The Scottish Politics Thread

[Northern Lights]

Instead of NL's series of politically neutral Times articles, let's have one from that bastion of Scottish Independence, the Financial Times

https://www.ft.com/content/53af9378-e1c ... pe=blocked

Opinion Scottish independence
Boris Johnson’s Brexit plan will break the UK union
The insistence that England must decide what Scotland eats is a gift to the independence movement
PHILIP STEPHENS
Boris Johnson’s readiness to tear up the UK’s reputation for honest dealing by rewriting the EU withdrawal deal has grabbed the headlines. The news, though, is worse. Legislation to create a post-Brexit single market across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland shows equal contempt for the UK's constitutional settlement. By asserting unassailable English supremacy, the prime minister is inviting Scotland to leave the union. 

To start with Westminster is the UK parliment not English, so not exactly off to the best of starts here is he, we have representation at Westminster with our MP's in teh same way we would in Brussels with MEP's but it not classed as German supremacy

There is a burgeoning school of thought, in Whitehall and Westminster as well as Edinburgh, that says Brexit has made Scottish independence inevitable. The sweep of history, the story runs, will conclude that the matter was settled as soon as England voted to leave the EU and Scotland to remain. The frayed bonds of the union were cut beyond repair.

There is something to be said for the long view. The Anglo-Scottish union of 1707 was a contingent agreement. Mr Johnson’s remark this year that there is “no such thing” as a border between the two nations was a measure of indifference as well as ignorance. Scotland did not give up its border or its nationhood — nor its distinct legal and educational systems. 


The union was about collaboration abroad. Scotland secured access to the emerging British empire, and England to talented entrepreneurs, engineers and administrators. With empire long gone, Brexit has put an end to any notion of a joint enterprise beyond British shores. Instead, Scotland is presented with a choice: if it sticks with England, it cuts itself off from Europe. The referendum vote to leave the EU was bad enough. The threat to defy international law on the way to a no-deal Brexit risks leaving Scotland isolated on the edge of its own continent.

The Union was mostly because we were broke from Darian

Historical determinists point also to the sharp contrast in political culture and temperament revealed by Covid-19. The performance of the two nations in curbing the spread has not been that different; the styles have been miles apart. The cautious, open approach of Nicola Sturgeon’s Scottish National party administration has sat alongside a strategy in Downing Street most kindly described as shambolic bluster.

Dont disagree, Boris and his clowns are an embarrassment to everyone but the truly hardened and blinkered

At this point — with Ms Sturgeon demanding a rerun of the 2014 independence poll and the opinion polls showing a solidifying majority of Scots in favour of independence — a reliably pro-union government at Westminster would be declaring that nothing is preordained. England and Scotland have both been enriched by their partnership. 

History is written by human agency. Brexit, such a government would continue, can be the occasion for a new settlement between the four constituent parts of the union. Power reclaimed from Brussels will be distributed to every corner of the UK.

Mr Johnson has taken the opposite course. Publicly he declares himself a unionist; privately, Whitehall officials report, he is heard to scorn Scotland as “too leftwing” — spending money raised from English taxpayers on lavish welfare. The prejudice is reflected in the legislation now before parliament to create a UK single market.

Beyond the controversial clauses that would renege on provisions in the withdrawal agreement to keep an open border in Ireland, the essential purpose of the new law is to tighten England’s grip over the rest of the UK. 

Decisions over food and environment norms, labour law and industrial standards hitherto shared with Brussels will belong solely to Westminster. Powers over health and education held by the Scottish and Welsh parliaments and Northern Ireland assembly will be diluted. Westminster will decide whether to scrap the animal husbandry rules that presently bar imports of American chlorinated chicken.

Which equally could have been done at Brussels and we would have been powerless to stop, the fact the french farmers have such a powerful lobby in Brussels is one of the biggest blocks to a US-EU trade deal, there is not a power grab back from Holyrood, it simply doesnt stand up to scrutiny

A common set of rules is certainly needed to allow the UK market to operate freely. Yet there is no reason why the other nations of the union should be barred a say in negotiating trade deals and the setting of standards, or that UK-wide norms must exclude a measure of national discretion. But no, English MPs at Westminster will decide what Scotland eats. 

So common rules needed - check. Trade deals are a reserved matter along with all foreign affairs, instead of the EU doing it, it will be the UK

In truth, the legislation — as bluntly condemned by a pro-union government in Wales as by Ms Sturgeon — is a gift to Scottish nationalism, proof that centrist Scotland is now a prisoner of rightwing English Conservativism.

Mr Johnson’s response to criticism of this English-fits-all approach is to insist he will simply block independence. Even if, as the polls suggest, the Scottish Nationalists win a mandate in next year’s Edinburgh elections, he will prevent a referendum. If that fails, there is a back-up plan. Scottish voters will again be told that their reliance on fiscal transfers from England mean they cannot afford independence.

Again he makes the mistake of taking Wesminster as English as opposed to UK, we should expect better from an opinion writer

Both approaches serve the nationalists: the first by legitimising the SNP charge that England is locking Scotland into a state of vassalage; the second by displaying a condescending contempt calculated to energise nationalists. Of course, independence would bring severe economic challenges. But if there was a lesson from the Brexit vote in 2016 it was that identity trumps economics.

The big difference here though is the fiscal transfers go the other way, the UK was a net contributor to Brussels whilst Scotland is a large net receiver from the UK so his thinking here is not quite right. We need answers on how we will plug the £15bn deficit, what are we going to cut? We cant plug the gap with tax rises, you will kill the economy and ultimately then hate to cut services even more. So again what are you going to cut to balance our books, this has never been addressed. Brexit will likely shrink the economy,erecting trade barriers does this but by how much is still to be determined but the starting position for the UK was by many multiples better than an Indy Scotland and that is before we even get onto currency and our own central bank

Whatever the outcome of the present furore over lawbreaking, Brexit has also weakened the bonds between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain. The strains on the union, though, start with the balance between Westminster and Edinburgh. Break-up may not be preordained, but none looks so determined as Mr Johnson to force Scotland’s hand.

philip.stephens@ft.com

Comments above.

[tc27]

The SNP are made of teflon at the moment.

[Biffer]

Instead of NL's series of politically neutral Times articles, let's have one from that bastion of Scottish Independence, the Financial Times

https://www.ft.com/content/53af9378-e1c ... pe=blocked

Opinion Scottish independence
Boris Johnson’s Brexit plan will break the UK union
The insistence that England must decide what Scotland eats is a gift to the independence movement
PHILIP STEPHENS
Boris Johnson’s readiness to tear up the UK’s reputation for honest dealing by rewriting the EU withdrawal deal has grabbed the headlines. The news, though, is worse. Legislation to create a post-Brexit single market across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland shows equal contempt for the UK's constitutional settlement. By asserting unassailable English supremacy, the prime minister is inviting Scotland to leave the union. 

To start with Westminster is the UK parliment not English, so not exactly off to the best of starts here is he, we have representation at Westminster with our MP's in teh same way we would in Brussels with MEP's but it not classed as German supremacy

There is a burgeoning school of thought, in Whitehall and Westminster as well as Edinburgh, that says Brexit has made Scottish independence inevitable. The sweep of history, the story runs, will conclude that the matter was settled as soon as England voted to leave the EU and Scotland to remain. The frayed bonds of the union were cut beyond repair.

There is something to be said for the long view. The Anglo-Scottish union of 1707 was a contingent agreement. Mr Johnson’s remark this year that there is “no such thing” as a border between the two nations was a measure of indifference as well as ignorance. Scotland did not give up its border or its nationhood — nor its distinct legal and educational systems. 


The union was about collaboration abroad. Scotland secured access to the emerging British empire, and England to talented entrepreneurs, engineers and administrators. With empire long gone, Brexit has put an end to any notion of a joint enterprise beyond British shores. Instead, Scotland is presented with a choice: if it sticks with England, it cuts itself off from Europe. The referendum vote to leave the EU was bad enough. The threat to defy international law on the way to a no-deal Brexit risks leaving Scotland isolated on the edge of its own continent.

The Union was mostly because we were broke from Darian

Historical determinists point also to the sharp contrast in political culture and temperament revealed by Covid-19. The performance of the two nations in curbing the spread has not been that different; the styles have been miles apart. The cautious, open approach of Nicola Sturgeon’s Scottish National party administration has sat alongside a strategy in Downing Street most kindly described as shambolic bluster.

Dont disagree, Boris and his clowns are an embarrassment to everyone but the truly hardened and blinkered

At this point — with Ms Sturgeon demanding a rerun of the 2014 independence poll and the opinion polls showing a solidifying majority of Scots in favour of independence — a reliably pro-union government at Westminster would be declaring that nothing is preordained. England and Scotland have both been enriched by their partnership. 

History is written by human agency. Brexit, such a government would continue, can be the occasion for a new settlement between the four constituent parts of the union. Power reclaimed from Brussels will be distributed to every corner of the UK.

Mr Johnson has taken the opposite course. Publicly he declares himself a unionist; privately, Whitehall officials report, he is heard to scorn Scotland as “too leftwing” — spending money raised from English taxpayers on lavish welfare. The prejudice is reflected in the legislation now before parliament to create a UK single market.

Beyond the controversial clauses that would renege on provisions in the withdrawal agreement to keep an open border in Ireland, the essential purpose of the new law is to tighten England’s grip over the rest of the UK. 

Decisions over food and environment norms, labour law and industrial standards hitherto shared with Brussels will belong solely to Westminster. Powers over health and education held by the Scottish and Welsh parliaments and Northern Ireland assembly will be diluted. Westminster will decide whether to scrap the animal husbandry rules that presently bar imports of American chlorinated chicken.

Which equally could have been done at Brussels and we would have been powerless to stop, the fact the french farmers have such a powerful lobby in Brussels is one of the biggest blocks to a US-EU trade deal, there is not a power grab back from Holyrood, it simply doesnt stand up to scrutiny

A common set of rules is certainly needed to allow the UK market to operate freely. Yet there is no reason why the other nations of the union should be barred a say in negotiating trade deals and the setting of standards, or that UK-wide norms must exclude a measure of national discretion. But no, English MPs at Westminster will decide what Scotland eats. 

So common rules needed - check. Trade deals are a reserved matter along with all foreign affairs, instead of the EU doing it, it will be the UK

In truth, the legislation — as bluntly condemned by a pro-union government in Wales as by Ms Sturgeon — is a gift to Scottish nationalism, proof that centrist Scotland is now a prisoner of rightwing English Conservativism.

Mr Johnson’s response to criticism of this English-fits-all approach is to insist he will simply block independence. Even if, as the polls suggest, the Scottish Nationalists win a mandate in next year’s Edinburgh elections, he will prevent a referendum. If that fails, there is a back-up plan. Scottish voters will again be told that their reliance on fiscal transfers from England mean they cannot afford independence.

Again he makes the mistake of taking Wesminster as English as opposed to UK, we should expect better from an opinion writer

Both approaches serve the nationalists: the first by legitimising the SNP charge that England is locking Scotland into a state of vassalage; the second by displaying a condescending contempt calculated to energise nationalists. Of course, independence would bring severe economic challenges. But if there was a lesson from the Brexit vote in 2016 it was that identity trumps economics.

The big difference here though is the fiscal transfers go the other way, the UK was a net contributor to Brussels whilst Scotland is a large net receiver from the UK so his thinking here is not quite right. We need answers on how we will plug the £15bn deficit, what are we going to cut? We cant plug the gap with tax rises, you will kill the economy and ultimately then hate to cut services even more. So again what are you going to cut to balance our books, this has never been addressed. Brexit will likely shrink the economy,erecting trade barriers does this but by how much is still to be determined but the starting position for the UK was by many multiples better than an Indy Scotland and that is before we even get onto currency and our own central bank

Whatever the outcome of the present furore over lawbreaking, Brexit has also weakened the bonds between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain. The strains on the union, though, start with the balance between Westminster and Edinburgh. Break-up may not be preordained, but none looks so determined as Mr Johnson to force Scotland’s hand.

philip.stephens@ft.com

Comments above.

Your points don't actually address his points. E.g. he says that the lesson from Brexit is that identity trumps economics. You basically say 'but economics'. Or when he says 'Yet there is no reason why the other nations of the union should be barred a say in negotiating trade deals and the setting of standards, or that UK-wide norms must exclude a measure of national discretion.' Bascially you say 'tough' and incidentally, the EU negotiated based on direction from all the member states via 28 governments - why can't that similarly be the case for UK's 4 governments?

Basically none of the points you've made address the central theme of the article, which is that the the policy course that Johnson is taking pushes more people towards the nationalist viewpoint.

[Northern Lights]

Instead of NL's series of politically neutral Times articles, let's have one from that bastion of Scottish Independence, the Financial Times

https://www.ft.com/content/53af9378-e1c ... pe=blocked

Comments above.

Your points don't actually address his points. E.g. he says that the lesson from Brexit is that identity trumps economics. You basically say 'but economics'. Or when he says 'Yet there is no reason why the other nations of the union should be barred a say in negotiating trade deals and the setting of standards, or that UK-wide norms must exclude a measure of national discretion.' Bascially you say 'tough' and incidentally, the EU negotiated based on direction from all the member states via 28 governments - why can't that similarly be the case for UK's 4 governments?

Basically none of the points you've made address the central theme of the article, which is that the the policy course that Johnson is taking pushes more people towards the nationalist viewpoint.

I've given where i disagree which is more than is given to the Times articles i have posted you want to dismiss as they are too pro Union in your opinion.

On economics his point is flawed as is most of the article for the reaons i have listed, economics will trump identity in this case imo because the economic case for Brexit isnt nearly as stark as it is for Indy, now you can ignore that all you like but that is the facts. Whether that is realised when/if a vote is held only time will tell.

My point on reserved matters again is fact not opinion, there is good reason why we need a defined internal market that your columnist agrees is needed. What does happen is that the SG and other devolved admins already feed into UK policy, that is also fact but that doesnt mean that everything the SG proposes should get adopted either. Their opinion is most definitely heard.

[Biffer]

Comments above.

Your points don't actually address his points. E.g. he says that the lesson from Brexit is that identity trumps economics. You basically say 'but economics'. Or when he says 'Yet there is no reason why the other nations of the union should be barred a say in negotiating trade deals and the setting of standards, or that UK-wide norms must exclude a measure of national discretion.' Bascially you say 'tough' and incidentally, the EU negotiated based on direction from all the member states via 28 governments - why can't that similarly be the case for UK's 4 governments?

Basically none of the points you've made address the central theme of the article, which is that the the policy course that Johnson is taking pushes more people towards the nationalist viewpoint.

I've given where i disagree which is more than is given to the Times articles i have posted you want to dismiss as they are too pro Union in your opinion.

On economics his point is flawed as is most of the article for the reaons i have listed, economics will trump identity in this case imo because the economic case for Brexit isnt nearly as stark as it is for Indy, now you can ignore that all you like but that is the facts. Whether that is realised when/if a vote is held only time will tell.

My point on reserved matters again is fact not opinion, there is good reason why we need a defined internal market that your columnist agrees is needed. What does happen is that the SG and other devolved admins already feed into UK policy, that is also fact but that doesnt mean that everything the SG proposes should get adopted either. Their opinion is most definitely heard.

As with most hardline unionists, there's a head in the sand to any nuance of argument.

[tc27]

Reading the New Statesman and the editor asks once you have crossed the bridge to support independence why would you return?

Very eloquently put and the key question for No.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/ ... es-2976093

I do not put much stock in polls which ask leading questions but I would contend the section of people who have shifted to answering 'yes' in polls in recent weeks can be persuaded.

[Northern Lights]

Your points don't actually address his points. E.g. he says that the lesson from Brexit is that identity trumps economics. You basically say 'but economics'. Or when he says 'Yet there is no reason why the other nations of the union should be barred a say in negotiating trade deals and the setting of standards, or that UK-wide norms must exclude a measure of national discretion.' Bascially you say 'tough' and incidentally, the EU negotiated based on direction from all the member states via 28 governments - why can't that similarly be the case for UK's 4 governments?

Basically none of the points you've made address the central theme of the article, which is that the the policy course that Johnson is taking pushes more people towards the nationalist viewpoint.

I've given where i disagree which is more than is given to the Times articles i have posted you want to dismiss as they are too pro Union in your opinion.

On economics his point is flawed as is most of the article for the reaons i have listed, economics will trump identity in this case imo because the economic case for Brexit isnt nearly as stark as it is for Indy, now you can ignore that all you like but that is the facts. Whether that is realised when/if a vote is held only time will tell.

My point on reserved matters again is fact not opinion, there is good reason why we need a defined internal market that your columnist agrees is needed. What does happen is that the SG and other devolved admins already feed into UK policy, that is also fact but that doesnt mean that everything the SG proposes should get adopted either. Their opinion is most definitely heard.

As with most hardline unionists, there's a head in the sand to any nuance of argument.

Aye ok, it's the Unionists that struggle with nuance

[Biffer]

I've given where i disagree which is more than is given to the Times articles i have posted you want to dismiss as they are too pro Union in your opinion.

On economics his point is flawed as is most of the article for the reaons i have listed, economics will trump identity in this case imo because the economic case for Brexit isnt nearly as stark as it is for Indy, now you can ignore that all you like but that is the facts. Whether that is realised when/if a vote is held only time will tell.

My point on reserved matters again is fact not opinion, there is good reason why we need a defined internal market that your columnist agrees is needed. What does happen is that the SG and other devolved admins already feed into UK policy, that is also fact but that doesnt mean that everything the SG proposes should get adopted either. Their opinion is most definitely heard.

As with most hardline unionists, there's a head in the sand to any nuance of argument.

Aye ok, it's the Unionists that struggle with nuance

I said hardliners. Again this reflects on your position that the whole panoply of views fall rigidly into two sets only, nats and unionists. I've tried repeatedly to convey more nuanced views here and you just jump in and go 'Nats, yur'.

[I like neeps]

On David Hume:

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/c ... ls-2976377

Very good article on what I suspected. Racism was partly the accepted orthodoxy of the time because respected philosophers were the ones espousing that view of the world.

[Dogbert]

A genuinely interesting and thought provoking article in the Scotsman - truly a portent for the end of days - Thanks for posting Neeps

[Northern Lights]

A genuinely interesting and thought provoking article in the Scotsman - truly a portent for the end of days - Thanks for posting Neeps

Yep, very interesting.

Scholars of Aberdeen leading the way against the deplorables of Auld Reekie

[Tichtheid]

It is an interesting article, not least for the fact it gives the lie to the argument that these guys were merely products of their time.

Statues and monuments are for people we admire or those we find inspirational, and that changes as society advances. That doesn't mean we tear down ancient wonders such as the Pyramids, which were built by slaves, but it does mean we have to look seriously at those we honour in the naming of a tower built in 1966.

[Slick]

It is an interesting article, not least for the fact it gives the lie to the argument that these guys were merely products of their time.

Statues and monuments are for people we admire or those we find inspirational, and that changes as society advances. That doesn't mean we tear down ancient wonders such as the Pyramids, which were built by slaves, but it does mean we have to look seriously at those we honour in the naming of a tower built in 1966.

What’s the cut off point?

[Tichtheid]

It is an interesting article, not least for the fact it gives the lie to the argument that these guys were merely products of their time.

Statues and monuments are for people we admire or those we find inspirational, and that changes as society advances. That doesn't mean we tear down ancient wonders such as the Pyramids, which were built by slaves, but it does mean we have to look seriously at those we honour in the naming of a tower built in 1966.

What’s the cut off point?

I'm not sure there is a cut off point, it's an evolving thing - though unfortunately that means it's also open to a "regression" if that is the right word, back to the horrific thought that slavery and discrimination is seen as okay again.

The fight for progress is never ending

[Northern Lights]

Massie on top form today

Alex Massie: Boris, I’m sorry, but you are the problem
Out of his depth on Covid and Brexit, the PM is the SNP’s ‘useful buffoon’

Alex Massie
Sunday September 20 2020, 12.01am, The Sunday Times
Breaking up is never easy, even when it’s also clear it’s the right thing to do. Thus one could sympathise with Richard Keen, the advocate-general, as he sought — in vain — for reasons to justify remaining a member of Boris Johnson’s government. Ultimately, however, he came to an unavoidable conclusion and his message to the prime minister was as blunt as it was clear: it’s not me, Boris, it’s you.

Lord Keen’s resignation letter was pithy and pointed. In it, he acknowledged that he had found it “increasingly difficult” to reconcile his obligations as a law officer with what he took to be the prime minister’s policy preferences in respect of the now-infamous, if rarely wholly understood, internal market bill. “I have endeavoured to identify a respectable argument for the provisions as clauses 42 to 45 of the bill” he wrote, “but it is now clear that this will not meet your policy intentions”. Respectable need not mean convincing, for a respectable argument is merely a tenable one. The prime minister, it seems, cares little for such distinctions. Indeed, the more disreputable the argument the better.

Lord Keen was not finished, however. “Your government faces challenges on a number of fronts and I fear that the UKIM (Internal Market] Bill in its present form will not make these any easier”. Truly, no-one ever made money betting against an Edinburgh lawyer’s capacity for icy understatement. And then, the delicious final thrust: “I wish you well in dealing with these issues”. Good luck, prime minister, because you’re going to need it and even then, that may not be enough.

How else, though, could a self-respecting law officer respond to a government cheerfully content to renege on international agreements it had itself negotiated — and hailed as a triumph — less than a year ago? As a matter of politics, the detail of the Internal Market Bill, like the detail of the UK-EU negotiations, matters rather less than the manner in which it confirms an underlying, vaguely appreciated, truth: this is not a government that may be trusted.

Since government can only proceed on the basis of consent, and can only be reasonably effective if it is respected, trashing your own reputation is a bold strategy. When every living former prime minister suggests you are mistaken, a more reflective prime minister might reconsider his position. But not this one. For this government offers an unattractive combination of unsinkable arrogance and demonstrable ineptitude. Appreciate that, and much else begins to make sense.

ADVERTISEMENT

The truth is that it is not possible to have an effective government if it is led by a prime minister manifestly not up to the job. Every time Johnson appears in public he depletes already scarce public reserves of confidence and respect. All of this was not only wholly predictable, it was predicted at the time Johnson sought the Conservative leadership. Nothing in his track record, save for his overweening ambition, suggested he was ready to be prime minister or capable of growing into the role. Who could have foreseen that a thoroughly inadequate foreign secretary would be a thoroughly inadequate prime minister?

All of this has consequences. A prime minister manifestly uninterested in mastering the detail hitherto considered a useful, even necessary, part of the job is one who cannot possibly command public confidence. If these were ordinary times of genial and placid prosperity this might not matter too much but the combination of Brexit and Covid-19 changes the game entirely. This is not a moment in which the country can afford a prime minister out of his depth, yet this is what we are lumbered with. A competent prime minister would find these challenging times and we do not have a competent prime minister.

SPONSORED
The secrets of 21st-century retirees revealed
The secrets of 21st-century retirees revealed
5 ready-made investment funds that will brighten your financial future
5 ready-made investment funds that will brighten your financial future
No wonder, six years after Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom, the question of independence will not disappear. The case for that independence is not being made positively in Scotland; it is being made negatively in Downing Street. Like all tragedies, Mr Johnson’s time in office will pass but not, perhaps, before he has done serious, and possibly fatal, damage to the integrity of the United Kingdom. He is Nicola Sturgeon’s useful buffoon.

And he is not the only one. Responding to the latest evidence that England’s testing regimen is utterly inadequate to the task it is supposed to meet, Jacob Rees-Mogg declared that “instead of this endless carping saying it’s difficult to get [tests], we should be celebrating the phenomenal success of the British nation”. Whatever shortcomings there have been in the Scottish government’s response to this emergency — and there have been many, plenty of them serious ones — it does not have to be very good to be a little bit better than this.

The barefaced effrontery of it all is increasingly galling too. Hence the insistence that the Brexit withdrawal process, agreed with such fanfare only a few months ago, is now to be considered an intolerable imposition upon the government which signed it. It is preposterous, but no more so than is now to be expected and that may, in its way, be the grimmest reflection of them all.

None of which requires any of us to accept Sturgeon’s diagnosis that independence is the only option available. If Britain is broken, the morally responsible course of action is to fix it, not to abandon it. That requires patience, of course and, in this year of discord and discontent, patience is unfashionable.

Even some Conservatives appreciate that matters cannot continue like this forever. Johnson may, or may not, still be suffering lingering after-effects of his own bout of coronavirus but it is becoming increasingly apparent to an increasing number of the smarter kinds of Tory that he should not lead the party into the next general election. Alas, that election is four years away and it is not clear the country can afford another four years of Boris.

Sympathetic Tories, or perhaps just the more sycophantic kind, intimate that Johnson has somehow been led astray or persuaded to part company with his true instincts. “Let Boris be Boris”, they cry, forgetting that real politics is not an episode of The West Wing. What you see in politics is what you actually have and in this instance that is a prime minister incapable of rising to the occasion. The problem is Boris being Boris.

[Line6 HXFX]

Thought occurred to me the other week and made me stop in my tracks.

So Scotland and Wales have been under English rule for Hundreds of years, and the main argument is both countries will apparently never be able to make it on their own economically.

That they are so beyond help, not even Europe (which has massive experience and resources of turning around even the worst shit hole, former Soviet nations) will be able to help them.
So when people are saying "Scotland and Wales will not be able to make it on their own" that is what they mean..


In other words, Scotland and Wales would have been much better off under Soviet control for the last 100 years than under English rule.
That they are so screwed up by England, that they are now beyond the help of Europe..
There would have been hope of them "making it on their own" if they were under Soviet control..

But hey just a thought that has stuck in my bonce lately.

[Biffer]

Massie on top form today

Alex Massie: Boris, I’m sorry, but you are the problem
Out of his depth on Covid and Brexit, the PM is the SNP’s ‘useful buffoon’

Alex Massie
Sunday September 20 2020, 12.01am, The Sunday Times
Breaking up is never easy, even when it’s also clear it’s the right thing to do. Thus one could sympathise with Richard Keen, the advocate-general, as he sought — in vain — for reasons to justify remaining a member of Boris Johnson’s government. Ultimately, however, he came to an unavoidable conclusion and his message to the prime minister was as blunt as it was clear: it’s not me, Boris, it’s you.

Lord Keen’s resignation letter was pithy and pointed. In it, he acknowledged that he had found it “increasingly difficult” to reconcile his obligations as a law officer with what he took to be the prime minister’s policy preferences in respect of the now-infamous, if rarely wholly understood, internal market bill. “I have endeavoured to identify a respectable argument for the provisions as clauses 42 to 45 of the bill” he wrote, “but it is now clear that this will not meet your policy intentions”. Respectable need not mean convincing, for a respectable argument is merely a tenable one. The prime minister, it seems, cares little for such distinctions. Indeed, the more disreputable the argument the better.

Lord Keen was not finished, however. “Your government faces challenges on a number of fronts and I fear that the UKIM (Internal Market] Bill in its present form will not make these any easier”. Truly, no-one ever made money betting against an Edinburgh lawyer’s capacity for icy understatement. And then, the delicious final thrust: “I wish you well in dealing with these issues”. Good luck, prime minister, because you’re going to need it and even then, that may not be enough.

How else, though, could a self-respecting law officer respond to a government cheerfully content to renege on international agreements it had itself negotiated — and hailed as a triumph — less than a year ago? As a matter of politics, the detail of the Internal Market Bill, like the detail of the UK-EU negotiations, matters rather less than the manner in which it confirms an underlying, vaguely appreciated, truth: this is not a government that may be trusted.

Since government can only proceed on the basis of consent, and can only be reasonably effective if it is respected, trashing your own reputation is a bold strategy. When every living former prime minister suggests you are mistaken, a more reflective prime minister might reconsider his position. But not this one. For this government offers an unattractive combination of unsinkable arrogance and demonstrable ineptitude. Appreciate that, and much else begins to make sense.

ADVERTISEMENT

The truth is that it is not possible to have an effective government if it is led by a prime minister manifestly not up to the job. Every time Johnson appears in public he depletes already scarce public reserves of confidence and respect. All of this was not only wholly predictable, it was predicted at the time Johnson sought the Conservative leadership. Nothing in his track record, save for his overweening ambition, suggested he was ready to be prime minister or capable of growing into the role. Who could have foreseen that a thoroughly inadequate foreign secretary would be a thoroughly inadequate prime minister?

All of this has consequences. A prime minister manifestly uninterested in mastering the detail hitherto considered a useful, even necessary, part of the job is one who cannot possibly command public confidence. If these were ordinary times of genial and placid prosperity this might not matter too much but the combination of Brexit and Covid-19 changes the game entirely. This is not a moment in which the country can afford a prime minister out of his depth, yet this is what we are lumbered with. A competent prime minister would find these challenging times and we do not have a competent prime minister.

SPONSORED
The secrets of 21st-century retirees revealed
The secrets of 21st-century retirees revealed
5 ready-made investment funds that will brighten your financial future
5 ready-made investment funds that will brighten your financial future
No wonder, six years after Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom, the question of independence will not disappear. The case for that independence is not being made positively in Scotland; it is being made negatively in Downing Street. Like all tragedies, Mr Johnson’s time in office will pass but not, perhaps, before he has done serious, and possibly fatal, damage to the integrity of the United Kingdom. He is Nicola Sturgeon’s useful buffoon.

And he is not the only one. Responding to the latest evidence that England’s testing regimen is utterly inadequate to the task it is supposed to meet, Jacob Rees-Mogg declared that “instead of this endless carping saying it’s difficult to get [tests], we should be celebrating the phenomenal success of the British nation”. Whatever shortcomings there have been in the Scottish government’s response to this emergency — and there have been many, plenty of them serious ones — it does not have to be very good to be a little bit better than this.

The barefaced effrontery of it all is increasingly galling too. Hence the insistence that the Brexit withdrawal process, agreed with such fanfare only a few months ago, is now to be considered an intolerable imposition upon the government which signed it. It is preposterous, but no more so than is now to be expected and that may, in its way, be the grimmest reflection of them all.

None of which requires any of us to accept Sturgeon’s diagnosis that independence is the only option available. If Britain is broken, the morally responsible course of action is to fix it, not to abandon it. That requires patience, of course and, in this year of discord and discontent, patience is unfashionable.

Even some Conservatives appreciate that matters cannot continue like this forever. Johnson may, or may not, still be suffering lingering after-effects of his own bout of coronavirus but it is becoming increasingly apparent to an increasing number of the smarter kinds of Tory that he should not lead the party into the next general election. Alas, that election is four years away and it is not clear the country can afford another four years of Boris.

Sympathetic Tories, or perhaps just the more sycophantic kind, intimate that Johnson has somehow been led astray or persuaded to part company with his true instincts. “Let Boris be Boris”, they cry, forgetting that real politics is not an episode of The West Wing. What you see in politics is what you actually have and in this instance that is a prime minister incapable of rising to the occasion. The problem is Boris being Boris.

All these Tories turning on Johnson because it turns out he’s a useless waffling idiot with no aims other than being prime minister and his own self aggrandisement. Problem is, the rest of us knew he was a useless twat to begin with. Why on earth should we trust their judgement or opinion now?

And wrt to his ‘independence is not the only option available’, well, who’s presenting another option? He says if Britain is broken, fix it - how? What’s the aim, what’s the plan? None of the other parties present anything other than a more broken Britain (brexit) or what we’ve got with some tape patching it up for a while (pretty much every other labour and conservative idea). Nobody has any idea how to fix Britain, and according to the polls a majority no longer think its worth fixing.

[Slick]

It does make you think..

[Northern Lights]

I could well be wrong but I don’t think Massie is a Tory, definitely a Unionist but that doesn’t make him a Tory.

Biffer I don’t see the ills of the country being fixed by Indy no matter how appealing this simplistic notion may be, like Brexit there are no simple fixes to complex problems but the snake oil salesmen of Brexit and Indy will never admit that

[Tichtheid]

I could well be wrong but I don’t think Massie is a Tory, definitely a Unionist but that doesn’t make him a Tory.

Biffer I don’t see the ills of the country being fixed by Indy no matter how appealing this simplistic notion may be, like Brexit there are no simple fixes to complex problems but the snake oil salesmen of Brexit and Indy will never admit that

It’s not snake oil to consider Scotland as a country in its own right, to think that as such Scotland deserves the right to self-determination and for Scots, and all those living in Scotland, to decide for themselves on political, economic and cultural matters.

[Biffer]

I could well be wrong but I don’t think Massie is a Tory, definitely a Unionist but that doesn’t make him a Tory.

Biffer I don’t see the ills of the country being fixed by Indy no matter how appealing this simplistic notion may be, like Brexit there are no simple fixes to complex problems but the snake oil salesmen of Brexit and Indy will never admit that

So what are the proposals to fix the union? There aren't any imo. Everything that comes out of the unionist parties are just minor patches which solve nothing, which is why independence has come to the fore. If you spend twenty years insisting nothings wrong and not addressing problems, is it any surprise no one takes you seriously when you propose shuffling the deckchairs again?

Seriously, what are the significant changes that any unionist is proposing making that are workable, practical and address the problems of repairing a broken Union?

[Northern Lights]

I could well be wrong but I don’t think Massie is a Tory, definitely a Unionist but that doesn’t make him a Tory.

Biffer I don’t see the ills of the country being fixed by Indy no matter how appealing this simplistic notion may be, like Brexit there are no simple fixes to complex problems but the snake oil salesmen of Brexit and Indy will never admit that

So what are the proposals to fix the union? There aren't any imo. Everything that comes out of the unionist parties are just minor patches which solve nothing, which is why independence has come to the fore. If you spend twenty years insisting nothings wrong and not addressing problems, is it any surprise no one takes you seriously when you propose shuffling the deckchairs again?

Seriously, what are the significant changes that any unionist is proposing making that are workable, practical and address the problems of repairing a broken Union?

Let’s start with what you believe is broken with the Union, secondly what are the problems that we need fixed more generally and how will independence cure them?

[Northern Lights]

I could well be wrong but I don’t think Massie is a Tory, definitely a Unionist but that doesn’t make him a Tory.

Biffer I don’t see the ills of the country being fixed by Indy no matter how appealing this simplistic notion may be, like Brexit there are no simple fixes to complex problems but the snake oil salesmen of Brexit and Indy will never admit that

It’s not snake oil to consider Scotland as a country in its own right, to think that as such Scotland deserves the right to self-determination and for Scots, and all those living in Scotland, to decide for themselves on political, economic and cultural matters.

That was asked and answered, keeping on asking the same question until you get the answer you want does not improve political, economic or cultural matters, all it does is drive division which has led to stagnation on the things that actually matter - health, education, the economy and so forth. On all these fronts we are actually in decline under the snp as they are devolved, so quite why you think things will improve by giving them more levers takes some really special thinking

[Biffer]

I could well be wrong but I don’t think Massie is a Tory, definitely a Unionist but that doesn’t make him a Tory.

Biffer I don’t see the ills of the country being fixed by Indy no matter how appealing this simplistic notion may be, like Brexit there are no simple fixes to complex problems but the snake oil salesmen of Brexit and Indy will never admit that

So what are the proposals to fix the union? There aren't any imo. Everything that comes out of the unionist parties are just minor patches which solve nothing, which is why independence has come to the fore. If you spend twenty years insisting nothings wrong and not addressing problems, is it any surprise no one takes you seriously when you propose shuffling the deckchairs again?

Seriously, what are the significant changes that any unionist is proposing making that are workable, practical and address the problems of repairing a broken Union?

Let’s start with what you believe is broken with the Union, secondly what are the problems that we need fixed more generally and how will independence cure them?

I’m not playing this game with you

You posted an article talking about this kind of thing saying the author was on top form ffs.

[Tichtheid]

Circumstances change, you can’t be shackled to a decision made prior to those changes of circumstances.

I don’t particularly support the SNP beyond their goal of having the people who live in Scotland decide for themselves how their country should be run.

I read a couple of articles this morning from the Times archives, they were arguing that Malta could never survive away from Britain, it would be economic suicide, there was another saying the same about Singapore. Ireland was the same, apparently.

[Biffer]

Circumstances change, you can’t be shackled to a decision made prior to those changes of circumstances.

I don’t particularly support the SNP beyond their goal of having the people who live in Scotland decide for themselves how their country should be run.

I read a couple of articles this morning from the Times archives, they were arguing that Malta could never survive away from Britain, it would be economic suicide, there was another saying the same about Singapore. Ireland was the same, apparently.

Im the same. The SNP are a means to an end for me. That end being a state that demonstrates that a sustainable, prosperous, western social democracy which is based on better measures than gdp and a stock market is the model for the twenty first century. The structures within the UK don’t allow for that change.

[Tattie]

Circumstances change, you can’t be shackled to a decision made prior to those changes of circumstances.

I don’t particularly support the SNP beyond their goal of having the people who live in Scotland decide for themselves how their country should be run.

I read a couple of articles this morning from the Times archives, they were arguing that Malta could never survive away from Britain, it would be economic suicide, there was another saying the same about Singapore. Ireland was the same, apparently.

Im the same. The SNP are a means to an end for me. That end being a state that demonstrates that a sustainable, prosperous, western social democracy which is based on better measures than gdp and a stock market is the model for the twenty first century. The structures within the UK don’t allow for that change.

Yep, me too, a means to an end. Unionists like NL can’t seem to grasp this though with his relentless cut and paste of every anti-SNP article thinking it’ll somehow influence voting intentions. It’s much bigger than the SNP and I think, apart from a few nut jobs, this is how most pro independence supporters think.

[Northern Lights]

No unionists like me are curious to know where these brilliant new politicians are going to come from and where they are hiding now? Why are there not other better pro Indy parties that you can all get behind that aren’t the snp? It seems you are all left underwhelmed by the snp efforts after 13 years, so who is going to improve things and why are we unable to improve things now when we are fortunate to be able to spend way more than we raise in tax, they are going to have to work absolute miracles to not only plug this gap but also improve things.

Biffer now wants no stock markets, what that will achieve I’m not sure as that is great way for budding entrepreneurs to raise capital to grow their companies and for pension funds to grow to help with people’s retirement. GDP measures are crude but give a good indication of how the economy is performing, I suspect getting rid of this is a nice way of neatly ignoring any answers to the black hole of our public finances.

We are left with just believing things will be better under Indy with absolutely no concrete answers as to how, we are just meant to believe. The parallels to Brexit are all there, just believe and everything will be rosey.

Got it.

I post articles that I believe are interesting, hopefully thought provoking but if it is just viewed as me antagonising you lot I won’t bother. Minds won’t be changed, the subject matter not tackled just dismissed because it doesn’t support the case for Independence. Massie was actually having a go at the tories this week but that doesn’t matter it would seem.

[Biffer]

No unionists like me are curious to know where these brilliant new politicians are going to come from and where they are hiding now? Why are there not other better pro Indy parties that you can all get behind that aren’t the snp? It seems you are all left underwhelmed by the snp efforts after 13 years, so who is going to improve things and why are we unable to improve things now when we are fortunate to be able to spend way more than we raise in tax, they are going to have to work absolute miracles to not only plug this gap but also improve things.

Biffer now wants no stock markets, what that will achieve I’m not sure as that is great way for budding entrepreneurs to raise capital to grow their companies and for pension funds to grow to help with people’s retirement. GDP measures are crude but give a good indication of how the economy is performing, I suspect getting rid of this is a nice way of neatly ignoring any answers to the black hole of our public finances.

We are left with just believing things will be better under Indy with absolutely no concrete answers as to how, we are just meant to believe. The parallels to Brexit are all there, just believe and everything will be rosey.

Got it.

I post articles that I believe are interesting, hopefully thought provoking but if it is just viewed as me antagonising you lot I won’t bother. Minds won’t be changed, the subject matter not tackled just dismissed because it doesn’t support the case for Independence. Massie was actually having a go at the tories this week but that doesn’t matter it would seem.

See, this is what you do. I say I don’t want an economy measured by stock markets and you interpret that as me saying I don’t want stock markets.

That’s the way you argue - you assume there are two radically different sides with unified views and wail about what you think other people believe. Like I said before, no nuance.

[Northern Lights]

No unionists like me are curious to know where these brilliant new politicians are going to come from and where they are hiding now? Why are there not other better pro Indy parties that you can all get behind that aren’t the snp? It seems you are all left underwhelmed by the snp efforts after 13 years, so who is going to improve things and why are we unable to improve things now when we are fortunate to be able to spend way more than we raise in tax, they are going to have to work absolute miracles to not only plug this gap but also improve things.

Biffer now wants no stock markets, what that will achieve I’m not sure as that is great way for budding entrepreneurs to raise capital to grow their companies and for pension funds to grow to help with people’s retirement. GDP measures are crude but give a good indication of how the economy is performing, I suspect getting rid of this is a nice way of neatly ignoring any answers to the black hole of our public finances.

We are left with just believing things will be better under Indy with absolutely no concrete answers as to how, we are just meant to believe. The parallels to Brexit are all there, just believe and everything will be rosey.

Got it.

I post articles that I believe are interesting, hopefully thought provoking but if it is just viewed as me antagonising you lot I won’t bother. Minds won’t be changed, the subject matter not tackled just dismissed because it doesn’t support the case for Independence. Massie was actually having a go at the tories this week but that doesn’t matter it would seem.

See, this is what you do. I say I don’t want an economy measured by stock markets and you interpret that as me saying I don’t want stock markets.

That’s the way you argue - you assume there are two radically different sides with unified views and wail about what you think other people believe. Like I said before, no nuance.

Well I’m not arguing for starters I regard this as debating. Unless you’re Trump you don’t measure an economy by stock markets, there isn’t much nuance about this, I’m not even sure what your point in mentioning stock markets if you are talking about the economy and prosperity.

You keep mentioning my lack of appreciation on nuance which with something like Indy it’s binary, there aren’t shades of grey between Yes or No.

[Biffer]

See, deflection again. No acknowledgement that you claimed I said something I didn't say, deliberately, in order to portray what I said as extreme.

I'm not sure if you even realise you're doing it, you're so embedded in that way of thinking.

[Northern Lights]

See, deflection again. No acknowledgement that you claimed I said something I didn't say, deliberately, in order to portray what I said as extreme.

I'm not sure if you even realise you're doing it, you're so embedded in that way of thinking.

Hmm, it’s not me deflecting. I’m asking why you are linking the stock market to the economy as a measure?

Company valuations are undoubtedly linked to perceived future value but you don’t link a country to a stock market given the global nature of companies unless you’re Trump and certainly not a small country like Scotland.

[Biffer]

See, deflection again. No acknowledgement that you claimed I said something I didn't say, deliberately, in order to portray what I said as extreme.

I'm not sure if you even realise you're doing it, you're so embedded in that way of thinking.

Hmm, it’s not me deflecting. I’m asking why you are linking the stock market to the economy as a measure?

Company valuations are undoubtedly linked to perceived future value but you don’t link a country to a stock market given the global nature of companies unless you’re Trump and certainly not a small country like Scotland.

Are you going to acknowledge I didn’t say what you said I did?

[tc27]

Cant be bothered to quote and reply to all the point I want to make but here are my thoughts.

1. Scotland is a nation - but its not unusual for nations to exists as part of unions with their own national identity. Nations that existed as sovereign states much more recently than Scotland are part of larger national unions (Texas and Bavaria are two from the top of my head). Arguing the breaking up Britain is necessary so its parts can return to some kind of 'natural' state is simply incorrect.

2. When I hear advocates for separation arguing that 'we need new models outside GDP etc etc' I really just take this as a concession that they cant make an actual economic case. Or desperate evasion that the reality of operation means grinding austerity, losing the pound and being outside the UK and the EU for years...rather than face that we get rainbows and unicorns.

3. Scotland is not a colony of Britain (obviously). Reaching back for historical precedents is futile. There is not really a precedent for developed capitalist country born of ripping itself out of a modern welfare state, currency zone, and internal market. It would be a unique event.

4. The idea that the SNP is a means to an end is rubbish - its more likely to be an ANC situation.

[Biffer]

Cant be bothered to quote and reply to all the point I want to make but here are my thoughts.

1. Scotland is a nation - but its not unusual for nations to exists as part of unions with their own national identity. Nations that existed as sovereign states much more recently than Scotland are part of larger national unions (Texas and Bavaria are two from the top of my head). Arguing the breaking up Britain is necessary so its parts can return to some kind of 'natural' state is simply incorrect.

2. When I hear advocates for separation arguing that 'we need new models outside GDP etc etc' I really just take this as a concession that they cant make an actual economic case. Or desperate evasion that the reality of operation means grinding austerity, losing the pound and being outside the UK and the EU for years...rather than face that we get rainbows and unicorns.

3. Scotland is not a colony of Britain (obviously). Reaching back for historical precedents is futile. There is not really a precedent for developed capitalist country born of ripping itself out of a modern welfare state, currency zone, and internal market. It would be a unique event.

4. The idea that the SNP is a means to an end is rubbish - its more likely to be an ANC situation.

I understand those points but for me

1. These unions are part of the evolution of states. I can name plenty of states that didn't exist 50 or 100 years ago that do now and are prospering e.g. Ireland. I wouldn't argue natural states either, the union was the best place for us to be in the 1700s,1800s 1900s through the age of empires. But that age has ended and I don't think it's the best place anymore. I no longer see the benefits.

2. The not using GDP as sole measure thing isn't me or Scottish indy proponents. It's modern economists trying to gauge human development in a broader socioeconomic model. It doesn't actually change any need for fiscal responsibility and actually brings some other elements into fiscal decisions which could require extra responsibilities. There's a lot of interesting stuff out there about this which is regardless of independence or not. Evonomics is a good website to start on, but also people like Kate Rawson's Doughnut Economics. It's an interesting area based around an idea that our current models aren't working to the benefit of nations' citizens.

3. Absolutely. People who come out with the colony line are dicks and I let them know it. Our relationship with empire is incredibly complex and can't be easily categorised as good or bad. There's no precedent for it but that's true of anything new.

4. On this I disagree with you. There are a whole lot of diverse opinions in there, and once the main goal is removed, there will be fractures.

[Biffer]

Power shifting to Westminster

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54204967

Strange that I mentioned building regs earlier and no one replied to justify it.

[tc27]

Cant be bothered to quote and reply to all the point I want to make but here are my thoughts.

1. Scotland is a nation - but its not unusual for nations to exists as part of unions with their own national identity. Nations that existed as sovereign states much more recently than Scotland are part of larger national unions (Texas and Bavaria are two from the top of my head). Arguing the breaking up Britain is necessary so its parts can return to some kind of 'natural' state is simply incorrect.

2. When I hear advocates for separation arguing that 'we need new models outside GDP etc etc' I really just take this as a concession that they cant make an actual economic case. Or desperate evasion that the reality of operation means grinding austerity, losing the pound and being outside the UK and the EU for years...rather than face that we get rainbows and unicorns.

3. Scotland is not a colony of Britain (obviously). Reaching back for historical precedents is futile. There is not really a precedent for developed capitalist country born of ripping itself out of a modern welfare state, currency zone, and internal market. It would be a unique event.

4. The idea that the SNP is a means to an end is rubbish - its more likely to be an ANC situation.

I understand those points but for me

1. These unions are part of the evolution of states. I can name plenty of states that didn't exist 50 or 100 years ago that do now and are prospering e.g. Ireland. I wouldn't argue natural states either, the union was the best place for us to be in the 1700s,1800s 1900s through the age of empires. But that age has ended and I don't think it's the best place anymore. I no longer see the benefits.

2. The not using GDP as sole measure thing isn't me or Scottish indy proponents. It's modern economists trying to gauge human development in a broader socioeconomic model. It doesn't actually change any need for fiscal responsibility and actually brings some other elements into fiscal decisions which could require extra responsibilities. There's a lot of interesting stuff out there about this which is regardless of independence or not. Evonomics is a good website to start on, but also people like Kate Rawson's Doughnut Economics. It's an interesting area based around an idea that our current models aren't working to the benefit of nations' citizens.

3. Absolutely. People who come out with the colony line are dicks and I let them know it. Our relationship with empire is incredibly complex and can't be easily categorised as good or bad. There's no precedent for it but that's true of anything new.

4. On this I disagree with you. There are a whole lot of diverse opinions in there, and once the main goal is removed, there will be fractures.

Obviously we did disagree about the benefits of Union. At the time the benefits were fairly specific and not really relevant today(access to colonial markets and ending the possibility of warfare on this island - err except in the '45). - I actually think changes since its inception in 18th century strengthen the case.

1. Trade has become vastly more technical - now days standards and regulatory barriers matter for more than tariffs. The Union created a single internal market on this Island to everyone's benefit. Scotland's biggest onshore source of tax revenue exists because you call sell complex FS products within the UK).

2. The welfare state and the vastly increased role of state in peoples lives in the last 70 years has meant you need a big pool of taxpayers across a diverse economy. Today (talking in very general terms) tax revenue from urbanised England flows into more rural areas of Scotland to ensure everyone gets the same levels of service. in the 1970s tax on oil exploitation in Scottish waters flowed the other way...pooling and sharing.

3. The £ is a stable currency based on a relatively diverse large economy that dependant on a single natural resource (and therefore volatile). I realise this is somewhat undermined by recent events but I suspect in the long term the fundamentals will re-assert themselves.

4. Defence - yes it doesn't seem to matter much even these days as the pax Americana wanes but it may well matter much more even within our lifetimes. There is a very obvious reason why the propaganda arms of the Russian state are so heavily invested in supporting Scottish nationalism. If Scotland secedes and becomes a non aligned or 'token effort' small European state in one of the most important strategic positions in Europe than I can see this putting further strain on the fabric of NATO.

In economic terms I think its good to discuss new ideas and its something I find interesting. I do wonder how sincere many of the advocates within the nationalist movement are however - I mean the path to a better and fairer economy probably does not start with placing huge obstacles in your path to overcome in the name of sovereignty (see Brexit).

We are in agreement about the 'colony' claims and I recognise this is a fringe opinion.

We can both speculate about the hypothetical course of party politics in a independent Scotland. My observation is just base on my appraisal of how formidable the SNP party machine is and the value of owning a political brand.

[tc27]

Power shifting to Westminster

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54204967

Strange that I mentioned building regs earlier and no one replied to justify it.

My view on this has shifted after some conversations over the weekend.

I still think the majority of the noise coming from the SNP is the usual grievance hyperbole - but in areas like this were within the acquis of the EU there have being long standing differences in Scotland then this should be preconised with regulatory powers being devolved as appropriate.

I would say within the time frame of Brexit doing so would be almost impossible and it is necessary to create the SI's needed to regulate to avoid a void come January. But it should not be permanent situation.

[Biffer]

Power shifting to Westminster

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54204967

Strange that I mentioned building regs earlier and no one replied to justify it.

My view on this has shifted after some conversations over the weekend.

I still think the majority of the noise coming from the SNP is the usual grievance hyperbole - but in areas like this were within the acquis of the EU there have being long standing differences in Scotland then this should be preconised with regulatory powers being devolved as appropriate.

I would say within the time frame of Brexit doing so would be almost impossible and it is necessary to create the SI's needed to regulate to avoid a void come January. But it should not be permanent situation.

That's not a huge distance from what I was saying a couple of pages ago. In areas like environmental and food standards regulation we have similar differences in detail and implementation on the way we manage the EU led regulations. The new bill removes that - and by doing so places different emphasis which may be detrimental to the enforcement of regulation in the wilder areas and the ocean shelf, which are a lower priority in other areas of the UK

[clydecloggie]

Is the 'losing the pound' thing - where it is held up as a huge downside of independence - a genuine economic argument or just Rule Britannia bullshitting?

I sort of got it in 2014, back when sterling was a a strong and stable currency beloved of the financial markets. But following the Brexit vote, what's the point of clinging on to a weak currency with an uncertain future?