use?” didn’t help.Post-Brexit, things have changed. With no-deal looming, the attitude is more “we are all f&&&ed anyway so why NOT vote independence?” So the main factors pushing people away from independence - leaving the EU, economic turmoil have largely become irrelevant as they are going to happen anyway.Post-Brexit, we are left with a situation where Scotland still makes local decisions but where macro-level decisions are now the exclusive domain of Westminster, with the EU out of the picture. However, Westminster is looking increasingly unreliable and unfit for this task. So while the negatives pushing people away from independence have decreased, the positives pulling people towards it have increased, namely that Westminster seems increasingly unfit for purpose and out of touch with Scotland.So why don’t I think Westminster is up the task? There are a number of reasons.First Past the Post voting. Westminster’s dysfunctionality is a consequence of the voting system. MPs in Westminster do not represent the number of votes cast and this has had a systematic distorting effect on British politics for decades meaning that whoever wins we have ended up with unrepresentative governments that displease the majority of the population. This is one of the underlying causes, along with the traumatic effects of 70s and 80s de-industrialisation and, more recently, the banking crisis, that have lead to widespread dissatisfaction and alienation among swathes of the population, which have lead to both Scottish independence and Brexit, politically opposed, but arguably both deriving from similar causes.The failures of FPTP lead into the second problem. Britain has been split for as long as I’ve been alive, between two competing visions. A more Social Democratic vision which is more “European” - basically people who want the UK to be more like Germany or Denmark, and a more laissez-faire, free-market driven “American” vision of the country. The former are represented by Labour, the Liberal Democrats, SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens. The latter are represented by the Conservatives. FPTP rewards large minorities and punishes fragmented blocs. Since the Social Democratic bloc in British politics is more divided, this means that the Conservatives can routinely win elections, gaining majorities with 35% of the vote, even though more than half of the public frequently vote for parties who are basically opposed to them. This means that the country has drifted further and further from what many of us, probably most of us want, and this is felt particularly keenly, though not uniquely, in Scotland.There is a lack of trust in Westminster. We have government ministers claiming one minute that suspending parliament would be a betrayal of what our ancestors fought for on the beaches of Normandy or in the battlefields of the Civil Wars and then carrying on as if nothing has happened when the government did just that. We had the three main political parties say in 2014 they would look seriously into the political set up in Scotland - “the Solemn Vow” - possibly leading into “Devo Max” which was probably the preferred solution of most Scots at the time. Since then? Nothing. Solemn vows mean nothing to the main UK parties it seems. I’m not even going to start on all the things we were told at the time of Brexit or how words like “democracy” have now become meaningless in the hands of demagogues and proven serial liars like Johnson who was sacked from his (right wing) paper for making stuff up. When trust declines, you start wondering exactly what the Tories mean by regaining sovereignty. It looks increasingly like “doing whatever the hell we want and f&& anyone who disagrees with us”.The UK has weak constitutional safeguard for rogue governments - the second chamber is toothless and unelected, the monarch is a walking legal fiction and the Commons can be ruled by a party that can ignore the majority of voters as long as it wins by FPTP.I want as many decisions to be made as possible at a Scottish level. There are things which cannot be done at national level - Scotland can get more advantageous trade deals negotiating as part of a bloc of countries than it can as a small country of less than 6 million. It can’t tackle climate change or deal with the migrant crisis on its own. I’m happy to let these be dealt with at EU level. But Westminster? What advantages does Westminster actually give me nowadays over the EU?If the UK were to be reformed with a truly federal set up, a PR elected commons and an elected, effective house of Lords, and if it stayed in the EU, I would be more than happy to stay in the Union. There is however, precisely, zero chance of that ever happening with rogues and incompents like Johnson or Corbyn in charge. Independence it is.NB For reasons why “Yes” lost last time see comments below. Calling 55% of the Scottish electorate who disagreed with you last time “traitors” (or “quislings” as one called my late stepfather as he was dying of cancer) does not endear the SNP or the wider independence movement to the undecided. This is why I always call myself a “separatist” but not a “nationalist”. You will notice BTW that writing a long post in favour of independence STILL gets you called a traitor by the nuttier kind of *nationalist for not being 100% behind the party line.*Obviously, I’m not calling nationalists, or the SNP, in general “nutters” - I have, after all, just written a lengthy pro-independence rant - but it is undeniable that the independence movement, on its fringes, a fair share of “types”. I believe in “civic nationalism”. I do not believe that the insulting of political opponents or, not even opponents, simply folk who don’t agree with you 100%, is compatible with genuine civic nationalism. If the SNP are serious about winning next time round, and I hope to god they are, they can start by telling some of their wingnuts (which every party has) to fucking do one (to use the vernacular for a moment). To her credit, Sturgeon has done this on more than one occassion. (and I’m not especially a fan of many of her policies, but I respect her for being a person of integrity).

Who are the people?It is clear that there is some support for another referendum once the terms of the deal are clear. I will leave it up to the pollsters to define the quantity of the support. And I am sure that support will increase if the public perceive that the parliament is unable to reach a sensible decision. In fact several notable people include David Davis (reported in Hansard) and Jacob Rees-Mogg (on Twitter) have made public statements indicating that a second referendum was either expected, or a reasonable next step.There is a substantial portion of the community that witnessed the perverted debates, the vitriolic and violent attacks, the lies, exaggeration, misinformation, and general divisiveness of the 2016 referendum and wonder how the nation can possibly benefit from repeating the experience.There is a substantial portion of the electorate who voted for Brexit and feel that a second referendum is nothing more than a plot by the Bremoaners to reverse a decision that they refuse to accept. I understand their sensitivity and resistance to any move that may appear to risk snatching away their hard won victory. But the flaw in their position is precisely their own claim to be championing democracy.What do they want?There is a spectrum of wants from hard liners on all sides of the argument - and I do mean all sides.There has been a small but significant shift in confidence. Yougov’s tracker poll that has asked In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the European Union? shows that opinion has changed from being slightly (4%) in favour of Brexit to being more than slightly (5%) against. Political trackers (28-29 Nov update) | YouGovThe final definition of the Brexit destination was not clarified sufficiently to garner a clear majority in the 2016 referenda. This confusion became painfully clear when pollsters started asking people why they voted, and what they hoped Brexit to achieve. Many of their issues and desires had little or nothing to do with the realities of the EU, and had much to do with xenophobia, perceptions of powerlessness in the face of globalisation, and details of policy and implementation originating from Westminster, many being associated with cuts in public service provision resulting from the long period of austerity.When presented with the suggestion that there may have been a lack of clarity about the meaning of Brexit, it is common for supporters of Brexit to insist that they knew precisely what they were voting for - leaving the EU. Unfortunately, many cannot articulate any clear position on the many subsidiary issues that define the many positions between a hard Brexit (leaving the EU without any agreement on future trade in a way that will bring chaos and disruption to millions of UK and EU businesses and livelihoods), the many intermediate proposed arrangements resembling the arrangements enjoyed by Norway, Switzerland or Canada, and the closest possible arrangement including a customs union and regulatory alignment - a Brexit in name only.Even the staunchest supporters of Brexit have publicly stated that Remaining would be better for the UK than some of the proposed arrangements negotiated by the UK government since the 2016 referendum. And so it is unsurprising that they have refused to support some of these versions of Brexit.Whilst the supporters of Brexit argue amongst themselves about what Brexit means and how to achieve it, they blame the delays and the failure of their consensus on the 48% who did not support Brexit but must contribute to paying for it, whilst tolerating accusations of treason and betrayal. Meanwhile the nation lurches towards a threatened No-deal departure that only a very small minority say they want or will agree to.Hence the divisiveness and angst we have been observing for the last few years.A slim majority was in favour of change - a.k.a. Departure. But it became apparent that there was no clear majority for any specific change - a.k.a. Destination. And if the protest vote - the angry voters who appeared to not care about or fully understand the question or the consequences - were removed from the majority count, the size of the majority fell below the threshold needed for change.If we count only those voters who want the UK to be outside the EU at any cost, their numbers are small. Their refusal to compromise, their unwavering faith in the value of the Brexit project, and their disregard for the losses that may be inflicted on others, alienates them from everybody else.It is arguable that the issue can only be resolved by the nation advancing to the brink to stare into the abyss. Only then can it decide to retreat or take the leap. Anything less will leave the issue festering. It was impossible before the 2016 referendum to define the most critical aspects of Brexit (ie. the nature of the future relationship between the UK, Ireland, and the EU) because nobody could know what the EU, and the Irish would agree to. Ergo, the 2016 referendum could not be interpreted as consent by the voters to travel to a destination that nobody could define with certainty.What do they need?There are two major deficits evident at present - leadership and clarity about decision making process.Confidence increases when leadership is evident, and there is clarity about process. People know where the nation is heading and that the best steps will be taken - all things considered.The current uncertainty about the process is undermining confidence, polarising opinion, and encouraging the hard liners to accuse their opposition of egregious crimes, disloyalty and treason.Leaders are unwilling to speak the unpalatable truths for fear of losing support.Can a referendum deliver it?Historically, the Westminster parliamentary system (refined over centuries and adopted globally as the pinnacle of representative democracy) was designed, and has evolved, to build confidence and avoid the problems of bad decision-making processes.Any proposal for change that comes before each house of the parliament must be voted on at least 3 times - once at each reading of the bill. [See How does a bill become a law?]Each bill, with a few notable exceptions, must pass both houses. Between those stages there are numerous opportunities for:-Investigations by MPs to ascertain the real nature of the problem, and the efficacy of the solutions proposed, during committee hearings allowing all parties outside the parliament to be heard;Refinement of proposals after debates between well-informed decision makers as new facts and ideas come to light;Timing flexibility to allow the process to be accelerated or delayed in response to changes in circumstances.The parliamentary process is intended to avoid hasty and unwise regressive decisions driven by populist delusions or alarming distractions that so often derail referendum debate and discredit referendum results. The parliamentary process builds consensus and defuses opposition by ensuring all parties feel they have been heard and understood, and allows the final decision to incorporate the best ideas and implementation provisions regardless of who proposed them.An equivalent referendum process would require repeated referenda at each stage as new facts emerge, and new proposals gather favour. Nobody in parliament expects that a bill becomes law just because it passed the first reading. Nobody disputes the right of parliament to revise, refine or reject its previous decisions. And yet that is precisely what the hard line Brexiteers are insisting on. They demand that the “will of the people” as expressed in 2016 must be obeyed without revision - placing a single referendum decision in a higher category of authority than a parliamentary decision, regardless of the lack of consensus about the definition of Brexit, many evident procedural faults, changes in circumstances, or passage of time.The parliamentarians rightly insist that in the Westminster system, the decisions of parliament are superior because its process is more mature and robust. It is certainly arguable that the referendum process, which is rarely used in the UK, displays many procedural difficulties when employed to resolve complex far-reaching issues in fluid circumstances. The nation’s lack of experience with the process further undermines confidence.Will they get it?It is always painful to watch people trying to resolve their problems but refusing to acknowledge that the cause and the solutions lie outside the box they have framed for themselves.Many who voted for Brexit have laid the blame for their issues at the feet of Brussels bureaucrats. The Remainers maintain that the problems can only be solved in Westminster. Close examination reveals that Brexit carries many risks and creates as many problems as it solves, and may not actually deliver the solutions its supporters claim. In the longer term, it is likely that Brexit may be the start of a chain of events that will lead to the breakup of the United Kingdom and leave England and Wales diminished.Leadership is needed to articulate a uniting vision, settle the existential angst, lift the collective gaze beyond immediate obsessions, identify the real causes of problems, and focus collective effort on progressive change.Is that leadership apparent?Only time will tell.