NPR

Allegedly due to the need to protect the ‘UK internal market’ (an entirely mythical construct, as there have never been any barriers to free trade throughout the UK) a new quango is to be set up that will scrutinise new Holyrood legislation and will have the power to veto it if it thinks it will be detrimental to this imaginary market

Yr Alban wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 11:00 pm

Northern Lights wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 2:30 pm

clydecloggie wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 2:15 pm A lot in that piece that makes sense (and that's coming from a filthy Nat), but it lost me with saying power and money will get sent north because of Brexit, which must be absolute horseshit. Already devolution is being encroached on due to Brexit, and there is no hope in hell that the UK will be in any state to splash the cash in 2021.

Swallowing Mike Russell's horseshit hook, line and sinker. The SNP pr machine is magnificent. Devolution is not being impacted at all, the complaint is pure fiction, powers that were in Brussels will now be in Westminster doesnt stop the grievance though.

Landslide for the SNP net year though, not an opposition leader in sight. Would like to see Ian Murray run for a Holyrood seat and become Scottish Leader, he si the only one i can think of now that Davidson has left the scene that would be half decent the rest are out of depth on a parish council.

Are you actually for real?

Here’s a summary of the changes by which you think devolution is ‘not being impacted at all’.

1. Powers being returned to the UK from Brussels that relate to devolved areas are not being returned to Holyrood. We knew this already, because the SNP correctly pointed out this contravened the Scotland Act and brought a legal case. This failed, as the judge noted, because what was proposed was illegal at the time, but in the interim legislation was passed at Westminster to legalise it.

2. Allegedly due to the need to protect the ‘UK internal market’ (an entirely mythical construct, as there have never been any barriers to free trade throughout the UK) a new quango is to be set up that will scrutinise new Holyrood legislation and will have the power to veto it if it thinks it will be detrimental to this imaginary market.

3. Again, due to this imaginary market, Westminster will now have the power to impose regulatory standards on the devolved governments, whether they agree to them or not. So if Westminster agrees to accept lower standards to make a trade deal with the US, for example, Holyrood will have no power to prevent the goods from going on sale in Scotland.

None of this is my opinion, or even Mike Russell’s. These are facts, and easily verifiable from a boatload of internet sites if you care to google ‘UK internal market bill’. Calling it ‘pure fiction’ is just blotting out reality.

Northern Lights wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 2:27 pm

Yr Alban wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 11:00 pm

Northern Lights wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 2:30 pm



Swallowing Mike Russell's horseshit hook, line and sinker. The SNP pr machine is magnificent. Devolution is not being impacted at all, the complaint is pure fiction, powers that were in Brussels will now be in Westminster doesnt stop the grievance though.

Landslide for the SNP net year though, not an opposition leader in sight. Would like to see Ian Murray run for a Holyrood seat and become Scottish Leader, he si the only one i can think of now that Davidson has left the scene that would be half decent the rest are out of depth on a parish council.

Are you actually for real?

Here’s a summary of the changes by which you think devolution is ‘not being impacted at all’.

1. Powers being returned to the UK from Brussels that relate to devolved areas are not being returned to Holyrood. We knew this already, because the SNP correctly pointed out this contravened the Scotland Act and brought a legal case. This failed, as the judge noted, because what was proposed was illegal at the time, but in the interim legislation was passed at Westminster to legalise it.

2. Allegedly due to the need to protect the ‘UK internal market’ (an entirely mythical construct, as there have never been any barriers to free trade throughout the UK) a new quango is to be set up that will scrutinise new Holyrood legislation and will have the power to veto it if it thinks it will be detrimental to this imaginary market.

3. Again, due to this imaginary market, Westminster will now have the power to impose regulatory standards on the devolved governments, whether they agree to them or not. So if Westminster agrees to accept lower standards to make a trade deal with the US, for example, Holyrood will have no power to prevent the goods from going on sale in Scotland.

None of this is my opinion, or even Mike Russell’s. These are facts, and easily verifiable from a boatload of internet sites if you care to google ‘UK internal market bill’. Calling it ‘pure fiction’ is just blotting out reality.

1. If the powers are in Brussels they are not devolved, they are coming back the UK, whether they should be devolved further to Holyrood is open to discussion and there is a lot going and going to go through parliment to establish this.

2. The UK will become the market not the EU, it really is as simple as that and trying toput bullshit different standards across the UK will only make Scottish companies less competitve.

3. It's not imaginary, foreign affairs are not devolved, that is a fact and easily verifiable.

You will be looking for border checks at Gretna if you want to have different product standards, it's complete nonsense by Mike Russell and the grievance bollocks that eminates from him and his ilk. He's a nasty piece of work and the SNP should be glad he is standing down as an aside.

clydecloggie wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 7:49 am

Caley_Red wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 11:38 pm

Biffer wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 11:36 pm

It's the way it's being done though. It's going to be a panel appointed by the UK government with no input from Holyrood. So much for a partnership and all that other bullshit that we were fed during the indyref.

Well, have the SNP noted any burning areas of desire where they would want a meaningfully different approach on trading standard, origination rules, labeling etc?

Errmm..apart from keeping EU standards and not be hostage to whatever BoJo's mates from across the Atlantic want?

Caley_Red wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:02 am

clydecloggie wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 7:49 am

Caley_Red wrote: Wed Jul 22, 2020 11:38 pm

Well, have the SNP noted any burning areas of desire where they would want a meaningfully different approach on trading standard, origination rules, labeling etc?

Errmm..apart from keeping EU standards and not be hostage to whatever BoJo's mates from across the Atlantic want?

But if Holyrood took a separate approach then it would damage, by far, our largest trade flows: the UK. If Holyrood retained EU laws and regs and the UK took a sector-by-sector approach on redrawing these laws then we could have the circumstances were we are jeopardizing 60% of our entire export market to placate 18% (a figure that's inflated due to port re-routing), it makes no sense.

I don't understand why people are up in arms about this, it's a bill designed to ensure the trade continues in a normal manner within the UK and to replace the existing supranational legislation.

Biffer wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 4:22 am

Caley_Red wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:02 am

clydecloggie wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 7:49 am

Errmm..apart from keeping EU standards and not be hostage to whatever BoJo's mates from across the Atlantic want?

But if Holyrood took a separate approach then it would damage, by far, our largest trade flows: the UK. If Holyrood retained EU laws and regs and the UK took a sector-by-sector approach on redrawing these laws then we could have the circumstances were we are jeopardizing 60% of our entire export market to placate 18% (a figure that's inflated due to port re-routing), it makes no sense.

I don't understand why people are up in arms about this, it's a bill designed to ensure the trade continues in a normal manner within the UK and to replace the existing supranational legislation.

The key is, should that approach just be set by Westminster or should it be a joint activity of the four parliaments?

Caley_Red wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 4:33 am

Biffer wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 4:22 am

Caley_Red wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:02 am

But if Holyrood took a separate approach then it would damage, by far, our largest trade flows: the UK. If Holyrood retained EU laws and regs and the UK took a sector-by-sector approach on redrawing these laws then we could have the circumstances were we are jeopardizing 60% of our entire export market to placate 18% (a figure that's inflated due to port re-routing), it makes no sense.

I don't understand why people are up in arms about this, it's a bill designed to ensure the trade continues in a normal manner within the UK and to replace the existing supranational legislation.

The key is, should that approach just be set by Westminster or should it be a joint activity of the four parliaments?

Given the civil service expertise is in Westminster, I'd probably keep it there personally. Surely they could just have a quorum of Scottish MPs in lieu? Alternatively, have a cross-party committee from Holyrood feeding in advice?
What it mustn't be though is another grandstanding opportunity where the SNP's starting position is never going to be taken up (i.e. remaining in line with EU in all sectors no matter what the cost) and then intransigently sticking to those positions and when they're eventually and inevitably ignored, claim that 'Scotland's' voice is being ignored.
I am not convinced they (the SNP) can work constructively for the benefit of Scottish businesses and people due to the viewing of everything through the prism of the constitution; however, I am not against a cross-party effort to fund consensus on key sectors whether that be Scottish MPs or a Holyrood advisory committee.

walletoraccess wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 7:50 am How much input did the Scottish Government have when the matters were under control of Brussels?
If the same as now - why the complaint?

Branded masks fit with an identity obsession
Tacky merchandise and other tat help the SNP sell the lie that only nationalists can be true Scots
Alex Massie
Tuesday July 28 2020, 12.01am, The Times
Share
Save
No one has ever accused Nicola Sturgeon, or indeed any other nationalist politician, of lacking chutzpah. Even so there was something breathtaking about the manner in which the first minister greeted Boris Johnson’s visit to Scotland last week. According to Ms Sturgeon, the prime minister was guilty of “politicising” the current coronavirus emergency. Well, fancy that.

As ever, though, the first minister’s complaints were revealing. Not so much because they were interesting or especially well-founded — for they were not except in so much as all prime ministerial activity has a political component — but for the light they shed on nationalist thinking. In disputing Mr Johnson’s reasons for being in Scotland the first minister, speaking on behalf of her party and her movement, intimated that there was, somehow, something unseemly or improper about the prime minister coming to Scotland. Nicola, and Nicola alone, speaks for Scotland; Boris can jog on.

For all that the first minister’s handling of the virus — or at any rate, her handling of the communications part of the job — has earned her some plaudits it bears repeating that half the country did not vote for her party at the most recent general election. Ms Sturgeon is first minister but, no matter how many nationalists may insist otherwise, she is not the will of the Scottish people made flesh. She represents Scotland but she does not speak for the whole country. Sometimes it is easy to think nationalists forget this. The saltire no more belongs to the SNP than to any other political party.

But then the nationalist routinely conflates party with country. The SNP stand up for Scotland and represent the authentic voice of the Scottish people. From which it logically follows that the SNP’s opponents must be inauthentic and suspect and, simply by virtue of disagreeing with the nationalists, lesser Scots than those with the good sense to support the SNP. Just as the left naturally considers itself morally superior to the right, so far too many nationalists presume themselves better than those with the temerity to disagree with them. As always, this is an exhausting business.

This is both the age of identity politics and an era of hurt feelings, each of which is fertile territory for nationalism. Politics is not so much local as it is personal and in Scotland much of the time that means wrapping oneself in the flag and identifying with the SNP to a greater extent than is wholly healthy. So much so, indeed, that the modern nationalist is an easily bruised creature: as many as 50 per cent of SNP voters consider criticism of the party’s policies a personal insult.

If that is not altogether healthy, a trip to the party’s online shop does nothing to disabuse one of the view that the SNP is increasingly a kind of lifestyle branding exercise. There, amid the usual branded clothing, pins, mugs and other political tat you may purchase, for the bargain price of £39.99, a limited edition independence paperweight “crafted by none other than the first minister herself”.

Keen supporters may also purchase SNP-branded facemasks as well as others sporting the party’s badge and the slogan “Scottish N Proud” — a case of protesting too much if ever there was one. As you would expect, opposition politicians have accused the SNP of cashing-in on Covid-19 and exploiting the virus for the party’s own ends. Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?

As an aesthetic matter, modern Scottish nationalism rises to the level of kitsch on its better days but, as the SNP facemasks demonstrate, spends most of its time mired in naffness. It is so busy admiring itself it has no room for anything else. Perhaps this is why the nationalist movement has yet to produce any artistic work of any great interest or value. (James Robertson’s And the Land Lay Still may come closest but it was published a decade ago.) Certainly, the pro-independence marches that were a feature of metropolitan life until the virus’s arrival present a highly stylised, clichéd, picture of Scottish life that wouldn’t look too out of place on the set of Brigadoon. It would be funny if it weren’t all taken so seriously. But then politics has little place for the kind of knowing irony enjoyed and promoted by the long-suffering foot soldiers of the Tartan Army.

Although the SNP talks a good game on the subject of allowing an open and generous and expansive definition of Scottishness this is in large part conditional upon having the proper, which is to say independence-supporting, political opinions. So long as that condition is met, anything else goes, which is why an old Tory such as Fergus Ewing can share a party with a young Bennite such as Mhairi Black.

It is, however, by definition an exclusionary nationalism which has little space for adherents to another, rather different Scotland. This other place is not necessarily enthused by “British nationalism” but, rather, is indifferent to nationalism of any stripe. It is happy without politics and relaxed about its identity.

That is an increasingly unfashionable view, however. We might wish it differently but we cannot wish away reality. Everything in Scotland is political nowadays and will remain so for some time yet.

clydecloggie wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:08 am Think I made it clear (either on here or on the PR predecessor thread) that I find the SNP cult of personality around Sturgeon pretty distasteful and probably ultimately harmful to the cause of independence. Despite being on the Nat side of the debate myself.

I can't get too worked up about SNP face masks. Labour have them as well, as has pretty much every other cause you can think of. From "If in doubt sit them out" to Oddballs to most of my favourite metal bands - they've all jumped into the face mask market.

That paperweight though, that's horrendous Kim Jong Un shite.

Knuckledragger wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:22 am Hence my question - there is either something really murky being covered up, or she is scared of a backlash from the more conservative (small C deliberate) arm of the party.

clydecloggie wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:35 am

Knuckledragger wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:22 am Hence my question - there is either something really murky being covered up, or she is scared of a backlash from the more conservative (small C deliberate) arm of the party.

It's weird, both Labour and the Conservatives have had openly lesbian leaders, there are plenty of gay and lesbian SNP MPs and MSPs so it doesn't make any sense if they are indeed in a cover marriage. Unless they hatched the plan way back when none of that was obvious and easily accepted and they can't turn back now...it would destroy her credibility probably.

Biffer wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:29 pm

clydecloggie wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:35 am

Knuckledragger wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:22 am Hence my question - there is either something really murky being covered up, or she is scared of a backlash from the more conservative (small C deliberate) arm of the party.

It's weird, both Labour and the Conservatives have had openly lesbian leaders, there are plenty of gay and lesbian SNP MPs and MSPs so it doesn't make any sense if they are indeed in a cover marriage. Unless they hatched the plan way back when none of that was obvious and easily accepted and they can't turn back now...it would destroy her credibility probably.

Or alternatively this could all be rumour mongering under the badge of 'they don't have kids so there must be something going on' kind of misogynistic BS which is all too common in politics.

Biffer wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:29 pm

clydecloggie wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:35 am

Knuckledragger wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:22 am Hence my question - there is either something really murky being covered up, or she is scared of a backlash from the more conservative (small C deliberate) arm of the party.

It's weird, both Labour and the Conservatives have had openly lesbian leaders, there are plenty of gay and lesbian SNP MPs and MSPs so it doesn't make any sense if they are indeed in a cover marriage. Unless they hatched the plan way back when none of that was obvious and easily accepted and they can't turn back now...it would destroy her credibility probably.

Or alternatively this could all be rumour mongering under the badge of 'they don't have kids so there must be something going on' kind of misogynistic BS which is all too common in politics.

clydecloggie wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:26 pm Reports that Ruth Davidson will become Lady Tank Commander this week. So she can start shaping the laws of the UK together with the bishops, feudal lords' sprogs and Cash & Carry the Vote types. Fuck this for a democracy*.

*Objections still apply if her ascension to the HoL turns out to be just another rumour.

Slick wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:34 pm

Biffer wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:29 pm

clydecloggie wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:35 am

It's weird, both Labour and the Conservatives have had openly lesbian leaders, there are plenty of gay and lesbian SNP MPs and MSPs so it doesn't make any sense if they are indeed in a cover marriage. Unless they hatched the plan way back when none of that was obvious and easily accepted and they can't turn back now...it would destroy her credibility probably.

Or alternatively this could all be rumour mongering under the badge of 'they don't have kids so there must be something going on' kind of misogynistic BS which is all too common in politics.

Well, quite. I really can't bring myself to get excited about this bullshit.

On another note, "Krankie"? Really?

Biffer wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:13 pm Positive tests down in every health board in the last seven days compared to the previous seven, except Glasgow and Highland. Filthy weegies.

2. Allegedly due to the need to protect the ‘UK internal market’ (an entirely mythical construct, as there have never been any barriers to free trade throughout the UK) a new quango is to be set up that will scrutinise new Holyrood legislation and will have the power to veto it if it thinks it will be detrimental to this imaginary market.

3. Again, due to this imaginary market, Westminster will now have the power to impose regulatory standards on the devolved governments, whether they agree to them or not. So if Westminster agrees to accept lower standards to make a trade deal with the US, for example, Holyrood will have no power to prevent the goods from going on sale in Scotland.

Northern Lights wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 9:36 am

Biffer wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:13 pm Positive tests down in every health board in the last seven days compared to the previous seven, except Glasgow and Highland. Filthy weegies.

And Teuchters

Biffer wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 11:54 am

Northern Lights wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 9:36 am

Biffer wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:13 pm Positive tests down in every health board in the last seven days compared to the previous seven, except Glasgow and Highland. Filthy weegies.

And Teuchters

All joking aside, there's a potential cluster being investigated in the Glasgow area. Potentially a significant test of the track and trace system as it's the first one in one of the larger conurbations.

Northern Lights wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 11:59 am

Biffer wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 11:54 am

Northern Lights wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 9:36 am

And Teuchters

All joking aside, there's a potential cluster being investigated in the Glasgow area. Potentially a significant test of the track and trace system as it's the first one in one of the larger conurbations.

Have they nailed down where etc it's come from yet, as in like that call centre?

If folk would just not be nuggets and be sensible when out and mingling wew ould be fine but that unfortunately is not the reality

Coronavirus in Scotland: Excess death toll third highest in Europe, figures reveal
new
Kieran Andrews, Scottish Political Editor
third highest level of excess deaths in Europe for the first half of 2020, according to an analysis.

The country came behind only England and Spain in research by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) that compared mortality rates in different countries to measure the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.

By the week ending May 29, Scotland had a relative cumulative age-standardised mortality rate of 5.11 per cent, meaning it was 5.11 per cent higher than the average mortality rate between 2015 and 2019.

England’s rate was 7.55 per cent while Spain’s was 6.65 per cent. It is the first time the ONS has made an international comparison about excess deaths.

It came as Nicola Sturgeon was rebuked by Britain’s statistics watchdog for claiming the virus is five times more prevalent in England than in Scotland.

In a letter published today, Ed Humpherson, the director-general for regulation of the UK Statistics Authority, said it was “difficult to identify” the sources used by the first minister for her claim on July 3.

A UK-wide estimate for the dates used by Ms Sturgeon had not been published, although a figure is available on the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine website in the form of “a real-time report with an unclear update schedule,” Mr Humpherson said.

The authority said that the upper prevalence rates published in Scotland’s Covid-19 modelling of the epidemic on June 25 was compared with the ONS Covid-19 Infection Survey pilot on the same date because other data was not publicly available.

“We expect that any figures used are appropriately sourced, explained and available in the public domain,” Mr Humpherson wrote in his letter to Roger Halliday, the Scottish government’s chief statistician and the joint head of the Covid modelling and analysis team.

“Furthermore, it is important to recognise that a comparison of Covid-19 prevalence rates is not straightforward. If it is to be undertaken, the results and the uncertainties should be communicated transparently.

“We do not think that the sources above allow for a quantified and uncaveated comparison of the kind that was made. In future if such comparisons are made, we would expect to see sources made publicly available and a clear explanation of the limitations and associated uncertainty.”

The House of Commons Library last week found there was “no evidence” to back up the claim, which was used by Ms Sturgeon to justify a slower easing of lockdown north of the border.

The first minister has repeatedly refused to rule out forcing visitors from England to isolate for 14 days when they enter if virus rates are higher south of the border.

This month a group of protesters dressed in hazmat suits held signs at the side of the A1 near Berwick-upon-Tweed urging motorists from England to “stay out” of Scotland.

This is not the first time that the statistics authority has criticised the Scottish government during the pandemic. Three weeks ago it said it was “unacceptable” that the Scottish government said in a press release that 4,431 antibody tests had been carried out, but offered no data to back up the statement.

A Scottish government spokeswoman said: “The Scottish government has been recognised by the Office for Statistics Regulation for its open approach in regularly publishing a wide range of transparent information. We continue to push the UK government to take the same approach and to publish Covid-19 prevalence statistics that would make this information publicly available.

“The decisions we are taking to ease lockdown restrictions while still suppressing the virus are based on prevalence data. It is legitimate to use the evidence that is available to highlight differences in prevalence.”

Northern Lights wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 12:06 pm

Pretty damning stuff for both Westminister and Holyrood but only Boris getting heat over it, Sturgeon riding high in the polls over her handling of the pandemic.

Embra and weegieland 9th & 10th worst cities in Europe for death rate.

Shambolic

tc27 wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 2:11 pm There a a lot of comparisons flying about at the moment but I honestly feel anyone trying to give Sturgeons administration credit for handling this better is on very dodgy ground.