Could Prime Minister Boris Johnson break up the UK?

This topic contains 552 replies, has 16 voices, and was last updated by Avatar Wigwam 46 minutes ago.

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #83405 Reply
    Avatar
    Brydo
    Participant

    Article

    The Scottish Conservative (and Unionist) party has enjoyed something of resurgence in recent years under the energetic leadership of Ruth Davidson.

    The party’s opponents are convinced that Boris Johnson as prime minister could put an end to all that – and could even put an end to the union between Scotland the rest of the UK.

    It’s true that Mr Johnson could hardly be more different from the down to earth, plain speaking and Remain-voting Ms Davidson. The two are not friends and have vehemently disagreed before.

    Some observers like to speculate that Boris will appear to Scottish voters to be the very epitome of the upper-class English ruling caste that Scots so dislike. But policy may well prove to be more important than personality.

    Mr Johnson appeared to have a weak grasp of the dynamics of devolution when he proposed tax changes that take no account of the fact that income tax rates in Scotland are set by the Scottish Parliament.

    But since then he has promised Scottish Tory MPs he will set up a “union unit” inside No 10 to check every policy. If he knows what he doesn’t know, then maybe he can avoid these gaffes as PM.

    It’s Brexit that may be his undoing, in so many ways. In Remain-voting Scotland, his problem is that the idea of a no deal Brexit is far less palatable than it is in the rest of the UK. The harder the Brexit Boris delivers, the more the Tory party in Scotland could suffer.

    If Prime Minister Johnson [he will officially take on the role this Wednesday] pursues a Brexit policy at odds with what most voters in Scotland would like to see, then it’s possible they may change their minds about whether remaining part of the UK is in their best interests. Some recent polling evidence suggests as many as 60% of voters could vote “yes” to independence if we leave the EU with no deal.

    In the end it may not be the precise details of any Brexit deal that stokes desire for independence – or indeed the character of any individual politician – but a sense that Scotland has different aspirations from the rest of the UK, which can’t be reconciled within the current union.

    If Mr Johnson wants to keep the kingdom united, he will need to take care not fan those flames.

    The only person who got all his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe

Viewing 25 replies - 451 through 475 (of 552 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #87380 Reply
    Avatar
    POPS
    Moderator

    I used to work in logistics and dealt with customs issues and transportation mainly through the ports of Dover and Calais. The pettiness of French custom officials used to cause us a lot of problems and excessive delays, and this was in normal times.

    Are we saying that the French will facilitate the same speedy transit of goods that we currently rely on after a no deal exit?

    Even a small initial delay has consequences as it starts to back up waiting traffic. Dover does not have huge parking areas, so this will quickly turn into queues on the A2 which will lengthen exponentially and turn the M2 into a truck park within a few days.

    This isn’t speculation, it’s a situation that will confront us within the first week of a no deal exit.

    I was in logistics at the time that “just in time” deliveries were being trialled, and today all industries rely on stuff coming in through the back door just as the last current stocks go out of the front door. Profit margins rely on a minimum amount of capital being tied up in back up stock sitting in large warehouses (which used to be the case). There is no going back from “just in time” delivery if companies wish to survive, so multi nationals may well shift more production to EU countries, and UK only companies will have no alternative but to pay for the increasing costs due to closed borders. They will then have to pass these costs on to the customer (us) or go bust.

    I’ve just highlighted one aspect of the yellowhammer document. I’m not scaremongering, I’m talking from (often painful) experience.

    #87385 Reply
    Avatar
    Brydo
    Participant

    Pops I know who I believe, and it isn’t Mike.

    The only person who got all his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe

    #87387 Reply
    Avatar
    Wigwam
    Participant

    I agree with POPS you can’t trust the French…

    #87389 Reply
    Avatar
    Wigwam
    Participant

    I offer this to the debate on cross-channel movement of goods post Brexit:

    https://facts4eu.org/news/2019_sep_freight_expert#

    #87391 Reply
    Avatar
    Mike 700
    Participant

    Brydo, it is nothing to do with belief, it is a fact that the Government , all governments , will have impact assessments on very many topics, including economics, supply chain, wars, natural disasters etc etc and as a Director of a Banking organisation, it was essential that I and my fellow directors were fully aware of the impact on the bank of different scenarios, both worst case, and best case, as well as everything in between.

    Yellowhammer is acknowledged as the worst case impact of a no deal Brexit, on the U.K., but on the assumption that all scenarios will happen on day one, which of course they will not , in practice .

    Your political leaning & background will dictate what you will chose to accept ,
    But it will not change the facts.

    #87393 Reply
    Avatar
    Bob

    I am a simple soul and I can’t for the life of me see how frictionless ‘free’ trade can be improved upon. If you are going to change this it is bound to have an impact, to what degree is all up in the air but I can’t see it going well. We pay the EU net 8.9 billion pounds for this which sounds a huge amount of money but we have a GDP of 2.6 trillion US dollars. It’s always the same when you take these figures out of context and stick them on the side of a bus and drive it around the country.

    I wonder how may people who voted ‘leave’ in 2016 did so for improved trade or to make the country richer or better, they may hide behind this but the elephant in the room and the driver for the Brexit party / ERG is far more sinister and frankly horrid in every way.

    Bring on a general election and a coalition Government to stop this pantomime that is Bo Jo, the only solution in times of national crisis. (both world wars)

    #87394 Reply
    Avatar
    Brydo
    Participant

    Mike it saddens me to read your posts, you appear to believe no one and suggest that there is an agenda behind everything you disagreed with. Maybe the people you have dealt with over the years, in business, have tainted your opinion of people in general. I however believe there are many good people working in government and for government.

    I do understand the basis on which yellowhammer was compiled and it clearly shows potential pitfalls of leaving with no deal. Why on earth would anyone suggest everything will be ok if a no deal Brexit occurs.

    luckily I firmly believe we won’t leave with no deal but to ignore this report would be folly.

    The only person who got all his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe

    #87395 Reply
    Avatar
    Wigwam
    Participant

    Bob, I voted to leave the EU because I don’t want to live in an undemocratic technocratic superstate which the EU Project has determined is the future of member countries.

    Nothing to do with trade.

    #87410 Reply
    Avatar
    Mike

    Did Boris lie to the Queen ?

    #87412 Reply
    Avatar
    POPS
    Moderator

    Evidently the six page Yellowhammer document is just a snapshot of a much longer document.

    The longer document was entitled “Base scenario” meaning that things could indeed be worse than stated.

    The shortened version has been retitled as a ” Reasonable worst case planning assumptions” which gives the impression that things could be better than stated.

    This is why parliament needs to be recalled, as this is yet another attempt to be less than honest with the public.

    We need to be told the full details of the possible consequences of a no deal exit, and it appears that Johnson and his advisors do not want us to know.

    #87414 Reply
    Avatar
    Wigwam
    Participant

    POPs , I recall very well that before the referendum we were told if we voted to leave, we would leave with a deal if possible or if a deal could not be agreed we would leave without a deal.

    Parliament has 3 times rejected the only deal the EU has offered so we are where we are. Either Johnson will whip up a deal which the EU and parliament agree to or we leave without a deal as promised.

    No-one said it would be without risk. In fact the remain campaign painted the bleakest picture possible and yet despite that 17.4 million people said leave.

    With respect to you and your well expressed feelings on the matter, isn’t it time you accepted that?

     

     

    #87416 Reply
    Avatar
    POPS
    Moderator

    I accept leaving with a deal Wigwam, but I honestly do not remember ever being told before the referendum that we might have to leave without a deal.

    In my admittedly imperfect memory I genuinely to the best of my knowledge did not witness a discussion on the possible consequences of a no deal exit prior to the referendum.

    #87417 Reply
    Avatar
    Mike

    Well said Wigwam

    #87419 Reply
    Avatar
    Brydo
    Participant

    There are actually three groups in this madness, those who will leave with no deal, those who want to leave with a deal and those who wish to remain. I think its fair to say that the vast majority of people are in the last two camps.

    The only person who got all his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe

    #87421 Reply
    Avatar
    Brydo
    Participant

    The only person who got all his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe

    #87423 Reply
    Avatar
    Mike 700
    Participant

    The euphoria over the Scottish Court making a decision on a clearly political matter, has , funnily enough, not been matched by the judgement from the NI Court today –

    In his written judgment, the judge said: “I consider the characterisation of the subject matter of these proceedings as inherently and unmistakably political to be beyond plausible dispute.

    “Virtually all of the assembled evidence belongs to the world of politics, both national and supra-national.

    “Within the world of politics the well-recognised phenomena of claim and counterclaim, assertion and counter-assertion, allegation and denial, blow and counter-blow, alteration and modification of government policy, public statements, unpublished deliberations, posturing, strategy and tactics are the very essence of what is both countenanced and permitted in a democratic society.”

    Further,

    The English Supreme Court also threw out the Gina Miller case stating that the ‘it was clearly not a matter for the courts, as it is a political matter.

    Individuals , whether MP’s or not, taking the Government to court because they do not agree with decisions is clearly very wrong, and belongs in the ‘third world’.

    If it continues down this road, it will be acceptable for anyone to take the Government to Court to challenge any decision , new legislation etc that they disagree with – absolute nonsense!

    The Scottish Court need to look at the other decisions –

    the characterisation of the subject matter of these proceedings as inherently and unmistakably political to be beyond plausible dispute.

    #87424 Reply
    Avatar
    POPS
    Moderator

    Leaving the courts out of this it comes down to trust.

    I do not like being lied to …. neither to many other people judging by recent reactions.

    #87425 Reply
    Avatar
    Mike 700
    Participant

    I completely agree.

    Politicians of all parties lie through their teeth, and there are many many examples of this going back many years.

    #87426 Reply
    Avatar
    POPS
    Moderator

    I agree, all politicians need to have a good look at themselves and determine to be totally truthful, no matter how difficult it may be on some issues.

    #87427 Reply
    Avatar
    POPS
    Moderator

    Bed time again for me, but thanks for another day of challenging but friendly debate.

    #87432 Reply
    Avatar
    Mike 700
    Participant

    Undoubtedly , there is an agenda Brydo, and that’s not just my opinion, in fact it is clear that the Yellowhammer disclosure demand by remain opposition parties was designed to give maximum embarrassment to the Government, and frighten the electorate!

    My opinions, like yours , are formed by my life experiences and in my business experience, it would be totally irresponsible for any business, or any ‘Government ‘ undertaking a major new venture -such as Brexit – not to produce impact assessments including worse case scenarios.

    Unfortunately , Remainers have hyped up the worse case , in another Project Fear moment, this one however is on steroids!

    Because the opposition‘s ‘political ‘ demand for the publication of this document has been successful, it does not make the document a prophesy, rather, it is just a document outlining potential events etc., significantly the detractors have not taken into account government action already taken or planned to mitigate the worst projections!

    The SNP will have them, and I’ll bet my house, that they will slither and squirm and make excuses for not publishing the impact assessments of their drive for ‘Independence’, because, at least one of them will show ‘Armageddon ‘.

    Balance , is what is required, not political expediency?

    As I have already said, when I was a director of a banking institution, it was essential that we had plans to cope with different scenarios and several documents relating to this were kept on my iPad.

    The file was entitled “Business Continuity Plan” ( an impact assessment ) and outlined what we would do in the event of various scenarios – an economic collapse, robbery, break in, computer failure, natural disasters, pandemics, cyber-terrorism etc.

    It was full of “may happen ” “might happen ,” and “could happen “- not as Remainers and the BBC are promoting in Yellowhammer , “will happen”!

    It’s what any responsible business or Government will do – ie plan for the future?

    It did not mean that we were expecting any of it to happen, it was just good planning.

    If you read some of my previous posts, you will clearly see that not only did I vote to remain, but I have made it clear that I think that leaving with a deal is the best course of action!

    #87434 Reply
    Avatar
    JS
    Moderator

    As Pops has mentioned logistics and customs, interestingly this popped up on my suggested watch on YouTube, shows a different view. (bloody computer is watching me)

    #87498 Reply
    Avatar
    Mike

    Just read that David Cameron has written his memoirs from his £25.000 shed

    #87508 Reply
    Avatar
    ZZleeZZ
    Participant

    @mike 700 re Scottish court decision:

    There is a big difference between the court cases brought in England and Scotland. The one in England, which was dismissed as it was deemed to be of a political nature, and non-judicable, was argued on the length of prorogation – how many weeks in particular. How long that period of time should be is not a matter for the courts to rule on, which is why it was rightly dismissed.

    The case in Scotland was argued on the reason the government requested parliament be prorogued. In this case, the government couldn’t even get someone to swear a witness statement which backed up their claims it was normal order of business. Everyone knows they prorogued parliament with the express intent of stopping the house from taking no-deal off the table, there is hard evidence of this too. The court agreed with this, specifically three high court judges unanimously agreed on this. Current speculation has it that the appeal being heard at the supreme court on Tuesday is 50/50 either way.

    I do agree that it beggars belief that individuals feel the need to take the government (I won’t capitalise them, they don’t deserve the respect) t0 court. But that is not so much to do with a broken system as it is to do with a very broken government which is losing the trust of the people.

    Once upon a time, John Profumo lied to parliament about having an affair. That single lie brought down the whole government. Now, Johnson, Gove, and Mogg break into a sweat if they haven’t lied three times before lunch. The law is the law, and even MP’s and PM’s must obey the rule of law. If they don’t then where exactly do we stand on anything at all?

     

    @brydo re your original post

    Johnson is handing independence to the SNP on a plate. The Tory party will be wiped out north of the border and if we do leave the EU they will demand to be let loose to go their own way – and I don’t blame them one bit.

    #87511 Reply
    Avatar
    Wigwam
    Participant

    Democracy in action:

    From 9am -12pm next Wednesday the European Parliament will hold a big debate on the Brexit process. Curiously, the largest party in the Parliament has been allocated just one minute of the three hours of speaking time, despite making up 4% of all MEPs, and the debate being about the literal namesake of their party

Viewing 25 replies - 451 through 475 (of 552 total)
Reply To: Could Prime Minister Boris Johnson break up the UK?

You can use BBCodes to format your content.
Your account can't use Advanced BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.

Your information: