Zaragoza, 28 de enero de 2008.+
La Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo del Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Aragón, mediante providencia de fecha 16 de enero, ha admitido a trámite el escrito por el que esta Asociación interponía recurso contencioso-administrativo contra la Orden de 17 de octubre de 2007, aprobada por los Departamentos de Presidencia y de Economía, Hacienda y Empleo, por la que se modificaban las características del puesto de trabajo de Director/a Gerente de la Biblioteca de Aragón, al entender que los cambios realizados no tenían otra finalidad que la de posibilitar el desempeño del mismo por la hasta entonces Directora General de Cultura, Pilar Navarrete, entendiendo, por ello, que la decisión adoptada, ajena a razones de interés general, constituía una desviación de poder.
El Tribunal Superior del Justicia de Aragón acuerda, al mismo tiempo, requerir a la Diputación General de Aragón la remisión del expediente administrativo correspondiente a la Orden impugnada, así como anunciar la interposición del recurso en el Boletín Oficial de Aragón, designando asimismo Magistrado Ponente.
La Asociación consideró en su momento que el caso, por ser un supuesto cualificado de actuación arbitraria en la modificación de las relaciones de puestos de trabajo, requería ser sometido al control de legalidad que corresponde ejercer a los Tribunales, toda vez que los Consejeros que aprobaron la citada Orden no respondieron a la petición que esta Asociación les dirigió, con fecha 8 de noviembre de 2007, para que tal modificación fuese revisada de oficio, petición que a esta fecha sigue sin respuesta de ningún tipo.
Like the battle of Waterloo, the battle for Scotland was a damn close-run thing. The effects of Thursday’s no vote are enormous – though not as massive as the consequences of a yes would have been.
The vote against independence means, above all, that the 307-year Union survives. It therefore means that the UK remains a G7 economic power and a member of the UN security council. It means Scotland will get more devolution. It means David Cameron will not be forced out. It means any Ed Miliband-led government elected next May has the chance to serve a full term, not find itself without a majority in 2016, when the Scots would have left. It means the pollsters got it right, Madrid will sleep a little more easily, and it means the banks will open on Friday morning as usual.
But the battlefield is still full of resonant lessons. The win, though close, was decisive. It looks like a 54%-46% or thereabouts. That’s not as good as it looked like being a couple of months ago. But it’s a lot more decisive than the recent polls had hinted. Second, it was women who saved the union. In the polls, men were decisively in favour of yes. The yes campaign was in some sense a guy thing. Men wanted to make a break with the Scotland they inhabit. Women didn’t. Third, this was to a significant degree a class vote too. Richer Scotland stuck with the union — so no did very well in a lot of traditonal SNP areas. Poorer Scotland, Labour Scotland, slipped towards yes, handing Glasgow, Dundee and North Lanarkshire to the independence camp. Gordon Brown stopped the slippage from becoming a rout, perhaps, but the questions for Labour — and for left politics more broadly — are profound.
For Scots, the no vote means relief for some, despair for others, both on the grand scale. For those who dreamed that a yes vote would take Scots on a journey to a land of milk, oil and honey, the mood this morning will be grim. Something that thousands of Scots wanted to be wonderful or merely just to witness has disappeared. The anticlimax will be cruel and crushing. For others, the majority, there will be thankfulness above all but uneasiness too. Thursday’s vote exposed a Scotland divided down the middle and against itself. Healing that hurt will not be easy or quick. It’s time to put away all flags.
The immediate political question now suddenly moves to London. Gordon Brown promised last week that work will start on Friday on drawing up the terms of a new devolution settlement. That may be a promise too far after the red-eyed adrenalin-pumping exhaustion of the past few days. But the deal needs to be on the table by the end of next month. It will not be easy to reconcile all the interests – Scots, English, Welsh, Northern Irish and local. But it is an epochal opportunity. The plan, like the banks, is too big to fail.
Alex Salmond and the SNP are not going anywhere. They will still govern Scotland until 2016. There will be speculation about Salmond’s position, and the SNP will need to decide whether to run in 2016 on a second referendum pledge. More immediately, the SNP will have to decide whether to go all-out win to more Westminster seats in the 2015 general election, in order to hold the next government’s feet to the fire over the promised devo-max settlement. Independence campaigners will feel gutted this morning. But they came within a whisker of ending the United Kingdom on Thursday. One day, perhaps soon, they will surely be back.
(Artículo de Martin Kettle, publicado en "The Guardian" el 19 de septiembre de 2014)
3 comentarios:
¿No nos volverán a plantear aquí la falta de legitimación?
Es posible que la Administración insista en nuestra falta de legitimación y que, además, como factor de disuasión vuelva a solicitar la condena en costas, para así penalizar a la sociedad civil en su esfuerzo por garantizar la legalidad.
¿Y por qué el silencio de los sindicatos ante esta arbitrariedad?
Publicar un comentario