Scottish Drink Drving Chages

[sim72]

R33dk said:

If making it as low as 50 why not just have a zero tolerance law put in place ?

Personally I think it's just pathetic dropping to this. Half a pint it works out at I believe ?

50 is pretty much 2 units (a pint or a large wine) for the average person. Zero is problematic because of the issues of medication (or even things like mouthwash) that can contain small amounts of alcohol. I believe in some countries the limit is 5 if you are a public driver (bus, taxi etc.)

[Edinburger]

R33dk said:

If making it as low as 50 why not just have a zero tolerance law put in place ?

Personally I think it's just pathetic dropping to this. Half a pint it works out at I believe ?

This is effectively zero tolerance - it's designed to allow for alcohol in food, mouth wash, etc. It also brings Scotland into line with most European countries.

[Mr Taxpayer]

sim72 said:

R33dk said:

If making it as low as 50 why not just have a zero tolerance law put in place ?

Personally I think it's just pathetic dropping to this. Half a pint it works out at I believe ?

50 is pretty much 2 units (a pint or a large wine) for the average person. Zero is problematic because of the issues of medication (or even things like mouthwash) that can contain small amounts of alcohol. I believe in some countries the limit is 5 if you are a public driver (bus, taxi etc.)

It's 20 for people like airline pilots, tube drivers, etc. I believe that certain control room staff in places like nuclear power stations and chemical plants have a similar limit.

[R33dk]

In my line if work (electrical distribution ) if you blow over .35 you will lose your job on the spot.

What are the legal limits for countries in Europe ?

Funny that Scotland have, as been mentioned, dropped to be more on par with European regs, yet only mere weeks ago they came very close to not being part of the EU altogether.

[rs1952]

Edinburger said:

It also brings Scotland into line with most European countries.

As has already been pointed out by others, it brings the DD limit into line with other European countries, but it doesn't bring the penalty into line with other European countries, which is in effect a slap on the wrist for a reading between 50 and 80, not a minimum year's ban.

And in truth this is Nigel's point, and a very important one it is too. The other differences between English and Scottish law (age of consent to marry, property sales etc) do not carry with them an automatic disqualification from driving. This one does.

It means that if you give a reading between 50 and 80 beyond here: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.9946963,-3.05235... then you are likely to be guilty of an offence that carries a driving ban.

This would result in you not being allowed to drive here: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.9935011,-3.04930... yet what you have done to get that driving ban is not illegal here.

It might be a very interesting one for the ECHR to have a go at if somebody wanted to take the matter that far.

[Aretnap]

rs1952 said:

And in truth this is Nigel's point, and a very important one it is too. The other differences between English and Scottish law (age of consent to marry, property sales etc) do not carry with them an automatic disqualification from driving. This one does.

Some of the differences between Scots and English law can land you in prison for a long time. For example the definition of murder is different. In England it requires you to have had an actual intent to kill, or at least to cause serious injury. In Scotland, recklessness can be sufficient - actual intent is not necessary. This bloke would probably have been convicted of manslaughter in England. See also the naked rambler who walked from Land's End to Berwick with little more than a disapproving look, but has spent most of the last eight years in Scottish prisons. Compared to that, a driving ban is pretty small beer.

rs1952 said:

It means that if you give a reading between 50 and 80 beyond here: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.9946963,-3.05235... then you are likely to be guilty of an offence that carries a driving ban.

This would result in you not being allowed to drive here: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.9935011,-3.04930... yet what you have done to get that driving ban is not illegal here.

It might be a very interesting one for the ECHR to have a go at if somebody wanted to take the matter that far.

Which article do you think it breaches?

Having different drink drive limits on different roads may seem a little odd, mainly because we haven't had them before, but how is it fundamentally different from having different speed limits on different roads? If I get banned for driving at 70mph in a built up area I haven't done anything which would be illegal on a motorway - so is it unfair that I'm not allowed to drive on motorways?

[R33dk]

Aretnap.... So your effectively saying for example you can have 2 pints and drive on 30mph roads but you can't then drive on a motorway?

Comparing it to speed limits is ridiculous . You can alter that easily.

So I have 2 pints in the Lake District, get to the border, get out the car throw up the contents of my stomach and then carry on my journey ?

Stop me if I've picked you up wrong.

Dk

[Nigel Worc's]

I still can't see how this is going to work unless England and Wales come into line with Scotland, or Scotland stops being so silly.

You can't have two thresholds in the same system, it is just silly.

It is as silly as NSL in Scotland being one number, and England & Wales being another.

And, as ever, show me where those between the lowered limit and the original limit cause carnage ?

[rs1952]

Aretnap said:

See also the naked rambler who walked from Land's End to Berwick with little more than a disapproving look, but has spent most of the last eight years in Scottish prisons. Compared to that, a driving ban is pretty small beer.

I don't think that either of your examples are relevant to this because the people involved are or were locked up for something that is illegal in the country they did it in. What we are talking about here is not putting somebody inside; the Scottish courts would be applying a sanction which is fine for Scottish law, but not fine for English law because the case does not cover somebody who is locked up, but would have had a particular punishment applied as a result of his misdemeanour.

The difficulty with the DD matter is that the law might be different between England and Scotland, but there is no provision for banning somebody from driving in Scotland whilst allowing them to drive in England - because what they've done is not illegal in England. If you have two different legal systems then, in this case, you need two different ways of dealing with the consequences.

Its a bit like saying that, if the UK authorities found out you were doing 110mph on a derestricted bit of road on the Isle of Man (through an insurance "little black box," perhaps?), they'd give you a driving ban in the UK because you did something that was illegal in the UK but not illegal in the place where you did it. That would be manifest nonsense.

As the likelihood of me driving in Scotland ever again is unlikely in the extreme. I'm not wound up enough about this to research what convention under the ECHR has been breached, but I would imagine that hidden somewhere in the convention is a clause that says you will not be punished in a country where what you did is not illegal in that country.

[Nigel Worc's]

rs1952 said:

The difficulty with the DD matter is that the law might be different between England and Scotland, but there is no provision for banning somebody from driving in Scotland whilst allowing them to drive in England - because what they've done is not illegal in England. If you have two different legal systems then, in this case, you need two different ways of dealing with the consequences.

You sum up what I'm trying to say very well.

As far as I'm aware, in the EU you can be banned in whatever country for whatever you've done, but they cannot ban you from driving here or any other EU country.

Scotland will need to be the same.

[GreigM]

Nigel Worc's said:

I still can't see how this is going to work unless England and Wales come into line with Scotland, or Scotland stops being so silly.

You can't have two thresholds in the same system, it is just silly.

Think of it like speed limits - they vary in different locations. You have to stick to the limit (speed or drink) of where you are at the time, otherwise if you get caught the ban applies universally.

[MagneticMeerkat]

Now here's where it gets really complicated.

Generally speaking, if a crime is committed in a country or jurisdiction then the authorities in that specific locality have the authority to punish the criminal. The fact that the action may not be an offence in the country/region the criminal moves to afterwards is irrelevant.

The system works by the defendant being returned to the care of the authorities in the location of the offence, tried and convicted. With foreign countries there has to be an extradition treaty in place, a hearing and so forth.

With UK constituent states none of that is necessary. If arrested for drink driving in Scotland, the offender would need to return to a Scottish court for conviction. If they were a resident of England, their local police force would arrest them (if they decided to try and hide) and return them to the Scottish police. Usually done at a service station north of Newcastle!!!

Now the authorities in the location can enforce whatever punishment is open to them in their locale. If a driving ban is on offer, they can do it.

The fact that something is illegal elsewhere makes no difference whatsoever. The fact that it's not a crime in the criminal's home state doesn't matter.

[rs1952]

MagneticMeerkat said:

The fact that something is illegal elsewhere makes no difference whatsoever. The fact that it's not a crime in the criminal's home state doesn't matter.

You are missing the point. Nobody (at least nobody in their right mind at least) is saying that countries can't have their own laws, and make certain courses of action legal or illegal as they see fit. Its part of "sovereignty," and many people on here, especially the vocal UKIP supporters, would think that this was a good thing.

So if Scotland has a lower DD limit than England or Wales, that is perfectly OK in principle. They have decided that that is what they want the law to be up there, and they are perfectly within their rights to implement it.

The problem comes in the detail. We do not have separate driver and vehicle licensing arrangements in England, Wales and Scotland. We only have one DVLA, and we only have one procedure for putting points on licenses and bans on people. Therefore we end up with an interesting list of conundrums if somebody, even a native Scot, falls foul of the new lower DD limit. These are:

1. The little sod, wherever he or she is normally resident (England, Wales, Scotland, France, Bechuanaland, wherever) has broken Scottish law by giving a DD ample between 50 and 80, and is therefore banned from driving in Scotland.
2. A driving licence held by a resident of Scotland is also a valid driving licence in England and Wales
3. Driving with a alcohol level of between 50 and 80 is not illegal in England or Wales
4. Why, therefore, should a Scottish ban be valid under these circumstances in England or Wales, when the offence committed is not illegal in England or Wales?

It is of course additionally worth bearing in mind that we could all, in theory, be banned from driving in another country by the courts of that country, but that driving ban would not necessarily apply to us pottering about in the car in the UK or, indeed, any other country where we weren't banned from driving.

It might be interesting to hear from somebody like LoonR1 on this thread to find out what the view of insurance companies is on the matter as well, because of course a DD conviction has a very serious affect on insurance premiums.

[Red Devil]

rs1952 said:

The problem comes in the detail. We do not have separate driver and vehicle licensing arrangements in England, Wales and Scotland. We only have one DVLA, and we only have one procedure for putting points on licenses and bans on people. Therefore we end up with an interesting list of conundrums if somebody, even a native Scot, falls foul of the new lower DD limit. These are:

1. The little sod, wherever he or she is normally resident (England, Wales, Scotland, France, Bechuanaland, wherever) has broken Scottish law by giving a DD ample between 50 and 80, and is therefore banned from driving in Scotland.
2. A driving licence held by a resident of Scotland is also a valid driving licence in England and Wales
3. Driving with a alcohol level of between 50 and 80 is not illegal in England or Wales
4. Why, therefore, should a Scottish ban be valid under these circumstances in England or Wales, when the offence committed is not illegal in England or Wales?

^^This^^

Au unintended consequence of devolution and that MacAskill. Well done Nicola for getting shot of him, but not in time to stop this ridiculous state of affairs. An activity carried out by millions of people should have had a co-ordinated approach with Westminster. Very soon you can find yourself blowing 30µg on one stretch of road and not be detained, yet a few yards further on the very same road you will get carted off under arrest to a police station.

For example if you take the B6350 between Coldstream and Kelso rather than the A698 you cross the border twice. The border runs along the Tweed at Coldstream. Cross the bridge and you're in England. Half way along the B6350 and the border swings abruptly south along the tiny Carhm Burn. There appears to be no sign to tell a visitor from England unfamiliar with the area that he/she is re-entering Scotland (there is in the opposite direction though!).

So presumably if you're pissed in Coldstream get across the bridge before they have a chance to clock you. Likewise, if you're in Kelso make your stealthy escape along the B6350.

[GreigM]

The way you talk is as if the vote was Yes last month. The license is a UK license, so this really is simple.

rs1952 said:

1. The little sod, wherever he or she is normally resident (England, Wales, Scotland, France, Bechuanaland, wherever) has broken Scottish law by giving a DD ample between 50 and 80, and is therefore banned from driving in Scotland.

No, they are therefore banned in the UK, the ban applies to the full UK license.

rs1952 said:

3. Driving with a alcohol level of between 50 and 80 is not illegal in England or Wales

but they were driving in Scotland, the limit elsewhere is irrelevant. This argument is like saying you shouldn't get banned for driving 70mph in a 30mph limit just because in other places 70mph is legal.

rs1952 said:

4. Why, therefore, should a Scottish ban be valid under these circumstances in England or Wales, when the offence committed is not illegal in England or Wales?

Driving over the scottish limit in scotland IS illegal in england and wales. You can't simply ignore the location of the offense - as with speed limits, they vary from location to location. Just because it wasn't that way before, doesn't mean the limit can't be variable now.

By the same argument should I be able to go to one of the cities who have introduced a blanket 20mph limit (York?) and argue that I should be able to drive everywhere at 30mph because I can do that in my home town?

[TooMany2cvs]

Nigel Worc's said:

You sum up what I'm trying to say very well.

As far as I'm aware, in the EU you can be banned in whatever country for whatever you've done, but they cannot ban you from driving here or any other EU country.

Scotland will need to be the same.

<sigh> You really don't understand, do you?

Scotland is a region which forms part of the country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

If you are banned by a Scottish court, you are banned by a UK court, so you are banned across the UK. The UK is the country.
If you were banned by a court in Worcestershire, you'd be banned across the UK. The UK is the country.
Scotland is not a country. Alex asked people if they wanted it to be, they said no. The UK is the country. Scotland is a part of the UK which has some laws different to other bits. That doesn't matter. Think of them as bylaws, if it helps you.

[sim72]

TooMany2cvs said:

<sigh> You really don't understand, do you?

Scotland is a region which forms part of the country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

If you are banned by a Scottish court, you are banned by a UK court, so you are banned across the UK. The UK is the country.
If you were banned by a court in Worcestershire, you'd be banned across the UK. The UK is the country.
Scotland is not a country. Alex asked people if they wanted it to be, they said no. The UK is the country. Scotland is a part of the UK which has some laws different to other bits. That doesn't matter. Think of them as bylaws, if it helps you.

To be fair, it is a good point. Worcestershire does not have differing laws to the rest of England. Scotland has passed a law which is different from the rest of the UK. Now I can quite understand that if you're caught with, say 60mg in Scotland, you get a ban from Scottish roads. But why should that ban apply in England and Wales, where it's not an offence? I strongly suspect the first one of these that goes to the EHCR will lose.

[rs1952]

sim72 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

<sigh> You really don't understand, do you?

Scotland is a region which forms part of the country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

If you are banned by a Scottish court, you are banned by a UK court, so you are banned across the UK. The UK is the country.
If you were banned by a court in Worcestershire, you'd be banned across the UK. The UK is the country.
Scotland is not a country. Alex asked people if they wanted it to be, they said no. The UK is the country. Scotland is a part of the UK which has some laws different to other bits. That doesn't matter. Think of them as bylaws, if it helps you.

To be fair, it is a good point. Worcestershire does not have differing laws to the rest of England. Scotland has passed a law which is different from the rest of the UK. Now I can quite understand that if you're caught with, say 60mg in Scotland, you get a ban from Scottish roads. But why should that ban apply in England and Wales, where it's not an offence? I strongly suspect the first one of these that goes to the EHCR will lose.

Not strictly correct but along the right lines.

Scottish law does in fact have a number of differences from English law, but the laws in question are, shall we say, self-contained in that they have no repercussion on English law or penalties. Let's be daft for a moment - if the penalty for stealing a pig in Scotland is transportation to Bloody Orkney, and its a 20-quid fine in the UK, then fine. That's what they want to do -let them get on with it.

This is a little different, in that any driving ban imposed for giving a reading of 50 to 80 in Scotland will get you a driving ban that applies to the whole of the UK. And doing what you've just done to get a ban in Scotland is not illegal in the rest of the UK.

In essence, therefore, what we have here is Scottish law potentially taking precedence over English law, because although the "offence" would not be illegal in England, a Scottish court has applied a penalty which then also applies in England & Wales where the "offence doesn't exist.

I am aware, and I suspect that many others on this thread are too, that this forum is full of anti-EU kippers who always have something to say if they perceive that EU law taking preference over English law. But giving Scottish law precedence over English law is OK, is it?

Perhaps they'd like to stop posting on "UKIP - the future" and all the similar threads on NP&E for half an hour or so, and come over here and let us know their views?

[TooMany2cvs]

rs1952 said:

I am aware, and I suspect that many others on this thread are too, that this forum is full of anti-EU kippers who always have something to say if they perceive that EU law taking preference over English law. But giving Scottish law precedence over English law is OK, is it?

There's no such thing as "EU law". What there are are directives, originated by the EU, which are then incorporated by Westminster into UK law.

I really don't see there being a problem in the differing drink-drive limits. Scottish courts ban people far more enthusiastically than courts elsewhere in the UK for other things, including high speeds. So it's already the case that somebody might be banned across the UK for something that wouldn't necessarily see them banned if it'd been done in a different part of the UK. I'm sure some English courts are similarly more enthusiastic than others.

Simple solution - if you think your blood-alcohol is between 50 and 80, don't drive across the border into Scotland. Stay south of the border.

[sim72]

TooMany2cvs said:

Scottish courts ban people far more enthusiastically than courts elsewhere in the UK for other things, including high speeds. So it's already the case that somebody might be banned across the UK for something that wouldn't necessarily see them banned if it'd been done in a different part of the UK. I'm sure some English courts are similarly more enthusiastic than others..

However, that's not a valid analogy. Doing 61mph in a 60 limit is as illegal in England as it is in Scotland. How they choose to police that limit is, indeed, up to them. The change in the alcohol limits is more equivalent to the Scots reducing NSL by 20mph and not putting up any signs to inform people of the change when they cross the border.