In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tim... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Thanks guys. Must watch it again to see if I got the wrong end of the
stick. My impression was he was definite it had already been
over-ruled. If it hasn't been passed and then over-ruled no wonder I
couldn't find details.

I've just watched it again. He was perfectly clear that the Act had
been passed by the Scottish Parliament and overturned by the EU court.
No ifs or buts.

What raised my suspicions is that if this had happened, it would have
been headline news.

well it was

but perhaps not in the way that Howard presented it

Howard told a deliberate lie. Knowing it was likely so obscure the
presenter wouldn't pick up on it. But given how many lies the BREXIT lot
tell, only to be expected.

Seems the Scotch Whisky association or whatever wasn't happy with the law.
Because not only did it raise the price of Bucky or whatever, but also the
price of a bottle of Scotch.

The EU court said it might well infringe EU laws on competition, but sent
it back to the Scottish High court to decide on.

It's one of those bits of legislation that might well have the best of
intentions, but not thought through. Which we are riddled with.

There's always the "Law of Unitended Consequences"

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England