The Scottish Politics Thread

[clydecloggie]

I realise this may not come across as I intend it, but I genuinely would like to hear this:

There are some pretty reasonable folk on here from the Unionist persuasion. What do you make of the UK Government's move to unilaterally violate the Withdrawal Agreement with the EU? Can you give me an angle that makes sense?

From my own angle as a completely exasperated Nat, the question would be: how on Earth are we still tied to this shower of shit?

But please, unleash your inner Massies and give me a respectable Unionist take on this, I think I'd go insane if it turns out there isn't one.

[Northern Lights]

I realise this may not come across as I intend it, but I genuinely would like to hear this:

There are some pretty reasonable folk on here from the Unionist persuasion. What do you make of the UK Government's move to unilaterally violate the Withdrawal Agreement with the EU? Can you give me an angle that makes sense?

From my own angle as a completely exasperated Nat, the question would be: how on Earth are we still tied to this shower of shit?

But please, unleash your inner Massies and give me a respectable Unionist take on this, I think I'd go insane if it turns out there isn't one.

Well i can't agree with breaking international law, it is only a few months since these clowns signed the WA so i'm afraid you wont get an impassioned defence of this part of it from me.

In saying that the principle of securing the UK internal market so that goods and services can freely move within the UK is a good one, we export far more to the rest of the UK than anywhere else and we certainly need to protect that and as seems necessary enshrine that in law. Having different standards and regulations within the UK would be a nightmare, the mess the COVID regulations are, are ample example of this, we should really be moving as one across all the home nations with what is opening up when, where we can travel to, how many people we can meet up with so the messaging is crystal clear but given they keep changing their mind on what the regs need to be anyway it is an absolute shitshow.

In other news for you Nats, I see Ewan Mcgregor has joined your cause which i am sure will be of great help in sorting out an Indy Scotland from his base in LA.

[dpedin]

Its interesting - I am a subscriber to the view that it is not that Scotland has moved away from England/UK but England under this current shower of crooks and charlatans is moving away from the rest of the UK in economic, political and social terms. To now suggest they will break international law, break a withdrawal agreement with our closest allies that they signed only months ago and attack devolved powers of all three devolved administrations is not exactly helping their cause and is alienating their own supporters. They are pandering now to the extreme Brexiteers and the DUP who typify the most extreme, right wing, jingoistic and racist wing of the population and have moved so far away from the traditional centre-right tory party that it is difficult to see them as anything other than a new and slightly racist facist party. I'm not sure we Scots have changed all that much politically in recent years, rather we have watched in abject horror an England get hoodwinked by a bunch of crooks and a dishevelled, poor mans Trump and want to get as far away as possible of the impending shit hitting the fan!

[Biffer]

I realise this may not come across as I intend it, but I genuinely would like to hear this:

There are some pretty reasonable folk on here from the Unionist persuasion. What do you make of the UK Government's move to unilaterally violate the Withdrawal Agreement with the EU? Can you give me an angle that makes sense?

From my own angle as a completely exasperated Nat, the question would be: how on Earth are we still tied to this shower of shit?

But please, unleash your inner Massies and give me a respectable Unionist take on this, I think I'd go insane if it turns out there isn't one.

Well i can't agree with breaking international law, it is only a few months since these clowns signed the WA so i'm afraid you wont get an impassioned defence of this part of it from me.

In saying that the principle of securing the UK internal market so that goods and services can freely move within the UK is a good one, we export far more to the rest of the UK than anywhere else and we certainly need to protect that and as seems necessary enshrine that in law. Having different standards and regulations within the UK would be a nightmare, the mess the COVID regulations are, are ample example of this, we should really be moving as one across all the home nations with what is opening up when, where we can travel to, how many people we can meet up with so the messaging is crystal clear but given they keep changing their mind on what the regs need to be anyway it is an absolute shitshow.

In other news for you Nats, I see Ewan Mcgregor has joined your cause which i am sure will be of great help in sorting out an Indy Scotland from his base in LA.

The difficulty here is though, the way that the current government wants to do that. They want it to be set by Westminster, with the devolved governments doing what they’re told. That’s not the way it currently works. For example, building standards are different between Scotland and England,

https://www.building.co.uk/communities/ ... 38.article

and in food standards there’s a genuinely joint working model which takes account of the different policy requirements, accountabilities and priorities from the nations - those aren’t my words, it’s what the food standards agency says.

https://www.food.gov.uk/about-us/four-country-working

Similarly there are different ways in which we implement and achieve the environmental standards in the four nations.

https://environmentjournal.online/artic ... gislation/

What the UK government wants to do is to remove that kind of cross government working and have it set by Westminster. What that does is it puts regulation for the protection of individuals and the wider country at much more danger of ideological change pushed through by a government after short term goals to the detriment of long term costs. For example it stops the Holyrood lowering standards around fish farm production unilaterally in order to boost our own producers and stops Westminster from lowering standards on factory farms to the detriment of smaller farmers. A joint working model for these things protects us all.

The SNP has quite frankly been crap at explaining this and has retreated into a rant about taking powers away rather than telling us why that’s important to something other than ideology, while the Tories have been more on the lines of shut-up-and-do-what-you’re-told-uppity-jocks.

[tc27]

I realise this may not come across as I intend it, but I genuinely would like to hear this:

There are some pretty reasonable folk on here from the Unionist persuasion. What do you make of the UK Government's move to unilaterally violate the Withdrawal Agreement with the EU? Can you give me an angle that makes sense?

From my own angle as a completely exasperated Nat, the question would be: how on Earth are we still tied to this shower of shit?

But please, unleash your inner Massies and give me a respectable Unionist take on this, I think I'd go insane if it turns out there isn't one.

I don't defend this government at all - its an utter disgrace.

However if you get what you want then you are going to simply enable a political establishment that is just as bad (yes Sturgeon is more superficially credible than Johnson but below her the SNP is a cretin filled swamp). You are also going to inflict a another ten years or so or constitutional and economic chaos that will make Brexit look like a walk in the park and may well lead to the secondary break up of Scotland.

[tc27]

Re the internal mark bill - the SNP or Scottish nationalists had no problems with any of these powers residing with the European Commission with essentially zero accountability nor did as far as I know raise an eyebrow when they were ceeded in successive treaties (or unilateral power grabs by the Commission and ECJ).

They are not loosing the ability to legislate in any area they could not before.

And they are incredibly complaining the the UK Government is going to replace the EU in directly funding local government in Scotland

Its pure grievance mongering.

[Biffer]

Re the internal mark bill - the SNP or Scottish nationalists had no problems with any of these powers residing with the European Commission with essentially zero accountability nor did as far as I know raise an eyebrow when they were ceeded in successive treaties (or unilateral power grabs by the Commission and ECJ).

They are not loosing the ability to legislate in any area they could not before.

And they are incredibly complaining the the UK Government is going to replace the EU in directly funding local government in Scotland

Its pure grievance mongering.

ERDF and ESF funding was locally managed in region, priorities were set there within the frameworks laid down by the EU. That’s not the way the replacement funding is going to work. Priorities and management done from Westminster.

[tc27]

Re the internal mark bill - the SNP or Scottish nationalists had no problems with any of these powers residing with the European Commission with essentially zero accountability nor did as far as I know raise an eyebrow when they were ceeded in successive treaties (or unilateral power grabs by the Commission and ECJ).

They are not loosing the ability to legislate in any area they could not before.

And they are incredibly complaining the the UK Government is going to replace the EU in directly funding local government in Scotland

Its pure grievance mongering.

ERDF and ESF funding was locally managed in region, priorities were set there within the frameworks laid down by the EU. That’s not the way the replacement funding is going to work. Priorities and management done from Westminster.

Replaced presumably by a UK wide framework working thus:

The Government intends to establish an independent Office for the Internal Market (OIM) within the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Part 4 of the Bill (clauses 28–29) would give new powers to the CMA to monitor, advise and report on the internal market, supported by enforceable investigatory powers.

The reports and advice of the CMA are the non-binding. The Government would be for the respective legislatures and administrations to resolve disputes through existing intergovernmental processes.

Unless you are on the record opposing the current EU wide framework enforced by the EU commission and ECJ than its hard to take your criticism sincerely.

[Biffer]

Re the internal mark bill - the SNP or Scottish nationalists had no problems with any of these powers residing with the European Commission with essentially zero accountability nor did as far as I know raise an eyebrow when they were ceeded in successive treaties (or unilateral power grabs by the Commission and ECJ).

They are not loosing the ability to legislate in any area they could not before.

And they are incredibly complaining the the UK Government is going to replace the EU in directly funding local government in Scotland

Its pure grievance mongering.

ERDF and ESF funding was locally managed in region, priorities were set there within the frameworks laid down by the EU. That’s not the way the replacement funding is going to work. Priorities and management done from Westminster.

Replaced presumably by a UK wide framework working thus:

The Government intends to establish an independent Office for the Internal Market (OIM) within the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Part 4 of the Bill (clauses 28–29) would give new powers to the CMA to monitor, advise and report on the internal market, supported by enforceable investigatory powers.

The reports and advice of the CMA are the non-binding. The Government would be for the respective legislatures and administrations to resolve disputes through existing intergovernmental processes.

Unless you are on the record opposing the current EU wide framework enforced by the EU commission and ECJ than its hard to take your criticism sincerely.

My point is that the priorities and decisions on which projects to fund under ERDF were decided jointly between Scottish Government and EU. Scottish Government will have no input into the funding decisions and priorities under the new model. Can't you see that's a difference?

[tc27]

ERDF and ESF funding was locally managed in region, priorities were set there within the frameworks laid down by the EU. That’s not the way the replacement funding is going to work. Priorities and management done from Westminster.

Replaced presumably by a UK wide framework working thus:

The Government intends to establish an independent Office for the Internal Market (OIM) within the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Part 4 of the Bill (clauses 28–29) would give new powers to the CMA to monitor, advise and report on the internal market, supported by enforceable investigatory powers.

The reports and advice of the CMA are the non-binding. The Government would be for the respective legislatures and administrations to resolve disputes through existing intergovernmental processes.

Unless you are on the record opposing the current EU wide framework enforced by the EU commission and ECJ than its hard to take your criticism sincerely.

My point is that the priorities and decisions on which projects to fund under ERDF were decided jointly between Scottish Government and EU. Scottish Government will have no input into the funding decisions and priorities under the new model. Can't you see that's a difference?

Your are talking about a very specific area that I cant find mentioned in any of the briefings I have read - perhaps you can provide more information or a decent analysis?

But in general your position is that working in collaboration with and under the legal authority of a agency of the EU is acceptable, but working with a similar UK agency is unacceptable?

[tc27]

Its interesting - I am a subscriber to the view that it is not that Scotland has moved away from England/UK but England under this current shower of crooks and charlatans is moving away from the rest of the UK in economic, political and social terms. To now suggest they will break international law, break a withdrawal agreement with our closest allies that they signed only months ago and attack devolved powers of all three devolved administrations is not exactly helping their cause and is alienating their own supporters. They are pandering now to the extreme Brexiteers and the DUP who typify the most extreme, right wing, jingoistic and racist wing of the population and have moved so far away from the traditional centre-right tory party that it is difficult to see them as anything other than a new and slightly racist facist party. I'm not sure we Scots have changed all that much politically in recent years, rather we have watched in abject horror an England get hoodwinked by a bunch of crooks and a dishevelled, poor mans Trump and want to get as far away as possible of the impending shit hitting the fan!

1. Not sure how you quantify being different in economic terms? Economically Scotland is joined at the hip with the rest of the UK - even the USA is a bigger market than the rest of the EU for Scottish business.

2. I think in politics the similarity is greater than it looks. The conservatives use the EU as the 'other' to rally support against, in Scotland the SNP are doing the same but using the English instead.

3. Social terms - again no real differences when looking at it objectively.

https://natcen.ac.uk/our-research/resea ... migration/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/sco ... t-scotland

Scots are not significantly more pro-European or left-wing than their southern contemporaries,

[Northern Lights]

Its interesting - I am a subscriber to the view that it is not that Scotland has moved away from England/UK but England under this current shower of crooks and charlatans is moving away from the rest of the UK in economic, political and social terms. To now suggest they will break international law, break a withdrawal agreement with our closest allies that they signed only months ago and attack devolved powers of all three devolved administrations is not exactly helping their cause and is alienating their own supporters. They are pandering now to the extreme Brexiteers and the DUP who typify the most extreme, right wing, jingoistic and racist wing of the population and have moved so far away from the traditional centre-right tory party that it is difficult to see them as anything other than a new and slightly racist facist party. I'm not sure we Scots have changed all that much politically in recent years, rather we have watched in abject horror an England get hoodwinked by a bunch of crooks and a dishevelled, poor mans Trump and want to get as far away as possible of the impending shit hitting the fan!

1. Not sure how you quantify being different in economic terms? Economically Scotland is joined at the hip with the rest of the UK - even the USA is a bigger market than the rest of the EU for Scottish business.

2. I think in politics the similarity is greater than it looks. The conservatives use the EU as the 'other' to rally support against, in Scotland the SNP are doing the same but using the English instead.

3. Social terms - again no real differences when looking at it objectively.

https://natcen.ac.uk/our-research/resea ... migration/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/sco ... t-scotland

Scots are not significantly more pro-European or left-wing than their southern contemporaries,

I think a lot of Englishers held their nose and voted for Boris simply because the alternative of Corbyn was a horror show. We at least have the SNP as a reasonable 3rd choice and i know plenty of folk who voted for them that are pretty staunch unionists so wont vote Yes in any second ref. Their view was that it was to try and reverse Brexit and the SNP were the most pro EU party and that trumped Indy at the last GE. This is all obviously just anecdotal

[Biffer]

Replaced presumably by a UK wide framework working thus:



Unless you are on the record opposing the current EU wide framework enforced by the EU commission and ECJ than its hard to take your criticism sincerely.

My point is that the priorities and decisions on which projects to fund under ERDF were decided jointly between Scottish Government and EU. Scottish Government will have no input into the funding decisions and priorities under the new model. Can't you see that's a difference?

Your are talking about a very specific area that I cant find mentioned in any of the briefings I have read - perhaps you can provide more information or a decent analysis?

But in general your position is that working in collaboration with and under the legal authority of a agency of the EU is acceptable, but working with a similar UK agency is unacceptable?

I think my earlier post on standards makes it clear that’s not my position. What’s on offer from the Uk government however is not working in collaboration on these things, the power will reside fully at Westminster.

[Tichtheid]

Its interesting - I am a subscriber to the view that it is not that Scotland has moved away from England/UK but England under this current shower of crooks and charlatans is moving away from the rest of the UK in economic, political and social terms. To now suggest they will break international law, break a withdrawal agreement with our closest allies that they signed only months ago and attack devolved powers of all three devolved administrations is not exactly helping their cause and is alienating their own supporters. They are pandering now to the extreme Brexiteers and the DUP who typify the most extreme, right wing, jingoistic and racist wing of the population and have moved so far away from the traditional centre-right tory party that it is difficult to see them as anything other than a new and slightly racist facist party. I'm not sure we Scots have changed all that much politically in recent years, rather we have watched in abject horror an England get hoodwinked by a bunch of crooks and a dishevelled, poor mans Trump and want to get as far away as possible of the impending shit hitting the fan!

1. Not sure how you quantify being different in economic terms? Economically Scotland is joined at the hip with the rest of the UK - even the USA is a bigger market than the rest of the EU for Scottish business.

2. I think in politics the similarity is greater than it looks. The conservatives use the EU as the 'other' to rally support against, in Scotland the SNP are doing the same but using the English instead.

3. Social terms - again no real differences when looking at it objectively.

https://natcen.ac.uk/our-research/resea ... migration/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/sco ... t-scotland

Scots are not significantly more pro-European or left-wing than their southern contemporaries,

Perhaps a more up to date reference of how Scots think compared to the rest of the UK would be first the EU referendum where 62% voted to remain, representing every council area in the country.

Second the 2019 UK general election where the pro EU SNP increased their number of seats with a swing of over 8%, and the pro Lib Dems kept their 4 seats whilst have a disastrous elsewhere in the UK, again having a positive swing of 2.1%, whilst the two large parties who stood on a pro Brexit platform lost both votes and seats.

[Tichtheid]

[Biffer]

Replaced presumably by a UK wide framework working thus:



Unless you are on the record opposing the current EU wide framework enforced by the EU commission and ECJ than its hard to take your criticism sincerely.

My point is that the priorities and decisions on which projects to fund under ERDF were decided jointly between Scottish Government and EU. Scottish Government will have no input into the funding decisions and priorities under the new model. Can't you see that's a difference?

Your are talking about a very specific area that I cant find mentioned in any of the briefings I have read - perhaps you can provide more information or a decent analysis?

But in general your position is that working in collaboration with and under the legal authority of a agency of the EU is acceptable, but working with a similar UK agency is unacceptable?

WRT ERDF and other structural and investment funds, here’s the Scottish government responsibilities

https://www.gov.scot/policies/european- ... overnance/

The internal market bill makes it clear that the UK government intends to fund the replacement activities around infrastructure and regional development directly from Westminster to local authorities and other bodies (you can see that in the links that have been posted above to the legislation). Can you seriously not see the difference in these?

[Slick]

Its interesting - I am a subscriber to the view that it is not that Scotland has moved away from England/UK but England under this current shower of crooks and charlatans is moving away from the rest of the UK in economic, political and social terms. To now suggest they will break international law, break a withdrawal agreement with our closest allies that they signed only months ago and attack devolved powers of all three devolved administrations is not exactly helping their cause and is alienating their own supporters. They are pandering now to the extreme Brexiteers and the DUP who typify the most extreme, right wing, jingoistic and racist wing of the population and have moved so far away from the traditional centre-right tory party that it is difficult to see them as anything other than a new and slightly racist facist party. I'm not sure we Scots have changed all that much politically in recent years, rather we have watched in abject horror an England get hoodwinked by a bunch of crooks and a dishevelled, poor mans Trump and want to get as far away as possible of the impending shit hitting the fan!

1. Not sure how you quantify being different in economic terms? Economically Scotland is joined at the hip with the rest of the UK - even the USA is a bigger market than the rest of the EU for Scottish business.

2. I think in politics the similarity is greater than it looks. The conservatives use the EU as the 'other' to rally support against, in Scotland the SNP are doing the same but using the English instead.

3. Social terms - again no real differences when looking at it objectively.

https://natcen.ac.uk/our-research/resea ... migration/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/sco ... t-scotland

Scots are not significantly more pro-European or left-wing than their southern contemporaries,

Perhaps a more up to date reference of how Scots think compared to the rest of the UK would be first the EU referendum where 62% voted to remain, representing every council area in the country.

Second the 2019 UK general election where the pro EU SNP increased their number of seats with a swing of over 8%, and the pro Lib Dems kept their 4 seats whilst have a disastrous elsewhere in the UK, again having a positive swing of 2.1%, whilst the two large parties who stood on a pro Brexit platform lost both votes and seats.

So that leaves 38% who wanted to leave who are dismissed and never spoken of. It's quite close to, say, a figure of 45% who never stop getting talked about and deserve a new vote.

Or of course that 62% that mean everything against 55% who mean nothing.

[Tichtheid]

Perhaps a more up to date reference of how Scots think compared to the rest of the UK would be first the EU referendum where 62% voted to remain, representing every council area in the country.

So that leaves 38% who wanted to leave who are dismissed and never spoken of. It's quite close to, say, a figure of 45% who never stop getting talked about and deserve a new vote.

I'm more than happy for 100% to get a second vote on both issues.

[Dogbert]

1. Not sure how you quantify being different in economic terms? Economically Scotland is joined at the hip with the rest of the UK - even the USA is a bigger market than the rest of the EU for Scottish business.

2. I think in politics the similarity is greater than it looks. The conservatives use the EU as the 'other' to rally support against, in Scotland the SNP are doing the same but using the English instead.

3. Social terms - again no real differences when looking at it objectively.

https://natcen.ac.uk/our-research/resea ... migration/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/sco ... t-scotland

Perhaps a more up to date reference of how Scots think compared to the rest of the UK would be first the EU referendum where 62% voted to remain, representing every council area in the country.

Second the 2019 UK general election where the pro EU SNP increased their number of seats with a swing of over 8%, and the pro Lib Dems kept their 4 seats whilst have a disastrous elsewhere in the UK, again having a positive swing of 2.1%, whilst the two large parties who stood on a pro Brexit platform lost both votes and seats.

So that leaves 38% who wanted to leave who are dismissed and never spoken of. It's quite close to, say, a figure of 45% who never stop getting talked about and deserve a new vote.

Or of course that 62% that mean everything against 55% who mean nothing.

Well its hardly surprising that the 38% are never spoken of - since they got the result they wanted- it was a UK wide poll - though perhaps a number of Scottish voters are possibly reviweing their stance, I'm not sure many of them would have thought how badly the Westminister Government would handle this , by proposing to break International Law

Lets remember Baroness Davidson - who was leader of the Scottish Conservatives was teling all and sundry that she wanted to remain part of the single Market , even if that meant keeping free movement of people - after the Brexit vote

[tc27]

My point is that the priorities and decisions on which projects to fund under ERDF were decided jointly between Scottish Government and EU. Scottish Government will have no input into the funding decisions and priorities under the new model. Can't you see that's a difference?

Your are talking about a very specific area that I cant find mentioned in any of the briefings I have read - perhaps you can provide more information or a decent analysis?

But in general your position is that working in collaboration with and under the legal authority of a agency of the EU is acceptable, but working with a similar UK agency is unacceptable?

WRT ERDF and other structural and investment funds, here’s the Scottish government responsibilities

https://www.gov.scot/policies/european- ... overnance/

The internal market bill makes it clear that the UK government intends to fund the replacement activities around infrastructure and regional development directly from Westminster to local authorities and other bodies (you can see that in the links that have been posted above to the legislation). Can you seriously not see the difference in these?

So in essence the complaint is that Holyrood doesn't get to insert itself in the process for LAs in Scotland to claim funding.

I get in consideration of their obsession with centralising powers and hording funds from LAs why they are pissed off but its hardly a constitutional or democratic affront.

[clydecloggie]

First of all, that 38% got what they wanted, they are not exactly the victims here.

Secondly, within the Scottish context there is no indication whatsoever that the weight of public opinion is moving in their direction, so there is no need to give them the attention they would deserve if they were now representing a majority view.

Thirdly, that 45% is now consistently over 50% in any poll so it does seem to be the majority view, at least just now while there is no immediate prospect of really having to put words into voting action.

Also, a government was voted in on a manifesto that promised to keep the independence issue alive if circumstances changed significantly, which has indeed happened. You can't blame the SNP for doing what they promised to do in the election.

Equating Scottish Brexiteers with Independence supporters is a false equivalence.

[Tichtheid]

First of all, that 38% got what they wanted, they are not exactly the victims here.

Secondly, within the Scottish context there is no indication whatsoever that the weight of public opinion is moving in their direction, so there is no need to give them the attention they would deserve if they were now representing a majority view.

Thirdly, that 45% is now consistently over 50% in any poll so it does seem to be the majority view, at least just now while there is no immediate prospect of really having to put words into voting action.

Also, a government was voted in on a manifesto that promised to keep the independence issue alive if circumstances changed significantly, which has indeed happened. You can't blame the SNP for doing what they promised to do in the election.

Equating Scottish Brexiteers with Independence supporters is a false equivalence.

Quite, plus the fact that voters in the Indy referendum were told often enough by the No side that the only way to ensure continued membership of the EU was to reject independence.

[tc27]

Its probably worth mentioning that independence and EU membership are different issues.

Independence in 2014 would have meant leaving the EU.

Independence at some future date does not equate rejoining the EU any time soon (as many years as it takes to comply with the Copenhagen criteria)

At the moment the issues are linked in many No/Remain voters minds which I think explains the polls.

[tc27]

First of all, that 38% got what they wanted, they are not exactly the victims here.

Secondly, within the Scottish context there is no indication whatsoever that the weight of public opinion is moving in their direction, so there is no need to give them the attention they would deserve if they were now representing a majority view.

Thirdly, that 45% is now consistently over 50% in any poll so it does seem to be the majority view, at least just now while there is no immediate prospect of really having to put words into voting action.

Also, a government was voted in on a manifesto that promised to keep the independence issue alive if circumstances changed significantly, which has indeed happened. You can't blame the SNP for doing what they promised to do in the election.

Equating Scottish Brexiteers with Independence supporters is a false equivalence.

Quite, plus the fact that voters in the Indy referendum were told often enough by the No side that the only way to ensure continued membership of the EU was to reject independence.

It was one of the messages BT used and they were right - Yes in 2014 meant leaving the EU.

At that point a UK wide EU referendum was not that likely (A conservative majority in 2015 being an outside bet).

Plus...only 15% of 'NO' voters ranked it as the most important issue

https://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-conten ... 409191.pdf

[Biffer]

Your are talking about a very specific area that I cant find mentioned in any of the briefings I have read - perhaps you can provide more information or a decent analysis?

But in general your position is that working in collaboration with and under the legal authority of a agency of the EU is acceptable, but working with a similar UK agency is unacceptable?

WRT ERDF and other structural and investment funds, here’s the Scottish government responsibilities

https://www.gov.scot/policies/european- ... overnance/

The internal market bill makes it clear that the UK government intends to fund the replacement activities around infrastructure and regional development directly from Westminster to local authorities and other bodies (you can see that in the links that have been posted above to the legislation). Can you seriously not see the difference in these?

So in essence the complaint is that Holyrood doesn't get to insert itself in the process for LAs in Scotland to claim funding.

I get in consideration of their obsession with centralising powers and hording funds from LAs why they are pissed off but its hardly a constitutional or democratic affront.

If you can’t see the difference in being able to set priority areas for funding based on regional needs , I don’t know what to tell you. This isn’t just about local authorities either this is funding for SMEs, universities, innovation activities,etc. But you seem fairly set on this so there’s not a lot of point in continuing. I know the benefits of these because I’ve worked on multiple ERDF funded projects, which is why I’m quite adamant that a centralised system wouldn’t have the same effect.

[Tichtheid]

First of all, that 38% got what they wanted, they are not exactly the victims here.

Secondly, within the Scottish context there is no indication whatsoever that the weight of public opinion is moving in their direction, so there is no need to give them the attention they would deserve if they were now representing a majority view.

Thirdly, that 45% is now consistently over 50% in any poll so it does seem to be the majority view, at least just now while there is no immediate prospect of really having to put words into voting action.

Also, a government was voted in on a manifesto that promised to keep the independence issue alive if circumstances changed significantly, which has indeed happened. You can't blame the SNP for doing what they promised to do in the election.

Equating Scottish Brexiteers with Independence supporters is a false equivalence.

Quite, plus the fact that voters in the Indy referendum were told often enough by the No side that the only way to ensure continued membership of the EU was to reject independence.

It was one of the messages BT used and they were right - Yes in 2014 meant leaving the EU.

At that point a UK wide EU referendum was not that likely (A conservative majority in 2015 being an outside bet).

Plus...only 15% of 'NO' voters ranked it as the most important issue

https://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-conten ... 409191.pdf

There was the argument that Spain would veto Scottish membership, but that has faded, there was no real reason Scotland would have been denied membership, it was uncharted territory, in fact a "Fast Track" membership is being talked up now.

The Kippers had had a big success at the European elections five months before the Indy vote, Cameron was pledging a referendum to appease the right of his party, in fact he even said that the way to get a say on the EU for Scots was to vote No.

The Tories were still leading Labour by some ten points in the 2014 polling I've just looked at, their bigger rivals at the time were Farage's bunch, but they were never going to win a UK election, their vote was always far more likely to go to the Conservatives, so I'd say that an outright majority and a EU referendum were very much on the cards going on from 2014.

[tc27]

WRT ERDF and other structural and investment funds, here’s the Scottish government responsibilities

https://www.gov.scot/policies/european- ... overnance/

The internal market bill makes it clear that the UK government intends to fund the replacement activities around infrastructure and regional development directly from Westminster to local authorities and other bodies (you can see that in the links that have been posted above to the legislation). Can you seriously not see the difference in these?

So in essence the complaint is that Holyrood doesn't get to insert itself in the process for LAs in Scotland to claim funding.

I get in consideration of their obsession with centralising powers and hording funds from LAs why they are pissed off but its hardly a constitutional or democratic affront.

If you can’t see the difference in being able to set priority areas for funding based on regional needs , I don’t know what to tell you. This isn’t just about local authorities either this is funding for SMEs, universities, innovation activities,etc. But you seem fairly set on this so there’s not a lot of point in continuing. I know the benefits of these because I’ve worked on multiple ERDF funded projects, which is why I’m quite adamant that a centralised system wouldn’t have the same effect.

I am apparently not qualified to disagree...but if you are right than its a matter of the new process being inferior rather than the 'assault on devolution' its dressed up as.

[Biffer]

So in essence the complaint is that Holyrood doesn't get to insert itself in the process for LAs in Scotland to claim funding.

I get in consideration of their obsession with centralising powers and hording funds from LAs why they are pissed off but its hardly a constitutional or democratic affront.

If you can’t see the difference in being able to set priority areas for funding based on regional needs , I don’t know what to tell you. This isn’t just about local authorities either this is funding for SMEs, universities, innovation activities,etc. But you seem fairly set on this so there’s not a lot of point in continuing. I know the benefits of these because I’ve worked on multiple ERDF funded projects, which is why I’m quite adamant that a centralised system wouldn’t have the same effect.

I am apparently not qualified to disagree...but if you are right than its a matter of the new process being inferior rather than the 'assault on devolution' its dressed up as.

God, another ‘framing’ effort to try and say that I’m having a go at you. I’m not, I’ve only said things about myself. But you haven’t actually addressed anything I’ve said, you’ve just changed the line of criticism each time.

[Dogbert]

As an aside to the Brexit shit Sandwich

Had to get my daughter Covid tested yesterday ( Fever 101 - New continuous Cough ) - on the website at 07:30 , slot booked for 09:30 at Aberdeen Airport - results back 22:30 same day via txt / email ) - she was negative

Listening to the radio this morning - quite a number of people calling in to say they could not get a test in England - who then drove to their nearest their nearest testing site ,but without a booked slot - they were then told by the people at the site to book using an Aberdeen Postcode - to get the QR code - which the site down in England then used

Would that then be counted in the Scotland testing totals ?

[Northern Lights]

WRT ERDF and other structural and investment funds, here’s the Scottish government responsibilities

https://www.gov.scot/policies/european- ... overnance/

The internal market bill makes it clear that the UK government intends to fund the replacement activities around infrastructure and regional development directly from Westminster to local authorities and other bodies (you can see that in the links that have been posted above to the legislation). Can you seriously not see the difference in these?

So in essence the complaint is that Holyrood doesn't get to insert itself in the process for LAs in Scotland to claim funding.

I get in consideration of their obsession with centralising powers and hording funds from LAs why they are pissed off but its hardly a constitutional or democratic affront.

If you can’t see the difference in being able to set priority areas for funding based on regional needs , I don’t know what to tell you. This isn’t just about local authorities either this is funding for SMEs, universities, innovation activities,etc. But you seem fairly set on this so there’s not a lot of point in continuing. I know the benefits of these because I’ve worked on multiple ERDF funded projects, which is why I’m quite adamant that a centralised system wouldn’t have the same effect.

I've also had first hand experience of EMFF and other funding mechanisms that came from the EU but went through the SG for allocation and to be frank the SG are far too political in what is deemed an acceptable project and what is rejected. This part of why Shetland has kicked off at council level, the power grab by the SG from local authorities has been a disgrace and there is plenty of support outwith the central belt for the local authorities to be able to apply directly to Westminster to bypass the SG because of their actions.

[tc27]

So in essence the complaint is that Holyrood doesn't get to insert itself in the process for LAs in Scotland to claim funding.

I get in consideration of their obsession with centralising powers and hording funds from LAs why they are pissed off but its hardly a constitutional or democratic affront.

If you can’t see the difference in being able to set priority areas for funding based on regional needs , I don’t know what to tell you. This isn’t just about local authorities either this is funding for SMEs, universities, innovation activities,etc. But you seem fairly set on this so there’s not a lot of point in continuing. I know the benefits of these because I’ve worked on multiple ERDF funded projects, which is why I’m quite adamant that a centralised system wouldn’t have the same effect.

I've also had first hand experience of EMFF and other funding mechanisms that came from the EU but went through the SG for allocation and to be frank the SG are far too political in what is deemed an acceptable project and what is rejected. This part of why Shetland has kicked off at council level, the power grab by the SG from local authorities has been a disgrace and there is plenty of support outwith the central belt for the local authorities to be able to apply directly to Westminster to bypass the SG because of their actions.

Yes and the idea that this is in any way an attack on the devolved powers is nonsense.

[Biffer]

So in essence the complaint is that Holyrood doesn't get to insert itself in the process for LAs in Scotland to claim funding.

I get in consideration of their obsession with centralising powers and hording funds from LAs why they are pissed off but its hardly a constitutional or democratic affront.

If you can’t see the difference in being able to set priority areas for funding based on regional needs , I don’t know what to tell you. This isn’t just about local authorities either this is funding for SMEs, universities, innovation activities,etc. But you seem fairly set on this so there’s not a lot of point in continuing. I know the benefits of these because I’ve worked on multiple ERDF funded projects, which is why I’m quite adamant that a centralised system wouldn’t have the same effect.

I've also had first hand experience of EMFF and other funding mechanisms that came from the EU but went through the SG for allocation and to be frank the SG are far too political in what is deemed an acceptable project and what is rejected. This part of why Shetland has kicked off at council level, the power grab by the SG from local authorities has been a disgrace and there is plenty of support outwith the central belt for the local authorities to be able to apply directly to Westminster to bypass the SG because of their actions.

Because they won’t be used for political purposes at Westminster, no sire .

One of the good things about the european system was the different categorisations of areas depending on economic development and other challenges areas faced, which allowed for different levels of funding. Surely a better approach would be to look at a proper cross governmental approach which starts to neuter some of the ability to act for short term political reasons and use a similar, but more detailed and localised categorisation?

Because with the criticism you made above, which can be turned round pretty much 180 at Westminster, it basically says you like this because you don’t like the SNP, not because you think it’s a better actual system. It seems it’s just about who’s in charge of it.

[Northern Lights]

If you can’t see the difference in being able to set priority areas for funding based on regional needs , I don’t know what to tell you. This isn’t just about local authorities either this is funding for SMEs, universities, innovation activities,etc. But you seem fairly set on this so there’s not a lot of point in continuing. I know the benefits of these because I’ve worked on multiple ERDF funded projects, which is why I’m quite adamant that a centralised system wouldn’t have the same effect.

I've also had first hand experience of EMFF and other funding mechanisms that came from the EU but went through the SG for allocation and to be frank the SG are far too political in what is deemed an acceptable project and what is rejected. This part of why Shetland has kicked off at council level, the power grab by the SG from local authorities has been a disgrace and there is plenty of support outwith the central belt for the local authorities to be able to apply directly to Westminster to bypass the SG because of their actions.

Because they won’t be used for political purposes at Westminster, no sire .

One of the good things about the european system was the different categorisations of areas depending on economic development and other challenges areas faced, which allowed for different levels of funding. Surely a better approach would be to look at a proper cross governmental approach which starts to neuter some of the ability to act for short term political reasons and use a similar, but more detailed and localised categorisation?

Because with the criticism you made above, which can be turned round pretty much 180 at Westminster, it basically says you like this because you don’t like the SNP, not because you think it’s a better actual system. It seems it’s just about who’s in charge of it.

No I like this because the current system has been abused by the snp and I’m in favour of bypassing them because their decision making is highly suspect.

The lack of accountability in Scotland is a real problem, we have no upper house, second rate msp’s that vote like sheep with apparently no individual integrity.

This has led to disastrous escapades whether it’s the ferry fiasco or Prestwick or the arts money to combat the impact Covid that disappeared into a black hole the list goes on and on.

The Salmond inquiry has also turned into a farce with the obfuscation by the civil service and snp, we need to demand more.

Your complaints are unfounded because the powers don’t reside in Westminster so we don’t know how they will be exercised but you are already convinced that it will be bad, because you know the tories, thatcher etc etc

[Tichtheid]

Your complaints are unfounded because the powers don’t reside in Westminster so we don’t know how they will be exercised but you are already convinced that it will be bad, because you know the tories, thatcher etc etc

The latest UK General Election was on the 12th of December 2019, what in the last nine months makes you think the current UK government won't make an absolute shitshow of these new powers?

[Slick]

Quite, plus the fact that voters in the Indy referendum were told often enough by the No side that the only way to ensure continued membership of the EU was to reject independence.

It was one of the messages BT used and they were right - Yes in 2014 meant leaving the EU.

At that point a UK wide EU referendum was not that likely (A conservative majority in 2015 being an outside bet).

Plus...only 15% of 'NO' voters ranked it as the most important issue

https://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-conten ... 409191.pdf

There was the argument that Spain would veto Scottish membership, but that has faded, there was no real reason Scotland would have been denied membership, it was uncharted territory, in fact a "Fast Track" membership is being talked up now.

The Kippers had had a big success at the European elections five months before the Indy vote, Cameron was pledging a referendum to appease the right of his party, in fact he even said that the way to get a say on the EU for Scots was to vote No.

The Tories were still leading Labour by some ten points in the 2014 polling I've just looked at, their bigger rivals at the time were Farage's bunch, but they were never going to win a UK election, their vote was always far more likely to go to the Conservatives, so I'd say that an outright majority and a EU referendum were very much on the cards going on from 2014.

Sorry mate, that is absolute bollocks. There is not one serious EU politician that has said Scotland would get a fast track or even be considered favourably. If I remember correctly at the last referendum some obscure German academic said it was a great idea and that was latched onto, that was it

[Tichtheid]

It was one of the messages BT used and they were right - Yes in 2014 meant leaving the EU.

At that point a UK wide EU referendum was not that likely (A conservative majority in 2015 being an outside bet).

Plus...only 15% of 'NO' voters ranked it as the most important issue

https://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-conten ... 409191.pdf

There was the argument that Spain would veto Scottish membership, but that has faded, there was no real reason Scotland would have been denied membership, it was uncharted territory, in fact a "Fast Track" membership is being talked up now.

The Kippers had had a big success at the European elections five months before the Indy vote, Cameron was pledging a referendum to appease the right of his party, in fact he even said that the way to get a say on the EU for Scots was to vote No.

The Tories were still leading Labour by some ten points in the 2014 polling I've just looked at, their bigger rivals at the time were Farage's bunch, but they were never going to win a UK election, their vote was always far more likely to go to the Conservatives, so I'd say that an outright majority and a EU referendum were very much on the cards going on from 2014.

Sorry mate, that is absolute bollocks. There is not one serious EU politician that has said Scotland would get a fast track or even be considered favourably. If I remember correctly at the last referendum some obscure German academic said it was a great idea and that was latched onto, that was it

'Empathy' for independent Scotland joining the EU says Tusk

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-51342714


Europe must fast-track an independent Scotland back into fold, says French MP
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/ ... mp-1417734

An independent Scotland could be “fast tracked” to full European Union membership by 2023, according to two academics.

European Union law lecturer Dr Tobias Lock, of Edinburgh University, and Dr Kirsty Hughes, a senior fellow at Friends of Europe in Brussels, have set out their analysis in a new report.

They say a mixture of “political goodwill” and Scotland already meeting much of the membership criteria could lead to a swift move into the organisation.
https://news.stv.tv/politics/1381214-in ... nto-eu?top

[Biffer]

I've also had first hand experience of EMFF and other funding mechanisms that came from the EU but went through the SG for allocation and to be frank the SG are far too political in what is deemed an acceptable project and what is rejected. This part of why Shetland has kicked off at council level, the power grab by the SG from local authorities has been a disgrace and there is plenty of support outwith the central belt for the local authorities to be able to apply directly to Westminster to bypass the SG because of their actions.

Because they won’t be used for political purposes at Westminster, no sire .

One of the good things about the european system was the different categorisations of areas depending on economic development and other challenges areas faced, which allowed for different levels of funding. Surely a better approach would be to look at a proper cross governmental approach which starts to neuter some of the ability to act for short term political reasons and use a similar, but more detailed and localised categorisation?

Because with the criticism you made above, which can be turned round pretty much 180 at Westminster, it basically says you like this because you don’t like the SNP, not because you think it’s a better actual system. It seems it’s just about who’s in charge of it.

No I like this because the current system has been abused by the snp and I’m in favour of bypassing them because their decision making is highly suspect.

The lack of accountability in Scotland is a real problem, we have no upper house, second rate msp’s that vote like sheep with apparently no individual integrity.

This has led to disastrous escapades whether it’s the ferry fiasco or Prestwick or the arts money to combat the impact Covid that disappeared into a black hole the list goes on and on.

The Salmond inquiry has also turned into a farce with the obfuscation by the civil service and snp, we need to demand more.

Your complaints are unfounded because the powers don’t reside in Westminster so we don’t know how they will be exercised but you are already convinced that it will be bad, because you know the tories, thatcher etc etc

I think it's evident from my posts that I'm more than willing to criticise the SNP (although that doesn't mean I agree with every criticism you make, which seems to be criticism of everything).

But can't you see that the other side of the divide can very easily take the first couple of paragraphs you've typed there and say exactly the same about the tories at Westminster? That they've abused the current system (packing the Lords, proroguing Parliament, the abuse of the non tender system to grant contracts to tory donors - I'm not saying I agree that these are all correct, just that they are arguments which will be made, same as I don't agree with all the points you make but recognise they are arguments which will be made).

Can you really not see that? And if the answer is 'yes but I don't care what they think because they're SNP' then that is again the exact same attitude as the ubernats come out with, just reversed.

It'd be equally easy to make a list of complete shitshow from Westminster as well.

So why not try to look at a system that might at least partially prevent the partisanship affecting long term infrastructure spend?

[Slick]

So exactly as I said, utter bollocks and no serious EU politician backing it.

Seriously, those were incredibly weak links

[Tichtheid]

So exactly as I said, utter bollocks and no serious EU politician backing it.

Seriously, those were incredibly weak links

They were the first three I got from a search, I'm just getting used to this board, I don't know how many links I can put in one post, the Word Press boards I used are limited to two or three, iirc

Herman Van Rompuy says Brexit 'has changed EU view of Scotland'


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-49690513

This is the second ex-president of the European Council talking favourably about Scotland joining the EU, they obviously can't say "no problem, jump on board"

If I'm wasting my time and there is absolutely nothing that will change your mind, no problem, I'll stop.

[Slick]

So exactly as I said, utter bollocks and no serious EU politician backing it.

Seriously, those were incredibly weak links

They were the first three I got from a search, I'm just getting used to this board, I don't know how many links I can put in one post, the Word Press boards I used are limited to two or three, iirc

Herman Van Rompuy says Brexit 'has changed EU view of Scotland'


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-49690513

This is the second ex-president of the European Council talking favourably about Scotland joining the EU, they obviously can't say "no problem, jump on board"

If I'm wasting my time and there is absolutely nothing that will change you mind, no problem, I'll stop.

You can absolutely change my mind, post a link to an EU politician saying that Scotland could be fast tracked or looked on favourably.

Not “empathy”, not a 2018 report from someone at Edinburgh University, not an obscure French MP. A current EU politician saying that Scotland could be fast tracked or looked on favourably joining the EU.