What could motivate the Tories to block the Scots vape ban?

Campaigner Laura Young was interviewed by the National yesterday:

Young, who is studying for a PhD looking at climate resilience, said she has been astounded at the speed Government officials have committed to act on the problem.

But she admitted she fears any Scottish attempt to prohibit the sale of disposable vapes could hit the buffers because of the UK Government’s recent record of blocking the Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) via the Internal Market Act.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/23776866.fears-uk-government-block-disposable-vape-ban-scotland/

What could motivate the Tories to do this?

The Conservatives have defended accepting a donation from the chief executive of a company accused of marketing vapes to children.

They accepted a £350,000 donation from Supreme 8 Limited in May, records show.

The boss of Supreme 8 is Sandy Chadha, who is also the chief executive of Supreme PLC, which markets vapes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66750824.amp

12 thoughts on “What could motivate the Tories to block the Scots vape ban?”

  3. Regardless of the “donations”, IMHO they will block the legislation just because they can.
    Muscular unionism is hard wired into this ukg despite the negative response to it shown in opinion polls

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

  4. Because all it needs is for the to believe that it “could have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters” and all that is needed is for the Secretary of State for Scotland to believe what his boss says, whatever that might be, it saves so much time and effort.
    Has any former Secretary of State for Scotland ever benefitted by disagreeing with his boss?

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  6. I too am grateful that your site exposes not only the story but perhaps what motivates certain actions NOT being taken by a specific party(s) as the UK government.

    Where policies NOT enforced by them as a party/government involve them maybe being compromised in their decision making via the vested interest of their specific donors…..it can also work in reverse as in policies being implemented which give both a financial and commercial benefit to their donors (and too, for them as a party, it means that they then will continue to get donations from said donor)….while us the public are a non consideration in the decisions being made by political parties and too UK governments via the policies they implement….

    I believe Peter Geoghegan’s latest book called ‘Democracy for Sale: Dark Money and Dirty Politics’ which I believe explains much about how politics in the UK operates now…..where he states that “The next UK general election will be the most expensive ever” and “British political donations are dominated by the rich.
    Wealthy donors get privileged access to policy makers, get to influence legislation, receive government contracts and honours”.

    So why then based on the above and too many other significant matters/issues would many of us in Scotland prefer to leave the UK….is it really then, as a position, so surprising , radical or such an enigma as some of our opposers promote it as being ?….I think not.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  8. Westminster will block any progressive legislation passed by Holyrood because England is fundamentally a Conservative country.
    This is why “British ” Labour is on the run from anything which might look lefty or woky.
    Mustn’t frighten English voters.
    If any progressive policies implented in Scotland are seen to be a success,then English voters might want some of that which simply won’t do.
    Just another reason why Westminster is desperate to hang onto Scotland.
    A successful social democratic country on it’s Northern border would cause seismic events in England which would not be to the benefit of right wing governments in London.
    Perhaps not quite as simple as that but pretty close.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  9. Probably doesn’t matter but Secretary of State for Scotland seems to have disappeared in my first sentence.
    “Because all it needs is for the SoSfS to believe that it… “

    Like

    Reply

  10. Re Mr Jamieson’s (reconstructed) comment:’Because all it needs is for the SoSfS to believe that it “could have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters”.

    I’d say ALL it needs is the SoSfS to believe it might have an adverse affect on the Scottish Government and its perceived effectiveness amongst voters simply because the present Scottish Government is supportive of Scottish independence. Or at least the SoSfS will act to prevent a positive effect on voters.

    And yes the Tory government will also block Holyrood legislation ‘because it can’ but too many voters in Scotland – those who vote for Unionist parties and those who don’t turn out to vote – are, regrettably, still content with this kind of power relationship!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  11. The Tories will be gone in six months. Not enough time to block anything. The Council could shut down the Vape shops. Health & Safety. The EU could ban the practice. The Vape guy is wasting the donation money. Unhealthy practise killing people.

    Like

    Reply

    1. ‘Close the vape shops’??? The media would go absolutely bonkers – jackbooted dictators of George Square! The Labour Party would fulminate about ‘the working man being denied his few pleasures’> There would be articles in the Scotsman about ‘County Lines’ gangs smuggling vapes into Scotland and impure vapes causing a wave of addiction in the COUNTRY THAT HAS THE HIGHEST DRUGS DEATH RATE IN THE WHOLE WORLD!

      Such radical thoughts could mean you might get a knock on the door in the night from MI5 and arrested as a subversive……. perhaps one who helped the escape from Wandsworth Prison of a ‘terror’ suspect, and lives in a country where someone has been arrested for spying for China.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment

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