Water John wrote: »
Mightn't like to hear it, but Gove calls it honestly. The SNP and Greens in Scotland now know where they stand.
It wasn't time for Irish Home Rule over 100 years ago, same old tune.https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/23/gove-rules-out-scottish-independence-vote-before-election
I think that picture of Johnson covering Downing St with England flags and waving one himself would look good for the SNP to use in all eir publications. Johnson is the Prime Minister of England - not Scotland.
And now for the Great Wall of Gretna! 🙄
I'm sure the Scottish Tories will try to make links to the NIP on this
"Pointed out hard border needed if Nicola Sturgeon took Scots into Schengen"
SNP should quote the Minister as "no hard border needed because Scotland won't be in Schengen"
And remind everyone that Gibraltar is now in Schengen thanks to Westminster.
I read the comments. I shouldn't have read the comments.
I suspect someone in the bowels of Tory HQ patted themselves on the back for that little soundbite; the "Great Wall of Gretna". Exactly the kind of perfect mixture of pithy scaremongering I'd expect from a government without much of an actual plan to entice the Scots to stay.
One wonders how the recent announcement by England to dispense with masks + distance, while Scotland would continue to use both, has gone down North of the border. If the prevailing mood is supportive of Sturgeon, or feeling itchy to get everything open (for comparison, see the comments section in any news outlet here)
Surely reducing the Indy ref to slogans like that will not go well for the English Gov - they should be shouting to togetherness.
Interesting revelation via The Guardian, highlighting a bit of arcane law allowing the Crown to vet Scottish laws in case they're disadvantageous to the royals. Can't see it effecting the ref numbers that much but IMO shows again a lopsided structure of authority between the two nations.
I'm not sure that it's a "lopsided structure of authority between the two nations", in that the same Queen's consent procedure applies to Westminster legislation.
And has been used many times to protect the estates at Sandringham and the properties owned by the Duchy of Cornwall and presumably many other properties held personally by the Royal Family and their hangers on.
that article seems to jump around a bit. There is a big difference between "Crown Estates", the two Royal Duchies and land owned privately by the monarch, yet the article doesn't seem to make any differentiation, not does the articles it is linked to.
I would go as far as to say that the article is very poorly researched, or is well researched and deliberately avoids this distinction to provoke discussion.
So far as Queen's consent goes, there is no distinction between the crown estate and the private estate. The Queen's consent is sought on legislation which affects or may affect (a) the prerogatives of the crown; or (b) the official or personal/private property or interests of the monarch., and she has the same opportunity to use the process to her advantage whether that advantage accrues to her in her official capacity or in her private capacity.
So the crown estate/private estate distinction is not relevant here. It would at best complicate the article to bring it in; at worst make it misleading, implying that the queen's consent process operates differently in relation to the crown estate and the private estate. It does not.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-58018127 "The 62-year-old made use of a mechanism allowing him to appeal directly to the UK Supreme Court."
Maybe I'm missing something but doesn't that sound like he was trying to bypass the Scottish Supreme Courts and perhaps the separate Scottish Legal system ?
I believe the UK Supreme Court applies Scottish law when hearing a case from Scotland.
The deal in Scotland is that the High Court of Justiciary is, for most purposes, the final court for criminal cases; there is no appeal beyond the High Court of Justiciary.
But there is an exception to this: If your conviction depends on a point of law that involves either the European Convention on Human Rights or an issue regarding devolution (e.g. you've been convicted under a law of the Scottish parliament and your argument is that the Scottish parliament had no power to make that law) then you can seek to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, but just on that point of law. You have no right to appeal to the SC; you have to get permission, either from the judges of the High Court of Justiciary or from the judges of the Supreme Court — i.e. you have to persuade them that there really is an arguable point of human rights law/devolution law on which your conviction depends.
In either case, you're not bypassing the Scottish legal system, since the European Convention on Human Rights and the various UK laws that determine the powers of devolved authorities are both very much part of the law in force in Scotland. but they are also very much part of the law in force throughout the UK, so to ensure consistency appeals on these matters can go to the Supreme Court - not just from Scotland, but from any part of the UK.
(And, in the case of points of law involving the European Convention on Human Rights, if you don't get the ruling you want in the Supreme Court, there is the further option of taking the matter to the European Court of Human Rights.)
The Financial Times have a front page story tomorrow that the UK Govt have drawn up contingency plans to relocate their 4 Vanguard Class Trident ballistic missile submarines away from the Faslane base on the Clyde, in the event of Scotland seceding from the Union.
While the Devonport base at Plymouth is preferred, its proximity to large centres of population isnt ideal and so overseas options including a French submarine base in Brittany and a US base in Georgia on the Atlantic Coast have been factored in.
The ignominy of having to base the UKs entire nuclear deterrent outside of Britain ought to drive some Brexiteer gammon into apoplexy.
Proximity to larger centres of population clearly isn't a relevant factor in the UK government's mind. Currently the base is Faslane, which is 65km from the centre of Glasgow. Devonport is much more remote from large centres of population than Faslane is.
Don't think there would be any urgency in relocating Trident. Could happen over time.
BTW very good drama on BBC 1 ATM called Vigil. Based on a murder aboard a Trident sub.
Ah but the prevailing winds in the UK are typically west to east. Any radiation released would be heading to the South East
as it would now if anything untoward were to happen in AWE Aldermaston, which is only 80Km from London and is closer to Reading, Basingstoke, Winchester, Oxford, Windsor and several other large towns, than Coulport is to Glasgow.
The big difference between Devonport and Faslane is that Devonport is actually in Plymouth, a city of 250,000 people, it would be the equivalent of moving Coulport to Govan, not to mention the additional time it would take for Submarines to reach the Atlantic.
why am I getting a feeling of Deja vu?
Plymouth already hosts a large part of the Navy so there will be a large amount of conventional weapons stored there now. If there were an accident tomorrow with a load of conventional explosives, that would take out Plymouth.
What makes trident different?
The thing is the Navy and military always mean jobs, not only service personnel, but also government contracts, shipyards, etc... This does not only concern Trident, but also other matters. Also if Scotland would be independent as a country, they would have to provide some kind of navy. They probably won't have submarines but more something Ireland has.
The problem with Scottish independence has unfortunately many facettes: ( and it's certainly not that easy as Nicola Sturgeon likes it to be )
Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP are overall obsessed with independence, and obsession is always a major failure. ( History taught us that many times )
Many public things in Scotland are either for free or offered at less cost than in the rest of the UK, - the money from London to Scotland flows steadily to support that. ( Nicola Sturgeon certainly doesn't want to be reminded of that, nor does she want to comment this subject further, but most of her current promises are based on funds from London )
Scottish business is for a large majority doing business with England and the rest of the UK rather than the EU. Financial businesses, like Standardlife, or Scottish Widows, etc. would probably relocate their business or part of their business to the rest of the UK to serve their UK customers....
EU membership for Scotland is not automatically and seamlessly guaranteed if Scotland was independent from one day to the next, even though Nicola insists it is that way.
The question of currency, citizenship and defense are today unclear and unsolved and so were they in the last referendum. Would they really trade the British pound for a weaker currency? ( for a decent currency they need a good trade surplus ) Or British citizenship for Scottish citizenship ( in the beginning neither part of EU or the UK ) ?
Scotland also has an aging population, more so than the rest of the UK, so they'd have to have an open immigration politics.
All that considered, Yes, Scotland could potentially be an independent country, however independence will come at a very very high cost and the first 5 to 7 years will most likely be very very difficult. Also it is neither certain nor guaranteed that Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP will still be in power by then. There is always the overarching responsibility question with politicians in any country.