Alasdair Galloway
This morning well-known Union supporting Denis Forbes Grattan’s letter appeared in the Herald. It reads
“THE Deposit Return Scheme is now only fit for the bin as major drinks and brewing companies describe the scheme as totally unworkable.
The scheme has great potential for recycling and litter control but simply won’t work in the UK national distribution system unless it is adopted by the entire UK.”
Is there not something of a contradiction between the two paragraphs? The first condemns the scheme pretty comprehensively – “only fit for the bin” and “totally unworkable”. Yet in the next breath Mr Grattan claims it “has great potential for recycling and litter control”. A scheme “only fit for the bin” has “great potential for litter control”.
Talk about facing both ways at the same time! So, what’s the problem? It is that the scheme “simply won’t work in the UK national distribution system unless it is adopted by the entire UK”.
This is pure British Internal Market. For the UK market to work there must be similar regulations in all parts of the UK is Grattans’s argument. So where does that leave devolution? You Scots can do what you want as long as its consistent with what is happening elsewhere the UK (particularly England).
What does it mean for devolution? Pursuing the above logically, as it seems initiatives can come from only one place which isn’t any of the devolved administration, so what is the point?
Nor is this the only instance. The GRA is becalmed (if that word can be used at anything surrounding that debate) by Alister Jack’s S35 initiative.
In his Commons statement, trying to justify his use of S35 on GRA, Jack made two particular comments
- That the GRA “would have a serious adverse impact among other things on the operation of the Equality Act 2010. The Scottish Government claim that they worked very hard so that this would not be the case.
- But more seriously, that “The Government shares the concerns of many members of the public and civic society groups regarding the potential impact of the Bill on women and girls.” In other words, in the view of Alister Jack at Westminster, it is being blocked because they consider the decision of the Scottish Parliament – supported by members of every party, even the Conservatives – to be ‘bad law’.
The former is a technical matter, though there is a considerable body of legal opinion that any case Westminster might put up has little chance of success. It is though the latter which is most worrying, as while the former may be a technical matter (or at least, so it can be argued), but this is a matter of opinion, and, it appears where opinion differs between the Westminster and Edinburgh governments the former will always win because they control s35.
One last point. I said above “there must be similar regulations in all parts of the UK”, though formally the regulations of each government must be respected by the other UK governments, it appears that this wont necessarily be the case. For instance, one argument has been that if Westminster ordains lesser food standards for England, then food produced to those standards can be sold in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
But let’s look at this another way. Suppose Scotland draws up regulations mirroring the standards of the EU, which may very well be higher than those put in place by a Westminster government. In his statement re the GRA, Jack said “The [GRA] Bill also risks creating significant complications from having two different gender recognition regimes in the UK”. Could it not be said that two (or more!) sets of food standards in place in the UK would likewise create “significant complications”.
One of the (many) criticisms raced by the Internal Market Act, concerned mutual recognition. However the reaction of the Westminster government to the GRA and the recycling scheme does at the very least suggest that this would be the least of our difficulties. That it won’t be about recognising the deeds of others, but of going along with them.
At the moment this is conjecture, but it’s a bit late to complain when/if these things start to happen.
Talking-up Scotland / Scottish media fact checking is like shooting fish in a barrel 
Waste of time trying to find ”justification” or identify the lack of logic in opposition to SNP /Scottish Government initiatives from unionist letter-writers/Union Jack – it is simply the knee-jerk SNPbaaaaad !!!
LikeLiked by 3 people
The UK Government – and this will include any incoming Labour Government – operates on the Henry Ford ‘choice’: “You can have any colour as long as it is black”.
We are moving to the situation where the devolved governments of Northern Ireland (when the DUP allows it to have one), Scotland and Wales can make any laws they like as long as they are UK ones.
LikeLiked by 4 people
So business and opposition parties insist Scotland can only have a Deposit Return Scheme if it is UK wide, whereas in Belgium..
https://recyclingnetwerk.org/en/2022/08/30/belgian-citys-pilot-with-deposits-on-bottles-and-cans-is-a-clear-success/
“The deposit on bottles and cans shows itself as an effective measure against litter. The pilot project ran for a full month from 15 July to 15 August 2022. In Bredene, the Twins Club and beach bars sold their plastic bottles and cans with an additional 0.20€ deposit, clearly visible thanks to a sticker placed on them. Consumers could then manually return the packaging and redeem their deposit at each of the three locations which would then put the empty packaging in a box. Simple and effective.”
Belgium piloted different schemes..
https://www.bottlebill.org/index.php/current-and-proposed-laws/worldwide/belgium
“Although there is no national mandatory deposit scheme, the Wallonia and Brussels Capital Region both have pilot deposit schemes. The Wallonia pilot, which began in 2018, tests out collection by both reverse vending machine (RVM) and manual collection, putting a 5-cent deposit on cans. The Brussels pilot, beginning in 2019, extends to both cans and plastic bottles. The Flanders government ruled in 2019 that they would not implement a deposit system until 2023 at the earliest, with municipalities allowed to run their own test programs.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Westminster is destroying devolution. We have only two options in our future. Dissolve Holyrood or win independence. It’s an existential choice. Dissolution would see Scotland gradually slide into a “Greater England” as Wales has largely done, eventually becoming little more than a Northumberland, East Anglia or Mercia; independence would see Scotland continue to exist as a viable entity in its own right. The union, stung by devolution, will not allow that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Whereas I agree the current Westminster mafia look set on destroying devolution against the wishes of the electorate, it is in reality “democracy” they seek to destroy to ensure monopoly.
As per Alisdair’s excellent analogy above “You can have any colour as long as it is black” – What political choice do the 60% in England have in favour of Scots holding Indyref2, or reversing Brexit, or bringing in PR to elections, of restoring integrity to Parliament, when both main parties turn a deaf ear ?
The UK is headed for an existential crisis politically and economically.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Hundreds of Unionists celebrate in George square” assert the colonial press.
But the pictures show only a couple of dozen.
“Shy” Brit Nats?
Or just media lies?
LikeLiked by 3 people
The latter obviously…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nicola back footing the unionists.
Resigned as leader. Still there to help.
Baillie complaining about life expectancy going down.
In the South. Austerity caused by ConDems. Westminster supported by Baillie. Paid by Labour Party in Westminster central, and Scottish taxpayers to insult.
The deaths of the illegal wars, financial fraud and tax evasion. Labour. Cost £Trillions. Imposed on Scotland by Labour
Brexit costing £Billions. EU contribution £4Billion a year. EU grants & loans. Cap payment keeping costs down gone. Shared EU defence costs saved £Billions. Labour failure. Condem failure. Cut NHS, Education and welfare for the vulnerable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not Grattan again. Endless.
A Labour supporter from Bucksburn. Obsessed. Notorious. Never give up. Give it a rest. Well known for nonsense.
One of the few left. The Labour Party is definitely not LEFT wing. Red Tories.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicola back footing the unionists.
Resigned as leader. Still there to help.
Baillie complaining about life expectancy going down.
In the South. Austerity caused by ConDems. Westminster supported by Baillie. Paid by Labour Party in Westminster central, and Scottish taxpayers to insult.
The deaths of the illegal wars, financial fraud and tax evasion. Labour. Cost £Trillions. Imposed on Scotland by Labour
Brexit costing £Billions. EU contribution £4Billion a year. EU grants & loans. Cap payment keeping costs down gone. Shared EU defence costs saved £Billions. Labour failure. Condem failure. Cut NHS, Education and welfare for the vulnerable.
LikeLiked by 1 person