Headlining from BBC Wales Politics today:
Boris Johnson thought it was “wrong” for the prime minister to hold regular meetings with Mark Drakeford and Nicola Sturgeon during the pandemic.
The comments have been revealed in his evidence to the Covid inquiry. Wales’ first minister had been frustrated at the number of meetings he had with the Westminster government. But Mr Johnson feared working closely with first ministers could make the UK look like a “mini-EU of four nations”.
“That is not, in my view, how devolution is supposed to work,” he said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-67076592
From BBC Scotland today, 7 stories about Labour and not a word on this damning indictment of the Union.
Regular readers will see little new here but for much more evidence the superiority of on BBC Wales see: https://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/?s=BBC+Wales
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
He thought the UK would look like ”a mini-Eu of four nations ”- Duh !
It is you buffoon !!!
LikeLiked by 4 people
If only it was, EU countries have some say in how they are governed, whereas Scotland is effectively controlled by another country and has virtually no power in stopping that country from imposing any law it wants. Controlled by a party that to my knowledge has never won an election in Scotland in its history (the Conservatives did not win in Scotland in 1954, it was unionists).
LikeLiked by 5 people
Attending meetings with anyone wasn’t exactly BoJo’s forte. The rate at which he missed COBRA meetings made me think that he was frightened of snakes…
LikeLiked by 2 people
oh come on, Bozo was a very busy man back in the darkest of covid days,
redecorating his flat, that only cost £200,000, with the gold wallpaper from Lulu a highlight, and definitely something to SHOUT about.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I wonder how quickly that got torn off
LikeLiked by 1 person
I also noted some other things in the BBC Wales’ report on Johnson’s evidence to the Covid Inquiry (with my emphasis and remarks):
‘Boris Johnson’s believed that the divergence in policies between the four nations became “a growing PRESENTATIONAL PROBLEM”.’ – but it seems he did not wish to avoid this ‘problem’ by even attempting consensus building!
The BBC article goes on: ‘In his written testimony, he said he REGRETS NOT USING CIVIL CONTINGENCIES LEGISLATION rather than public health legislation for Covid laws. This would mean that only the UK government could have decided on the rules around Covid, PREVENTING THE DEVOLVED GOVERNMENTS FROM pursuing their own policies.’
– in effect ‘if I can’t persuade by force of my reasoned argument and evidence, I will use the force of the legal/constitutional powers vested in my government in Westminster to compel compliance with my way!’
‘He says there was “always A RISK” that the devolved governments “WOULD DIVERGE and choose a more restrictive measure, or one that was perhaps DIFFERENT FOR THE SAKE OF being different”.
– devolved governments accountable to democratically-elected devolved parliaments diverging – in the absence of aUK-wide process of consensus building – to better address the dangers facing their nation and its people – ‘how outrageous’! And there’s more: the implication here is that those First Ministers, unlike the wholly ethical UK Prime Minister, can’t be trusted not to play politics!
And: “It is OPTICALLY WRONG, in the first place, for the UK prime minister TO HOLD REGULAR MEETINGS WITH OTHER DA FIRST MINISTERS, as though the UK were a kind of mini-EU of four nations and we were meeting as a ‘council’ in a federal structure’.
– English/British exceptionalism writ large – we’re in charge and you need to remember that or else! Does that attitude of superiority extend beyond Covid? Will it extend beyond the practice of a Tory PM to a PM from another party too?
As I understand it, the key ‘benefit’ of using the Civil Contingencies Act is that IT ALLOWS THE UK GOVERNMENT TO INTRODUCE NEW LAWS WITHIN HOURS WITHOUT THE NEED FOR PRIOR PARLIAMENTARY APPROVAL. The involvement of the Westminster Parliament is then to decide whether these emergency laws should be continued. But only the Westminster Parliament, the one with its built in huge majority of MPs elected in English constituencies.
So Civil Contingency powers can be exercised in order to over-rule or prevent ‘divergence’ judged as appropriate by a Scottish Government and Holyrood Parliament elected by voters in Scotland, and exercised by the next Tory PM – by Suella Braverman or similar perhaps? What a comforting prospect for one’s children and grandchildren!
LikeLiked by 6 people
Thanks Stewart, you’ve highlighted some of the key points which had me lost for words in my rage. Also worth noting Alasdair jack’s comment about the fear of Nicola grandstanding
Brobb
LikeLiked by 3 people
It speaks volumes of Johnson to be concerned about the ‘optics’ with a civil emergency on his hands, but in that context, this was chilling –
‘He says there was “always A RISK” that the devolved governments “WOULD DIVERGE and choose a more restrictive measure, or one that was perhaps DIFFERENT FOR THE SAKE OF being different”.
His attitude to divergence is beyond myopic, it’s fundamentally dangerous – What better way to find out if there is a better way of doing things than by embracing divergence from which the others can learn and adapt to in a situation none have encountered before, eg ‘locking down’ early.
I’m minded of the SG Covid Team coming up with the small freezer solution to enable small batches of the vaccine to be rolled out to PRIORITY Care Homes etc faster across Scotland, saving countless lives in the process by starting with the most vulnerable.
Johnson went against the advisory body’s recommended priorities solely to maximise numbers so he could crow about SG falling behind – Again the optics…
So who was being different for the sake of being different ?
Johnson should be tried and imprisoned for sacrificing so many for the sake of his almighty ego, but I doubt the Covid Inquiry will recommend it…
LikeLiked by 1 person
“‘He says there was “always A RISK” that the devolved governments “WOULD DIVERGE and choose a more restrictive measure”
As opposed to what he, Johnson, did ( or rather didn’t do) in that he did not, initially, act fast enough and even downplayed the risk by him saying “I was at a hospital where there were a few coronavirus patients and I shook hands with everybody”…..not so much spreading the word but spreading the virus OMG…..
Then we had the ‘mixed messaging’ via Tory ministers and also via him , Johnson , in them not knowing what their own CURRENT rules were on Covid restrictions…..and their Health Secretary Matt Hancock deciding it was okay for him to have a ‘close encounter’ during one of these Covid restrictions with his then female ‘aide’ (now girlfriend) which was certainly a “divergence” from what the public expected from one of those who MADE the bleedin rules during Covid lockdowns….and then he and also other Tories expecting the public to adhere to those SAME rules imposed by them as UK Govt. !!
Then we had the Dominic Cummings pantomime and then #PartyGate…..
I expect there to be MORE pages in this Covid inquiry report and the UK government’s role, including Johnson, than there are pages in the book War and Peace !
You are right Bob in highlighting that for Johnson the “optics” were more significant for him than actually doing the right thing via following an appropriate and effective process that ensured best practice was adopted to save lives ….instead he , like his colleagues here in Scotland , are more concerned with playing politics which in turn results in them playing politics with people’s actual lives…..not exclusive to Covid either but also includes OTHER serious issues such as Drugs , poverty, climate emergency and too significant damaging policies that are created to disadvantage the many in order to benefit the (wealthy Tory Donor) Few……
LikeLiked by 3 people
A further contrast on the Welsh/Politics page is time – Articles in hours up to 1 day old, as opposed to days with the aid of a Tardis.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well-spotted on it
LikeLiked by 1 person
is it inefficiency or of agenda though? This, for instance doesnt get mentioned on Misreporting Scotland (or even Scotland Today) because it is ‘not interesting’ in terms of the agenda followed. Or another “for instance” – why is this highlighted in The National by one of their political team, but only well down the page by the Herald, written (no harm to the lad) by a journalistic foot soldier whose piece reads very much like a rehash of the BBC Wales story.
One last thought, commenting on the Nazis treatment of the Jews, the journalist Dorothy Thomson said this happened not because of anything the Jews had done, but because of who they were.
Similarly one of the pressures put on the Scottish Parliament just before 1707 was the Aliens Act in England, after many years when migration from Scotland was passively allowed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wonder why he didn’t show the same restraint when dealing with the Ukrainian President?
Boris Johnson spent so much time there that others could have thought that the Ukraine was an equal partner in the UK .
LikeLiked by 2 people
BBC Scotland Laid Bare.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Based on track record, we can expect BBC Scotland to rival – nay, exceed – BBC Wales in giving prominence to Covid Inquiry evidence when any indication of a negative regarding Scottish Government action/inaction emerges. Baillie and Gulhane at the ready?
When such a negative emerges, on that day, regardless of the actuality, ferry ‘issues’ will be de-prioritised by BBC Scotland: and if it emerges from the Inquiry on a Monday or Tuesday, A&E waiting times in NHS Scotland, regardless of the actuality, will be ignored too.
Nothing on that day will be allowed to distract from taking the valuable opportunity of a ‘novel’ negative on an important topic: one that is especially valuable when it can help counter negatives that can’t be ignored about the Union government’s handling of Covid.
Better together demonstrated by being flawed together – or some such strange logic?
LikeLiked by 1 person
quite so John. Ailsa Henderson’s comment is worthy of observation as well. She is quoted as saying
“there was a “fear of federalism, there is a fear of leaks”, that the UK government perceived a “self-serving nature to the motives of the devolved administrations”.
She said the minutes of the meeting of UK government ministers was “the most remarkable document I have read in a number of years”
This is getting very close to “othering” – to view or treat (a person or group of people) as intrinsically different from and alien to oneself, which is the start of discrimination. Yet there is little evidence to support their claim. I mean Johnson’s govt was hardly leak free. more like a colander – ie the claims they make about the devolved administrations are more true of them.
It is also cynical – generally Nicola Sturgeon has been highly praised for her communication with Scotland during the pandemic. Of course for this she was criticised. The Unionists insisted on the right of reply after her daily briefing. Certainly they might not share her view and have the right to say so, but there is still the pong that she was in their view doing it too well and could not be allowed to do this. Its still like Foulkes’ infamous “yes, but they’re doing it deliberately”.
LikeLiked by 1 person