Building on yesterday's video, which looked at the impact of the UK Internal Market Bill on the UK's external international relationships, this video looks at what I might call the UK's internal international relationships - because the UK is (although the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg deny it) a country made up of four nations and there can, therefore, be international relationships between them.
The impact is dire.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Is it appropriate to describe Scottish institutions like education as devolved. It implies that its status was granted by the British when it long predated the Union as a fundamental part of Scottish society and was far more advanced and comprehensive than the English. You could also say the same about Health where the Scottish system predated the English and which was born in very different circumstances to the English. These and other Scottish institutions do not derive from the UK, which makes the British attacks on their integrity all the more unacceptable.
Thanks
Noted and agreed
Thanks for that. Enjoy your break,
Just a little more below on the History on the Treaty of Union, not my words but borrowed from another.
TREATY OF UNION
The point about the Treaty of Union is that what is agreed IS relevant to today’s law. Let me explain and prove the point for you.
In 1688 the Kingdom of England comprised three countries. Wales was annexed in 1284 and Ireland in 1542. The point about that is that when the Parliament of England imported King Billy & Queen Mary of Orange as joint monarchs the Parliament of England remove the Royal veto from them. The royal veto was because until then the law of the three country Kingdom of England was Divine Right of Kings so the removal of the Royal veto made the Kingdom of England a Constitutional Monarchy — that’s its legal states today.
In Scotland the Declaration of Arbroath made Scotland legally independent and also made the people, not the monarch, sovereign. That is still the status today.
Thus the Treaty of Union had to keep The Scottish Legal System independent — and it still is.
Now some proofs — Everything in the Kingdom of England belongs, legally to the Crown, The Royal Navy, Her Majesty’s Government, HM Customs & Excise. et al.
In Scotland the people have always had right to roam — because the people own Scotland not the Queen. There is no English style law of trespass. No private person can clamp your vehicle on private land in Scotland or they are charged with demanding money with menaces.
So there you go the Treaty of Union is still law. It is also why the Queen is not head of any Scottish Church. And why Scottish Education is independent and why Scottish Banks can print their own notes.
Excellent points
Anybody know how the CIs and IOM will fit in if new boundaries are being created? Can we have an “Uncommon Travel Area” and carry on regardless – and how about GIB and the other British dots around the world….
It’s too complex for my brain.
I think the technical term is that you’re in it up to your necks
Bad news all round for you
The “Home Rule” wheeze has surfaced again, notably in a Scotsman article today – https://archive.is/xcRjH
The writer, Professor Ben Thomson, is the author of Scottish Home Rule: The Answer to Scotland’s Constitutional Question, published today – so the article is a plug for his book.
The following is supposed to be part of a rationale for Home Rule to be on the ballot paper alongside Independence –
“Under Home Rule, Scotland would still remain part of the United Kingdom and Westminster would remain responsible for a range of vital issues such as macro-economic management, including monetary policy and the currency; defence; foreign affairs; overseas trade; and citizenship.”
The author then postulates that, rather than being a stepping stone on the way to independence, it could pave the way to a UK federal state. In fact it would demonstrate, primarily through the lack of financial sovereignty, that Home Rule is a disaster.
As the author says, those are all “vital issues”, but not in the way he means –
It is vital that Scotland has control over its monetary affairs and currency if we are to avoid Tory austerity and the Tory/Labour household approach to economics.
Defence is a vital issue if Scotland is to eschew weapons of mass destruction and illegal or imperialist wars.
Trade is a vital issue for the Scottish economy, unless we want it to be dominated by financial services, the fiscal drag of the south-east of England, and the deregulation espoused by Westminster.
Citizenship – this may be controversial to some, but I don’t wish to be tied to the UK’s xenophobic attitudes.
I have a one word response
Bollocks
I hope that wasn’t directed at me Richard 🙂
Incidentally, I note that Andrew Wilson was a supporter of Ben Thomson’s campaign for Home Rule, which may explain some aspects of the Growth Commission Report. Granted, that was back in 2014, but …
No George! It wasn’t
It was aimed at the author
I agree entirely with your video today, but I’ll go further: I suggest that the UK Internal Market B has been widely misunderstood: it’s not principally about the Johnson Government’s controversial proposal to break international law if deemed expedient. That is no more than an elaborate diversion, a stalking horse, to divert Parliament’s energy and scarce available time into debate of a topic which will be easier to discard than invoke and, if discarded, will obviate another stalking horse: the Northern Ireland Secretary’s need to agonise over what level of breach of international law is “acceptable”.
This is all designed to distract attention and discussion away from the main purpose of the bill: the neutering of the devolution agreements affecting Scotland, Wales and N Ireland. Under the pretext of creating a level playing-field for the UK’s internal market, the bill (clause 32) arrogates to the UK Gov’t the right to overrule any decisions of devolved governments. Moreover it proposes to do this not through the public scrutiny of debate in parliament, but in a committee appointed by the same UK Gov’t and chaired by a Tory placeman. This all smacks of the methods employed by Hitler to undermine the organs of state in 1930s Germany and to subsume their powers into the Nazi party machine.
The message for Scotland, Wales and N Ireland is clear: They’re coming for you, so prepare yourselves to resist. The message for England is just as clear: they’re coming for you next and, if you don’t believe me, look at what has already happened to Public Health England.
I agree with you Ken
The problem is the nous or commonsense to resist predation by sociopaths no longer appears to be there amongst many voters and politicians as it was pre-Second World War. This has to be down to a lack of any rational model how life really works and the teaching of that model. Instead the country appears to be in the grip of what can only be called a Psycho-Cult where might is seen as right. Brexit is one of the outcomes of such a cult. It’s obviously a reaction to an economy that’s been ailing for many decades and that ailing in itself the lack of economic democracy.