WHAT DID THE QUEEN TELL MURDO ABOUT HER FOOTBALL PREFERENCES?

The Three Brexiteers. 

In the last post Dean made some observations about Brexit and Scotland's reaction to it. 

In this post I'd like to look at Brexit and what our response might be. 

Firstly, I don't think we should ever give up on what we believe in. Brexit or no, many people simply believe that Scotland is best served being governed for itself, by itself, although clearly working with other countries in international organisations. 

The Brexit débacle may have swayed people in this in one direction or the other, of course.

Let's be clear, Brexit was, and is, made in a perfectly legal referendum decision, not an unreasonable aspiration. I don't knock anyone who believes in it.

Maybe because I see the four constituent members of the UK as separate countries with their own needs and economic and social realities, however, I think that any case that can be made for Brexit is far less compelling if you are from Scotland, or NI, or clearly, Gibraltar. London is rather different, given its status in the financial world. 

Different people in different countries were voting for different things. Northern Ireland for example, already marginalised by Great Britain, is worried that being outside the EU while the rest of Ireland is in it, will be damaging to its economy. It is also a recipient of a great deal of EU money which almost undoubtedly will not be forthcoming from the UK. Scotland, whilst not in the same category still profits from its membership of the EU.

One of the disturbing aspects of the Brexit campaign at least from the 'popular' press, and one that seemed to take root in England in particular, was a level of xenophobia, the likes of which I've never seen before. By heavens the editors of the Sun, Mail, Telegraph and Express seem to either have a visceral hatred for foreigners ... or have worked out that their readers do and from this they can make money. 

How to create a solid wall of hatred.

Of course I will never give up on the idea of independence for Scotland, but like most of us, I have had to accept the will of the Scottish people in a referendum in 2014, to stay in the UK.

But it's fair to say that that vote was based on some assurances, not least one propounded by British politicians of both colours (and probably the LDs) and the EU authorities, that the only way to stay in the EU was to stay in Britain. That Scots voted 62-38 to stay in Europe is a real indicator that that was something that may have influenced them in their 2014 decision.

Aye, Fluffy, whatever...

In any political campaign we know that people lie and politicians of every shade manipulate statistics and facts to their own advantage. Hard though it is for a normal person to understand Mr Mundell's volte face, I'm sure that he and his side are not the only ones to do this. 

Lord knows the NHS staff and some patients may well have been swayed by the implied benefit of £350 million a week from Boris, Nigel and crew.

No, we aren't really being served. But we're only Jocks, Irish, or Gibraltarians.

On our side (independence for Scotland), we have had "the settled will of the Scottish people" rammed fairly hard down our throats for some time. Fair enough. Certainly the politicians at the top, the FM, the cabinet and minister, accepted that, although they continue to work hard to persuade the Scottish people that they made the wrong choice (well the 55%). There's nothing unreasonable about that. You don't give up on a dream if at first you don't succeed. 

Had Nigel lost he wouldn't have said, "oh well, that's it, we'll abandon any hopes of coming out of Europe; I'll just learn French so that I don't have to shout/slur loudly at the bar staff in Brussels".

Our parliament has a majority of members who were elected on a platform that included the proposal that if there were to be a material change in the political or economic situation, then another referendum on independence was possible. Their election too, might be called the settled will of the Scottish people, as might be the 62% for Europe vote in our country.

The 'settled will' in any case is not ever really settled, regardless of what the odious Jack Straw says (in between celebrating  Berexit getting Chilcott and thus his sorry backside off the front pages almost immediately!!) He would have made it illegal for there EVER to be another referendum on Scottish Independence.

To be fair Mr Farage was never one to see irony

Populations are changing all the time, because population is a moving thing: people come of age and people die. People arrive and people move away. It's the way of things. A 'will' in 2014 may have changed dramatically by 2019 because of a change in demographics, particularly given that statistics show that the younger people tend to be much more pro-independence than older ones. So 'settled will' even a few years later, may be very different.

Nicola is doing the right thing in my opinion, to see if the 'will' of the Scottish people, in both referenda can be accepted: ie, Scotland remain a part of the UK and a part of the EU.  That's after all what the Scots said back in 2014 and 2016.

It's not as fantastical as it seems. In the Kingdom of Denmark, part is in and part out. And the Irish situation may well demand a much more flexible viewpoint, for the sake of peace or again the possibility of a part of the UK breaking away.

If, as Westminster seems to be indicating it will, that fails, then the views of the Scottish people may be sought again. Not to do so would be letting down the 62% who are about to be dragged out of Europe with the attendant loss of jobs and increased costs. Particularly because of the specific promise made by UKOKers in 2014.

Well, there you go. The Queen must hate Celtic, Murdo?
Did you ask her how she feels about you telling the world that?

Murdo Fraser, seems to be unaware of what his government is doing in London. He says that the Scottish government must explain what Brexit means, while Mrs May and her Three Brexiteers (Johnson, Fox and Davis) are steadfastly refusing to explain that even to their own MPs. (Maybe that's what Murdo means.) 

How the hell can Nicola, or the Scottish public, possibly know what it means when the folk that are supposed to be in charge won't tell us (or don't know themselves)? And how can the Scottish government plan for something that the Brits haven't sorted out?  This is a good read.

What the Scottish government has tried to do is establish the facts. So Nicola has been to Brussels to meet with people there. What she wanted to know was, what would this mean for Scotland...was there a possibility of a Greenlandic solution in reverse... and how would the EU react to Scotland if it decided independence in Europe was superior to dependence in the UK?

She seemed to get more done in the first few weeks than the mighty British government which acted like a rabbit blinded by headlights from the four winds.

But of course, all negotiations must, in the end, be between London and Brussels.

We are dependent upon people who seem to have little regard for us, and certainly won't much care about our wishes when it comes to negotiating. To be fair they all represent English constituencies and the English population is massive in comparison to ours.

Boris wanted the yacht to travel the world with his two buddies (and presumably Mr Werrity). His boss said NO.

Seriously do you imagine that Johnson, Fox and Davis will give much thought to the people in Gibraltar, Scotland or Northern Ireland when they are sorting out the future?

At the moment they seemed to be more interested in getting the royal yacht recommissioned so they can steam around the world like the colonialists they are, striking up trade deals with anyone who is impressed with a royal yacht. Opium anyone? Watch out, Dean, if some suspicious looking English fellow with a haystack on his head  comes up to you in the street saying "Me sell you opium. Velly good stuff, ask Lord Sewell". Oh no sorry, that was coke!

I'd be interested in people's views on this, and on whether parliament should be given a chance to debate Brexit, albeit with no veto on the referendum result, or whether it should all be done by the back door, privy council, statutory orders or whatever they have up their sleeve when they want to be sneaky... 

SOME SILLY SNAPS

SIMON HEFFER SAYS WHAT HE REALLY THINKS ABOUT DAVE

Cynical Highlander pointed out this article and indeed linked to it in another post on here, but I think it is worth a post in itself to ensure that it reaches a wider audience. I wrote last week about his appointment of two of his private staff to the Civil Service. I didn’t realise that, in fact that was the tip of the iceberg: It seems he has appointed no fewer than 26 people to the public payroll, on short-term contracts, without advertising their posts. Each one a vanity post.. and this is particularly galling given that he criticized the last government for all their special advisors and promised to do away with that kind of government..

In this comment piece Simon Heffer, in his own highly amusing style, has torn David Cameron to pieces for being as shallow as I have always thought him to be.

I feared when he was elected over David Davis that the Tories had made a huge mistake. Yes he was shiny; yes he was younger than Davies and despite his modernising tone he was more of what the Tories used to be before Heath, Thatcher and major (I nearly said and Blair!) lowered the tone, as it were. (David Davis is a working class Tory who had come up the hard way from an estate, raised, I seem to remember, by a single mum.)

But with Dave, it seemed to me that there was nothing underneath the gloss; the shiny exterior groomed by Eton and oxford for a place at someone’s top table.

But what, I wondered, did Dave stand for? Modernisation of course, but, what did that mean? In opposition it seemed to mean “hug and hoodie” and “call me Dave” (just like he was an ‘ordinary’ person. He even took his tie off sometimes.

But Dave hadn’t been passionate about politics all his life; he was no William Hague, deciding he wanted to be prime minister when he was 6 ... or thereby. At Oxford he eschewed political organisations and chose instead to play tennis for Brasenose and to join the Octagon and Bullingdon clubs, organizations for the well heeled. He appears not even to have been a member of the Oxford Union.

His only real job outside politics was as Director of Corporate Affairs (whatever that is, it’s at director level and seems to have involved PR and spin) for a tv company.

I’m not sure if anyone has much of a clue what motivates David Cameron, beyond his ambition.

One thing seems self evident. He lacks any kind of conviction; he has no founding principles underpinning his politics, and this lack of foundation is made up for by an overload of....yes that thing he so criticised in the appalling Labour governments of Blair and Brown: Spin.

The piece is relatively long, at some 1500 words, but it well worth a read. It seems to encapsulate what David Cameron is about... and I had wondered, as I’m sure you did... added to which it is extremely funny.

"BROKEBACK COALITION", Chortles The Leader Of The Tory Awkward Squad!

Oh dear, the Tory/Lib Dem coalition has only taken ten weeks to get to where John Major was during the "Bastardgate" affair.

Yesterday, in unguarded comments, David Davis (the man Cameron defeated in the 2005 Tory leadership campaign and self appointed leader of the Tory awkward squad) is reported to have approvingly repeated a description of the partnership between Cameron and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg as "Brokeback Coalition", which he attributed to another senior Tory.

Davis made his remarks during a boozy private lunch with former colleagues from Tate & Lyle at the Boot & Flogger wine bar in Southwark on Thursday. Sounds like just the sort of place you would find Tories!

The MP was reportedly overheard saying that Lord Ashcroft, the ex-Conservative party deputy chairman, had referred to the government as "Brokeback Coalition" – a reference to the Oscar-winning film Brokeback Mountain, about a gay relationship between two cowboys. Davis, whose remarks are disclosed in today's Financial Times, said he had been "misheard".

Lord Ashcroft, (the Tories billionaire donor and non-dom parliamentarian who duped wee Willie Hague into giving him a peerage) has been privately scathing about Cameron's general election campaign. He believes the Tory leader made a grave error in agreeing to take part in the television debates. He also shared the concerns of many frontbenchers that the main theme of the Tory election campaign – the "big society" – was too vague and was difficult to sell on the doorstep. Maybe that’s because it is such a load of old rubbish.

The FT went on to say that Davis, a former Europe minister, who recently led a successful rebellion against plans to make it more difficult for MPs to remove an unpopular government, was dismissive of Cameron's "big society". He reportedly called it "a Blairite dressing" for plans by the coalition to trim the state. But that’s what everybody else thinks as well isn’t it? Because that's what it is.

"The corollary of the big society is the smaller state. If you talk about the small state, people think you're Attila the Hun. If you talk about the big society, people think you're Mother Teresa."

Davis, who resigned from Cameron's shadow cabinet to lead a campaign against Labour plans for the detention of terror suspects without charge, told his audience he was enjoying his freedom on the backbenches.

George Osborne, the chancellor, was given faint praise. Davis said that a newspaper headline that read "Osborne delivers" should have said "Osborne promises" on the grounds that he has not delivered anything yet.

So it's not just the opposition parties that have the knives out for the coalition. Ex-grandees and erstwhile funders, it seems, also have it in for them.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?