Russia, the UK Internal Market, David Cameron, Ruth Davidson and an attack on the SNP

In the Evening Standard, readership 787 000, in February 2020, Ruth Davidson, or more likely a Tory adviser, is given a platform to misrepresent the Scottish Government and to defend the UK Internal Market.

It’s a sad appearance from the figure who once gained popularity among ‘remainer’ Londoners with her robust attacks on the current PM but will clearly do anything in her campaign for a place in the Lords.

The article, allegedly written by Davidson, is clearly just a free-ride in a large circulation free newspaper to promote the Johnson regime’s agenda and to take a swipe at the all-too-popular SNP.

Here’s the gist:

What the UK Government is seeking to do is ensure these outcomes across the UK. So something manufactured in Brent can be sold without issue in Bangor or Belfast, and that no politician anywhere can help a company or sector in one part of the UK in a way that damages companies elsewhere on these islands. The SNP has already called this a “power grab” and is cranking up the grievance machine. Expect to see a number of flushed and furious SNP talking heads on politics programmes in the coming days, echoing their leader who has called it “a blatant move to erode the powers of the Scottish Parliament in key areas”. It’s quite the charge. Especially regarding a Bill designed to make sure no one part of the country has an unfair advantage over another. And, as much as the SNP enjoy guerrilla politics — finding traps and ambushes with which to snipe away at Westminster — I fear they’re on less than firm footing.

Needless to say the article has no space to explain the Scottish Government’s reservations. The Institute for Government outlines them:

International trade is a reserved power. This means the UK government has exclusive responsibility for signing new trade deals by which the whole of the UK will be bound. The Scottish and Welsh governments have repeatedly complained about their lack of involvement in negotiations, but the UK government has yet to set out what role, if any, the devolved administrations will have in the process of agreeing new deals.

But the devolved administrations have responsibility for many of the areas – including controversial aspects such as food standards – that will be covered by any future deal. So, once the deals are concluded, there is a risk that the devolved administrations could refuse to implement parts of them.

So, on top of commons frameworks, the UK government wants to create enforceable legal protections for the internal market, with a white paper expected in the coming weeks and legislation in the autumn. This could see the creation of a separate body with the power to strike down any laws that it determined to be a threat to the internal market. It also proposes to borrow a concept from the EU – “mutual recognition of rules”. This would mean goods that meet English standards would have to be accepted in Scotland and Wales.

The UK government’s proposals will also have significant implications for devolution. The Scottish government is concerned that a statutory ‘test’, set out in UK law, would unduly constrain the powers of the Scottish parliament, as bills passed by the Scottish parliament could be blocked if they did not meet this test. 

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/uk-government-proposals-internal-market

The evening standard is owned by Alexander Lebedev and was until recently edited by George Osborne but is now edited by Emily Sheffield, sister-in-law of David Cameron.

Ah, doesn’t the UK’s free independent press, talking truth to power, make your heart swell with pride?

6 thoughts on “Russia, the UK Internal Market, David Cameron, Ruth Davidson and an attack on the SNP

  1. “designed to make sure no one part of the country has an unfair advantage over another”.

    Just at this moment, we are told that the UK government is in talks with TikTok to base its headquarters in London. This is the UK government presumably offering incentives to set up in one city—how is that not an “unfair advantage”?
    Perhaps Gov Generalissimo Hi Jack can tell us how many times a company has been offered/given an inducement by the UK government to set up in Scotland?

    What exactly, are the financial incentives being offered to TikTok and are they generally available as an inducement by the UK government?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Gavinochiltree
      TikTok has pulled out of talks to create their World HQ creating 3000+ jobs
      But you hear The ABC broadcasting that will other slip in a 5 second item on one or their more obscure channels and never tying it to any article assoc with Anglo Sino affairs

      Know thy Foe
      And i bloody do
      Because given the sabre rattling of Westminster, SORRY substitute Sabre
      With Kids Plastic Sword
      I regularly take a we look at the English speaking Chinese media
      I spy I spy with my little eye to know our foe and in this case Never was China the foe

      Liked by 1 person

    2. They call the ‘UK’ a ‘country’, it’s not.
      Also Scotland has been at a disadvantage for a very long time in the ‘country’. A minor matter (among a very many) of having £trillions worth of oil stolen from right underneath the feet of the people of Scotland. (‘poor’ Scotland).

      You could hardly make it up, but it’d make a great gangster heist film!

      Masks? The Britnat government should be wearing those robber eye masks, it would be most fitting.

      Like

  2. The UK government imagines it will be setting the lowest standards and that ends the matter. I think this is short-sighted and potentially gives devolved institutions a heck of a weapon.

    If, IF, a product or industry area can be found which has substantial presence in England, but almost nothing to do with Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, what stops these governments from attacking that sector or threatening to do so in order to block or retaliate against English standards which undermine those of the other countries?

    They can’t be so arrogant to ignore that possibility. Can they? Need to figure out what trick they’ll pull to prevent that and highlight the double standards.

    Like

  3. So the ‘UK’ really is a ‘country’, amazing. Quite disgusted at the er, ‘guerrilla politics’ line. Dangerous speak there, obviously deliberate. People can’t handle ‘radical’ nevermind ‘guerrilla’. Utter disgrace to use that term to describe Scotland’s democratically elected government.

    Lastly, Scotland is being conned, scammed, nothing new, but this time it’s even more sinister, given the English goverment hold most levers of power already. With Brexit, (Engexit) the ‘UK’ will be even more desperate to keep Scotland shackled. Our country is the Britnats’ real bargaining chip and it’s totally terrifying.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.