Brexit Negotiations

[salmonbuddie]

I'm trying to get to the bottom of why you are talking about lies. For that you need a specific proposal which was never intended to be genuinely allowed. Above, you've given me vague stuff.

Which specific powers were we promised which were reneged on?

 

 

Some of the No campaign’s broken promises 

 

The EU

 

During the referendum, the Better Together website said: “Scotland enjoys membership of the EU because of our membership of the UK and if we no longer are members of the UK then it follows that we are no longer are part of the EU.”

 

In a televised STV debate on 2 September 2014, Ruth Davidson said: “I think it is disingenuous of Patrick [Harvie] to say that No means out and Yes means in, when actually the opposite is true. No means we stay in, we are members of the European Union.”

 

Better Together tweeted saying:

 

What is process for removing our EU citizenship? Voting yes. #scotdecides

 

— Better Together (@UK_Together) September 2, 2014

 

Now, Scotland faces being dragged out of the EU against our will in the aftermath of the UK’s vote for Brexit.

 

“Extensive” new powers

 

As part of “the Vow”, the then three Westminster party leaders promised “extensive new powers” for the Scottish Parliament.

 

What they legislated for left decisions about 70 per cent of Scottish taxes and 85 per cent of current UK welfare spending in Scotland in the hands of the Westminster government.

 

The STUC and numerous third sector groups expressed disappointment at the limitations of what was finally legislated for.

 

The Scottish Parliament’s cross-party Devolution Committee said that the Scotland Bill “falls short” in “critical areas”.

 

A YouGov poll in September 2015 found only 9 per cent of people in Scotland believe that the promise of “extensive new powers” was delivered in full.

 

Barnett Formula

 

“The Vow” clearly promised “the continuation of the Barnett allocation for resources”.

 

In the aftermath of the Brexit vote, fresh suggestions are being raised by the Tory-right wing and others about cutting Scotland’s budget further.

 

Brexit campaigner Lord Owen called for a vote to Leave the EU to be used as an excuse to axe the Barnett Formula, while Tory MEP David Bannerman tweeted that a “new Brexit Government should suspend the Barnett formula for Scotland” – raising the spectre of cuts to Scotland’s budget.

 

Tory leadership candidate Michael Gove has again raised the prospect of axing the Barnett Formula.

 

Shipbuilding

 

Before the referendum, the No campaign said jobs in shipyards would be under threat if there was a Yes vote. One leaflet said “Separation Shuts Shipyards” and made the promise that “Govan and Scotstoun will get the order for 13 Type-26 frigates from the Royal Navy”.

 

Better Together tweeted that a No vote would “ensure the future of Scotland’s shipbuilding industry.”

 

By working together as a part of the UK we can ensure the future of Scotland’s shipbuilding industry. http://t.co/5spNAmqj7F #indyref

 

— Better Together (@UK_Together) June 14, 2013

 

However, on 7 November 2015, the Scotsman reported that the programme could be slashed because funding was required to pay for Trident.

 

On 23 November 2015, the UK Government announced the number of frigates would be reduced from thirteen to eight.

 

And, it has since been reported that the works are to be delayed even further.

 

Public sector jobs

 

Before the referendum, the Scotland Office issued a press release boasting that the UK Government protects civil service jobs in Scotland.

 

Information from the Scottish Parliament Information Centre, published this year, shows that between 2011 and 2015, there has been a greater fall in UK Civil Service employment in Scotland than in any other UK nation – falling by 17.5 per cent in Scotland, compared to 12.4 per cent in England, 9.3 per cent in Wales and 16.1 per cent in Northern Ireland.

 

Before the referendum it was claimed that, within the UK, HMRC delivered a ‘jobs dividend’ in Scotland.

 

The UK Government has since announced closure of HMRC offices – risking over 2,000 Scottish jobs.

 

Social security

 

Before the referendum, the No campaign stated that “we are better placed to support the most vulnerable in Scotland” with a No vote.

 

As part of his July 2015 budget, George Osborne announced £12 billion cuts and changes to welfare and benefits. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) said the budget was an attack on the poorest and most vulnerable people in communities and that the Chancellor was “demonstrating a cruel disregard for the impact this will have on hundreds of thousands of people’s lives”. The Child Poverty Action Group said the budget cuts damaged economic security of working families “with higher child poverty for millions and lower taxes for the better off”.

 

Renewables

 

At PMQs David Cameron argued for a No vote on basis that “…when it comes to vital industries like green technology, the combination of a green investment bank sponsored by the United Kingdom Government and the many natural advantages that there are in Scotland can make this a great industry for people in Scotland—but we will do that only if we keep our country together”.  

 

On 7 April 2014 Energy and Climate Change Secretary Edward Davey said: “The broad shoulders of the United Kingdom is unlocking the power of Scotland to take its place as one of the world’s great energy hubs – generating energy and generating jobs”.  

 

On 18 June 2015, after the referendum, the BBC reported: “Scotland could lose £3bn in investment because of a UK government decision to exclude new onshore wind farms from a subsidy scheme a year earlier than planned, an industry body has said.”  

 

Carbon capture

 

Before the referendum, the UK Government stated: “Scotland benefits from other competitions and grants provided by the UK Government and the wider UK consumer and tax base, such as a programme to support the commercialisation of carbon capture and storage”

 

This commitment to a £1billion investment in CCS was also set out in the Conservative’s 2015 manifesto.  

 

The UK Government cancelled this investment six months before it was due to be awarded. Peterhead power station was one of two projects bidding for the investment.

 

EVEL

 

Before the referendum, Scotland was told that we were an equal part of the UK ‘family of nations’ and were urged to ‘lead not leave’ the UK.

 

The morning after the referendum David Cameron announced English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) – creating the situation where Scottish MPs cannot properly consider the ‘Barnett consequentials’ on legislation deemed English only.

 

 

 

 

 

[salmonbuddie]

And this

https://theferret.scot/sturgeon-indyref-shipbuilding-promises-broken/

[Guest TPAFKATS]

The labour party in particular went around Scotland scaring the bejeesus out of pensioners, telling them they would lose their pension if they voted yes and in some cases had them hoarding food in case of shortages.
The Labour Party still don't understand why they lost Scotland.

[DougJamie]

4 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

The labour party in particular went around Scotland scaring the bejeesus out of pensioners, telling them they would lose their pension if they voted yes and in some cases had them hoarding food in case of shortages.
The Labour Party still don't understand why they lost Scotland.

Yes they do, the Labour party is exactly the same as the Tory party now. Fractured .

Do you work for the Daily Star ?

 

You should 

[DougJamie]

4 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:

Some of the No campaign’s broken promises 

 

The EU

 

During the referendum, the Better Together website said: “Scotland enjoys membership of the EU because of our membership of the UK and if we no longer are members of the UK then it follows that we are no longer are part of the EU.”

 

In a televised STV debate on 2 September 2014, Ruth Davidson said: “I think it is disingenuous of Patrick [Harvie] to say that No means out and Yes means in, when actually the opposite is true. No means we stay in, we are members of the European Union.”

 

Better Together tweeted saying:

 

What is process for removing our EU citizenship? Voting yes. #scotdecides

 

— Better Together (@UK_Together) September 2, 2014

 

Now, Scotland faces being dragged out of the EU against our will in the aftermath of the UK’s vote for Brexit.

 

“Extensive” new powers

 

As part of “the Vow”, the then three Westminster party leaders promised “extensive new powers” for the Scottish Parliament.

 

What they legislated for left decisions about 70 per cent of Scottish taxes and 85 per cent of current UK welfare spending in Scotland in the hands of the Westminster government.

 

The STUC and numerous third sector groups expressed disappointment at the limitations of what was finally legislated for.

 

The Scottish Parliament’s cross-party Devolution Committee said that the Scotland Bill “falls short” in “critical areas”.

 

A YouGov poll in September 2015 found only 9 per cent of people in Scotland believe that the promise of “extensive new powers” was delivered in full.

 

Barnett Formula

 

“The Vow” clearly promised “the continuation of the Barnett allocation for resources”.

 

In the aftermath of the Brexit vote, fresh suggestions are being raised by the Tory-right wing and others about cutting Scotland’s budget further.

 

Brexit campaigner Lord Owen called for a vote to Leave the EU to be used as an excuse to axe the Barnett Formula, while Tory MEP David Bannerman tweeted that a “new Brexit Government should suspend the Barnett formula for Scotland” – raising the spectre of cuts to Scotland’s budget.

 

Tory leadership candidate Michael Gove has again raised the prospect of axing the Barnett Formula.

 

Shipbuilding

 

Before the referendum, the No campaign said jobs in shipyards would be under threat if there was a Yes vote. One leaflet said “Separation Shuts Shipyards” and made the promise that “Govan and Scotstoun will get the order for 13 Type-26 frigates from the Royal Navy”.

 

Better Together tweeted that a No vote would “ensure the future of Scotland’s shipbuilding industry.”

 

By working together as a part of the UK we can ensure the future of Scotland’s shipbuilding industry. http://t.co/5spNAmqj7F #indyref

 

— Better Together (@UK_Together) June 14, 2013

 

However, on 7 November 2015, the Scotsman reported that the programme could be slashed because funding was required to pay for Trident.

 

On 23 November 2015, the UK Government announced the number of frigates would be reduced from thirteen to eight.

 

And, it has since been reported that the works are to be delayed even further.

 

Public sector jobs

 

Before the referendum, the Scotland Office issued a press release boasting that the UK Government protects civil service jobs in Scotland.

 

Information from the Scottish Parliament Information Centre, published this year, shows that between 2011 and 2015, there has been a greater fall in UK Civil Service employment in Scotland than in any other UK nation – falling by 17.5 per cent in Scotland, compared to 12.4 per cent in England, 9.3 per cent in Wales and 16.1 per cent in Northern Ireland.

 

Before the referendum it was claimed that, within the UK, HMRC delivered a ‘jobs dividend’ in Scotland.

 

The UK Government has since announced closure of HMRC offices – risking over 2,000 Scottish jobs.

 

Social security

 

Before the referendum, the No campaign stated that “we are better placed to support the most vulnerable in Scotland” with a No vote.

 

As part of his July 2015 budget, George Osborne announced £12 billion cuts and changes to welfare and benefits. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) said the budget was an attack on the poorest and most vulnerable people in communities and that the Chancellor was “demonstrating a cruel disregard for the impact this will have on hundreds of thousands of people’s lives”. The Child Poverty Action Group said the budget cuts damaged economic security of working families “with higher child poverty for millions and lower taxes for the better off”.

 

Renewables

 

At PMQs David Cameron argued for a No vote on basis that “…when it comes to vital industries like green technology, the combination of a green investment bank sponsored by the United Kingdom Government and the many natural advantages that there are in Scotland can make this a great industry for people in Scotland—but we will do that only if we keep our country together”.  

 

On 7 April 2014 Energy and Climate Change Secretary Edward Davey said: “The broad shoulders of the United Kingdom is unlocking the power of Scotland to take its place as one of the world’s great energy hubs – generating energy and generating jobs”.  

 

On 18 June 2015, after the referendum, the BBC reported: “Scotland could lose £3bn in investment because of a UK government decision to exclude new onshore wind farms from a subsidy scheme a year earlier than planned, an industry body has said.”  

 

Carbon capture

 

Before the referendum, the UK Government stated: “Scotland benefits from other competitions and grants provided by the UK Government and the wider UK consumer and tax base, such as a programme to support the commercialisation of carbon capture and storage”

 

This commitment to a £1billion investment in CCS was also set out in the Conservative’s 2015 manifesto.  

 

The UK Government cancelled this investment six months before it was due to be awarded. Peterhead power station was one of two projects bidding for the investment.

 

EVEL

 

Before the referendum, Scotland was told that we were an equal part of the UK ‘family of nations’ and were urged to ‘lead not leave’ the UK.

 

The morning after the referendum David Cameron announced English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) – creating the situation where Scottish MPs cannot properly consider the ‘Barnett consequentials’ on legislation deemed English only.

 

 

 

 

 

All true

 

Yet NS still chasing after Jeremy telling him Scotland will support Labour

 

Go figure ??

[oaksoft]

4 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:

Some of the No campaign’s broken promises 

 

The EU

 

During the referendum, the Better Together website said: “Scotland enjoys membership of the EU because of our membership of the UK and if we no longer are members of the UK then it follows that we are no longer are part of the EU.”

 

In a televised STV debate on 2 September 2014, Ruth Davidson said: “I think it is disingenuous of Patrick [Harvie] to say that No means out and Yes means in, when actually the opposite is true. No means we stay in, we are members of the European Union.”

 

Better Together tweeted saying:

 

What is process for removing our EU citizenship? Voting yes. #scotdecides

 

— Better Together (@UK_Together) September 2, 2014

 

Now, Scotland faces being dragged out of the EU against our will in the aftermath of the UK’s vote for Brexit.

 

“Extensive” new powers

 

As part of “the Vow”, the then three Westminster party leaders promised “extensive new powers” for the Scottish Parliament.

 

What they legislated for left decisions about 70 per cent of Scottish taxes and 85 per cent of current UK welfare spending in Scotland in the hands of the Westminster government.

 

The STUC and numerous third sector groups expressed disappointment at the limitations of what was finally legislated for.

 

The Scottish Parliament’s cross-party Devolution Committee said that the Scotland Bill “falls short” in “critical areas”.

 

A YouGov poll in September 2015 found only 9 per cent of people in Scotland believe that the promise of “extensive new powers” was delivered in full.

 

Barnett Formula

 

“The Vow” clearly promised “the continuation of the Barnett allocation for resources”.

 

In the aftermath of the Brexit vote, fresh suggestions are being raised by the Tory-right wing and others about cutting Scotland’s budget further.

 

Brexit campaigner Lord Owen called for a vote to Leave the EU to be used as an excuse to axe the Barnett Formula, while Tory MEP David Bannerman tweeted that a “new Brexit Government should suspend the Barnett formula for Scotland” – raising the spectre of cuts to Scotland’s budget.

 

Tory leadership candidate Michael Gove has again raised the prospect of axing the Barnett Formula.

 

Shipbuilding

 

Before the referendum, the No campaign said jobs in shipyards would be under threat if there was a Yes vote. One leaflet said “Separation Shuts Shipyards” and made the promise that “Govan and Scotstoun will get the order for 13 Type-26 frigates from the Royal Navy”.

 

Better Together tweeted that a No vote would “ensure the future of Scotland’s shipbuilding industry.”

 

By working together as a part of the UK we can ensure the future of Scotland’s shipbuilding industry. http://t.co/5spNAmqj7F #indyref

 

— Better Together (@UK_Together) June 14, 2013

 

However, on 7 November 2015, the Scotsman reported that the programme could be slashed because funding was required to pay for Trident.

 

On 23 November 2015, the UK Government announced the number of frigates would be reduced from thirteen to eight.

 

And, it has since been reported that the works are to be delayed even further.

 

Public sector jobs

 

Before the referendum, the Scotland Office issued a press release boasting that the UK Government protects civil service jobs in Scotland.

 

Information from the Scottish Parliament Information Centre, published this year, shows that between 2011 and 2015, there has been a greater fall in UK Civil Service employment in Scotland than in any other UK nation – falling by 17.5 per cent in Scotland, compared to 12.4 per cent in England, 9.3 per cent in Wales and 16.1 per cent in Northern Ireland.

 

Before the referendum it was claimed that, within the UK, HMRC delivered a ‘jobs dividend’ in Scotland.

 

The UK Government has since announced closure of HMRC offices – risking over 2,000 Scottish jobs.

 

Social security

 

Before the referendum, the No campaign stated that “we are better placed to support the most vulnerable in Scotland” with a No vote.

 

As part of his July 2015 budget, George Osborne announced £12 billion cuts and changes to welfare and benefits. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) said the budget was an attack on the poorest and most vulnerable people in communities and that the Chancellor was “demonstrating a cruel disregard for the impact this will have on hundreds of thousands of people’s lives”. The Child Poverty Action Group said the budget cuts damaged economic security of working families “with higher child poverty for millions and lower taxes for the better off”.

 

Renewables

 

At PMQs David Cameron argued for a No vote on basis that “…when it comes to vital industries like green technology, the combination of a green investment bank sponsored by the United Kingdom Government and the many natural advantages that there are in Scotland can make this a great industry for people in Scotland—but we will do that only if we keep our country together”.  

 

On 7 April 2014 Energy and Climate Change Secretary Edward Davey said: “The broad shoulders of the United Kingdom is unlocking the power of Scotland to take its place as one of the world’s great energy hubs – generating energy and generating jobs”.  

 

On 18 June 2015, after the referendum, the BBC reported: “Scotland could lose £3bn in investment because of a UK government decision to exclude new onshore wind farms from a subsidy scheme a year earlier than planned, an industry body has said.”  

 

Carbon capture

 

Before the referendum, the UK Government stated: “Scotland benefits from other competitions and grants provided by the UK Government and the wider UK consumer and tax base, such as a programme to support the commercialisation of carbon capture and storage”

 

This commitment to a £1billion investment in CCS was also set out in the Conservative’s 2015 manifesto.  

 

The UK Government cancelled this investment six months before it was due to be awarded. Peterhead power station was one of two projects bidding for the investment.

 

EVEL

 

Before the referendum, Scotland was told that we were an equal part of the UK ‘family of nations’ and were urged to ‘lead not leave’ the UK.

 

The morning after the referendum David Cameron announced English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) – creating the situation where Scottish MPs cannot properly consider the ‘Barnett consequentials’ on legislation deemed English only.

 

 

 

 

 

OK I read your first bit about the EU "lies" and I switched off.

If this is the level of your debate then I'm out.

[billyg]

I see Leadsom is calling out Bercow's impartiality after he dared to uphold the sovereignty of parliament yesterday. They are so entrenched now that they are prepared to take anyone they can down with them.

[salmonbuddie]

OK I read your first bit about the EU "lies" and I switched off.
If this is the level of your debate then I'm out.

I probably posted those the wrong way round, read the shipbuilding one by The Ferret first, then the others.

There's a very fine line between a broken promise and a lie.

[salmonbuddie]

All true
 
Yet NS still chasing after Jeremy telling him Scotland will support Labour
 
Go figure ??

That's politics for you, let's see where it ends up.

[DougJamie]

18 minutes ago, salmonbuddie said:

33 minutes ago, DougJamie said:

All true
 
Yet NS still chasing after Jeremy telling him Scotland will support Labour
 
Go figure ??

That's politics for you, let's see where it ends up.

My biggest concern here, all along, is Humpty Dumpty Corbyn........................

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, salmonbuddie said:

I probably posted those the wrong way round, read the shipbuilding one by The Ferret first, then the others.

There's a very fine line between a broken promise and a lie.

I don't see any lies anywhere because I don't recall any cast iron solid promises ever being made.

BTW, you list promises by Better Together and then you talk about those promises being broken by either Labour or the Tories. Just like Yes wasn't the SNP, BT weren't either Labour or Tory.

The shipbuilding thing is a good example. You cannot make solid guarantees about anything in real life because you become a hostage to fortune. People understand that politicians are saying that remaining in the UK gave us the best chance of saving those jobs. It looks like a lie and perhaps individual politicians were saying things they couldn't back up but the BT campaign wasn't guaranteeing anything. That's where the line is.

Of course when Indyref2 comes along Yes will play this card and remind voters of what happened in those scenarios. It will certainly persuade some to vote Yes next time. The nuance will be lost but if it wins a battle you use the tactic.

Edited December 11, 2018 by oaksoft

[The Original 59er]

In terms of going back to the EU....................

In almost everything the EU deals with you have to accept the cards you are dealt with and in the main, they hold a much better hand than any of the individual countries. So in terms of negotiating with the EU they tend to take a pretty rigid line.

What Mrs May has tried to do is find the line of least resistance and that, whilst acceptable to the EU leaders is not acceptable to the MP's who represent the individuals in the UK.

It's pretty obvious that Mrs May doesn't play cards, and in particular poker, or bridge. She doesn't quite know when to fold, bluff or finesse and as a result her opponent is walking all over her. Of course they are going to say there is no movement in their position and that she will find no room to manoeuvre.  Ireland in particular are playing politics as they are trying to play the long game and essentially separate Northern Ireland off and make them one whole island nation and of course the UK government really shouldn't be that daft to allow it to happen, but essentially they are.

The only way for her to deal with the EU is say; "ok no deal, we're off, we wanted a deal but what you offer isn't going to work and that is unfortunate, but that's life and your various countries that want to trade with us will now have to go through hoops and taxes in order to deal with us". 

I wonder if the multitude of businesses in the EU that undoubtedly benefit from trading in the UK will allow them to do just that?

[salmonbuddie]

I don't see any lies anywhere because I don't recall any cast iron solid promises ever being made.
BTW, you list promises by Better Together and then you talk about those promises being broken by either Labour or the Tories. Just like Yes wasn't the SNP, BT weren't either Labour or Tory.
The shipbuilding thing is a good example. You cannot make solid guarantees about anything in real life because you become a hostage to fortune. People understand that politicians are saying that remaining in the UK gave us the best chance of saving those jobs. It looks like a lie and perhaps individual politicians were saying things they couldn't back up but the BT campaign wasn't guaranteeing anything. That's where the line is.
Of course when Indyref2 comes along Yes will play this card and remind voters of what happened in those scenarios. It will certainly persuade some to vote Yes next time. The nuance will be lost but if it wins a battle you use the tactic.

Read the article by The Ferret.

Personally, I didn't believe that line for one minute but many did, and they also believed The Vow and that voting No would keep us in the EU. As someone said a while back - based on an Italian saying, I believe, so very apt - "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." Let's see how many are shamed second time around.

[oaksoft]

11 minutes ago, salmonbuddie said:

 

 

Read the article by The Ferret.

Personally, I didn't believe that line for one minute but many did, and they also believed The Vow and that voting No would keep us in the EU. As someone said a while back - based on an Italian saying, I believe, so very apt - "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." Let's see how many are shamed second time around.

I don't have time to research this myself but a quick look shows that Hammond said the following in Parliament:

"The programme for Type 26 envisaged 13 frigates being ordered. It is likely that the fleet will be split, as the current frigate fleet is split, but no final decision has yet been made."

 

Another quote:

"A Scottish Affairs Committee report in January 2013 concluded: “If the result is a ‘No’ vote, we believe that the [Type 26] work will be carried out on the Clyde.”

 

Those two bits in bold and underlined are enough for me. There was no cast iron guarantee as far as I can see.

Sorry, I don't have time to dig further.

Edited December 11, 2018 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

13 minutes ago, salmonbuddie said:

Personally, I didn't believe that line for one minute but many did, and they also believed The Vow and that voting No would keep us in the EU. As someone said a while back - based on an Italian saying, I believe, so very apt - "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." Let's see how many are shamed second time around.

Voting No DID keep us in the EU. We had plenty of warnings from EU countries that we'd be leaving if we voted Yes.

It wasn't voting No which got us kicked out. It was the subsequent Leave vote which appears to be doing that. Everyone knew that EU vote was just around the corner when they voted in IndyRef. So where is the lie?

I should also point out that technically we haven't actually left the EU yet.

Edited December 11, 2018 by oaksoft

[Bud the Baker]

14 hours ago, oaksoft said:

I'm trying to get to the bottom of why you are talking about lies. For that you need a specific proposal which was never intended to be genuinely allowed.

Above, you've given me vague stuff.

Which specific powers were we promised which were reneged on?

 

I see salmonbuddie has already done a cut & paste job above but I'll add mine - maybe "lies'" was a bit strong "bad faith" is closer so I'll amend my original quote to "circumstances or bad faith". 

Quote

Why is the SNP unhappy?

We asked the party for a list of its outstanding concerns about the Scotland Bill. Five of them concern welfare:

• The UK Government would have an effective “veto” over changes to Universal Credit and other parts of the welfare system
• The Smith recommendation for a power to create new benefits in devolved areas is “incredibly limited”
• The ability to top up reserved benefits has been watered down
• The Scottish Parliament would be prevented from creating additional benefits
• There are  “unwarranted restrictions” on carers’ benefits

Two of the objections relate to employment:

• The Bill limits the Scottish Parliament’s competency on services for disabled people and those at risk of long-term unemployment
• It won’t hand over control of all employment support services delivered by the Department of Work and Pensions, as promised

The final objection concerns the Sewel Convention, which states: “Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish parliament”.

The Smith agreement says this principle should “be put on a statutory footing”. But the SNP says:

• The Sewel Convention has not been put on statutory footing in the legislation, as Smith proposed – rather the existence of the convention is simply recognised.

 The part highlighted in red is especially important in respect to the current Brexit process as it allows Westminster to grab back powers devolved from the EU which the party believe should rightfully be return to  the Scottish Hollyrood.

Quote

What is the Scottish EU Continuity Bill?

The Scottish Government is introducing the Scottish EU Continuity Bill to ensure devolution is protected and laws in Scotland will work properly after Brexit.

It is necessary because the UK Withdrawal Bill, currently making its way through Westminster, undermines the founding principles of devolution and dilutes the powers of the Scottish Parliament.

The UK Withdrawal Bill will: repeal the law governing the UK’s membership of the EU; establish current EU laws as UK law; and ensure powers held by the EU can be exercised in the UK.

Some EU powers – like support for farmers, control of our seas or food standards – fall within areas that have been the responsibility of Holyrood since 1999.

The UK Withdrawal Bill makes a grab for these powers, returning them to Westminster not Holyrood.

And it stops MSPs passing laws in some existing devolved areas, allowing UK Ministers to make changes in these areas without any Scottish Parliament involvement.

That means that if the UK government’s price for a trade deal with the United States is a reduction in environmental standards, accepting chlorinated chicken imports, or even opening up our NHS to privatisation, the Scottish Parliament could have no say at all.

 

[Bud the Baker]

1 hour ago, salmonbuddie said:

 

 

Read the article by The Ferret.

Personally, I didn't believe that line for one minute but many did, and they also believed The Vow and that voting No would keep us in the EU. As someone said a while back - based on an Italian saying, I believe, so very apt - "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." Let's see how many are shamed second time around.

 

Not Italian - Russian!

 

[salmonbuddie]

I don't have time to research this myself but a quick look shows that Hammond said the following in Parliament:
"The programme for Type 26 envisaged 13 frigates being ordered. It is likely that the fleet will be split, as the current frigate fleet is split, but no final decision has yet been made."
 
Another quote:
"A Scottish Affairs Committee report in January 2013 concluded: “If the result is a ‘No’ vote, we believe that the [Type 26] work will be carried out on the Clyde.”
 
Those two bits in bold and underlined are enough for me. There was no cast iron guarantee as far as I can see.
Sorry, I don't have time to dig further.

Voting No DID keep us in the EU. We had plenty of warnings from EU countries that we'd be leaving if we voted Yes.
It wasn't voting No which got us kicked out. It was the subsequent Leave vote which appears to be doing that. Everyone knew that EU vote was just around the corner when they voted in IndyRef. So where is the lie?
I should also point out that technically we haven't actually left the EU yet.

As I said elsewhere, there's a very, very fine line between a broken promise and a lie. So fine that it's not worth debating.

There were no such warnings from EU countries, oaky, only suggestions. There were an equal number of suggestions that we'd be fine.

Voting Yes may or may not have got us kicked out of the EU - personally, I doubt it very much, common sense tells you that the EU would want Scotland in - but we can't know that. What we do know is that voting No will (probably) result in us leaving.

[salmonbuddie]

Not Italian - Russian!
 

Silly me for going with History.org when Star Trek was available!

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Yes they do, the Labour party is exactly the same as the Tory party now. Fractured .
Do you work for the Daily Star ?
 
You should  [emoji38]

Eh?

[saintnextlifetime]

11 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:

 

 

Read the article by The Ferret.

Personally, I didn't believe that line for one minute but many did, and they also believed The Vow and that voting No would keep us in the EU. As someone said a while back - based on an Italian saying, I believe, so very apt - "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." Let's see how many are shamed second time around.

 

I didn't believe any of it at the time but as far as the EU is concerned no one could have predicted that leave would win . At the time l didn't think Cameron would honour his commitment to have the leave referendum.  

I do think that if we had left the UK then that would have meant NS applying for EU membership.  I doubt she would have called a referendum for that but we shall never find out now. .

[oaksoft]

9 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:

As I said elsewhere, there's a very, very fine line between a broken promise and a lie. So fine that it's not worth debating.

There were no such warnings from EU countries, oaky, only suggestions. There were an equal number of suggestions that we'd be fine.

Voting Yes may or may not have got us kicked out of the EU - personally, I doubt it very much, common sense tells you that the EU would want Scotland in - but we can't know that. What we do know is that voting No will (probably) result in us leaving.

I think the Spanish guy (Manuel Barossa?) made it pretty clear we'd have a problem.

I have no idea why you are insisting it was the No vote which kicked us out of the EU. It was the Leave win that virtually nobody predicted which did that. At the time of Indyref, Remain was so far ahead that it was entirely reasonable to assume it would win and that we wouldn't be having the shitstorm that is going down at the moment.

Sounds like she is being summoned by the 1922 committee chairman tomorrow. If she goes, what happens next is anyone's guess.

[salmonbuddie]

I think the Spanish guy (Manuel Barossa?) made it pretty clear we'd have a problem.
I have no idea why you are insisting it was the No vote which kicked us out of the EU. It was the Leave win that virtually nobody predicted which did that. At the time of Indyref, Remain was so far ahead that it was entirely reasonable to assume it would win and that we wouldn't be having the shitstorm that is going down at the moment.
Sounds like she is being summoned by the 1922 committee chairman tomorrow. If she goes, what happens next is anyone's guess.

One man's opinion, not the Spanish Government's, oaky. There were many others in similar positions who disagreed.

If you can't follow the logical progression from No to leaving the EU there's no point in debating it any further.

I said immediately after Indyref1 that we would be taken out of the EU and that Boris would end up as PM. Let's see what comes next.

[shull]

Leadership challenge is on.

Boris for Prime Minister 

[saintnextlifetime]

2 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:

 

 

One man's opinion, not the Spanish Government's, oaky. There were many others in similar positions who disagreed.

If you can't follow the logical progression from No to leaving the EU there's no point in debating it any further.

I said immediately after Indyref1 that we would be taken out of the EU and that Boris would end up as PM. Let's see what comes next.

 

Boris getting the gig seems hard to believe but l found it hard to believe he would get mayor of London too.  .

. .plus he seems to have much in common with Donald.