NPR

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 4:10 pm 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

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:54 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 4:10 pm 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.

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:33 am

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:54 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 4:10 pm 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.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:48 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:33 am

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:54 am

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.

I like neeps wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 7:59 pm 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.

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:59 am

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:48 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:33 am

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.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 10:31 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:59 am

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:48 am

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

Dogbert wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:32 pm A genuinely interesting and thought provoking article in the Scotsman - truly a portent for the end of days - Thanks for posting Neeps

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:54 pm 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 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:45 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:54 pm 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?

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.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 6:26 am 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.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:32 am 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

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:32 am 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

Biffer wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:02 am

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:32 am 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?

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:55 am

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:32 am 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.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:45 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:02 am

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:32 am 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?

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:06 am 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 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:17 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:06 am 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.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:02 pm 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 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:07 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:02 pm 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.

Biffer wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:12 pm 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 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:21 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:12 pm 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.

tc27 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 6:17 pm 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 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 6:42 pm

tc27 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 6:17 pm 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 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:01 am 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 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:05 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:01 am 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.