UK's Johnson says devolving powers to Scotland was 'a disaster'

[snoop1130]

UK's Johnson says devolving powers to Scotland was 'a disaster'

By Estelle Shirbon and Guy Faulconbridge

 

Britain's Prime Minister Boris Johnson leaves Downing Street to attend a cabinet meeting at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in London, Britain November 10, 2020. REUTERS/Toby Melville/File Photo

 

LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Boris Johnson called the devolution of powers to Scotland "a disaster", a comment that played into the hands of Scottish nationalists pushing for an independence referendum that opinion polls suggest they could win.

 

The bonds holding the United Kingdom together have been severely strained over the last five years by Brexit and the government's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, and 14 recent polls have shown a majority of Scots now support independence.

 

In a video call on Friday with northern English lawmakers from his Conservative Party, Johnson said that devolution, introduced by Tony Blair had been the former prime minister's "biggest mistake" and "a disaster", media reported.

 

He also said he saw no case for giving Scotland's semi-autonomous government and parliament, which are dominated by the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP), any further powers in addition to the ones they hold now.

 

Johnson's office did not deny the comments.

 

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP leader, jumped on them, arguing that the Conservatives' public statements of support for devolution were duplicitous.

 

"Worth bookmarking these PM comments for the next time Tories (Conservatives) say they're not a threat to the powers of the Scottish Parliament - or, even more incredibly, that they support devolving more powers," she said on Twitter.

 

Independence is the only way to protect and strengthen the Scottish parliament, she added.

 

In a sign of the nervousness that Johnson's comments caused among Scots who support staying part of the United Kingdom, the Conservative leader in Scotland, Douglas Ross, immediately contradicted the prime minister.

 

"Devolution has not been a disaster," he said on Twitter. "The SNP's non-stop obsession with another referendum - above jobs, schools and everything else - has been a disaster."

 

SECOND REFERENDUM?

 

Scottish voters rejected independence by 55 to 45 percent in a 2014 referendum, but since then the SNP have become stronger, winning all elections in Scotland by huge margins. They are expected to perform strongly in elections to Scottish parliament in Holyrood in May. Sturgeon is pushing for a second referendum.

 

In the 2016 Brexit referendum, England and Wales voted to leave the European Union but Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain. Due to the much greater size of England's population, the overall result was a win for Brexit.

 

This was galling for many Scots, because one of the central arguments put forward in favour of remaining in the United Kingdom in their own 2014 referendum was that it was the only way for Scotland to remain part of the European bloc.

 

In an attempt to defuse the row caused by Johnson's comments, the housing minister Robert Jenrick said it was not realistic to demand a second referendum.

 

"Any politician who wanted to hold a referendum on a topic like this, at this moment in time, is frankly mad," he said, accusing the SNP of prioritising their cause above the fight against COVID-19 and the economic damage it has caused.

 

However, polls suggest that Scots have a more favourable view of how Sturgeon and her administration have handled the pandemic than the rest of the country has of how Johnson's government has performed.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-11-17

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[GinBoy2]

I'll wade into this as an American Anglophile, who has no skin in this game but has loved your country from a small boy. You can blame the old BBC World Service on shortwave for that!

 

It was, and is a mistake, not because of the concept of devolving powers is bad, but it's implementation.

 

The US system is not without its faults, but it's exactly the opposite to the UK. Powers are ceded from the States to the center in Washington.

Whereas in the UK London doles out powers arbitrarily to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast as they see fit, and not always the same powers, a US State does have control over most aspects of daily life, including raising taxes.

 

Then you get to the 800lb gorilla in the room, that England has no equivalent to the devolved powers of the other nations.

 

The way to defuse all of this is not denial of referendums for independence, but a constitutional meeting to figure out how you manage, what has been probably the most successful  multi country coalition in European history into the 21st century.

 

Well thats the view from a real lover of the United Kingdom, I just hope you guys figure it out without destroying the beauty of what I have loved all my life

[Rookiescot]

Oh this is going to be good.

We will all be lucky to get through this thread without a holiday ????.

Right OK. Lets have it.

[2530Ubon]

20 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

The US system is not without its faults, but it's exactly the opposite to the UK. Powers are ceded from the States to the center in Washington.

Whereas in the UK London doles out powers arbitrarily to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast as they see fit, and not always the same powers, a US State does have control over most aspects of daily life, including raising taxes.

That's what the Scottish agreed to...

In 1707, England agreed to give Scotland money to pay off its debts, and both countries’ parliaments passed the Acts of Union to become one nation.

Americans fought a war to join unite as one nation, England bought another nation (after several failed attempts at conquering). You could say the scots are part of the oldest recorded profession.

Edited November 17, 2020 by 2530Ubon

[RuamRudy]

46 minutes ago, 2530Ubon said:

That's what the Scottish agreed to...

In 1707, England agreed to give Scotland money to pay off its debts, and both countries’ parliaments passed the Acts of Union to become one nation.

Americans fought a war to join unite as one nation, England bought another nation (after several failed attempts at conquering). You could say the scots are part of the oldest recorded profession.

 

Prior to the Act of Union, Scotland had a feudal economy without a central bank. It had no debt - none whatsoever. It did, however, have some very rich individuals who had total control over the country. Their private endevours in the Panamas, and the subsequent threat of England introducing the Alien Act, saw them, as private individuals, near bankrupt, and led them to enter a union that was universally rejected by the (powerless) population. So our country was sold to pay the private debts of a few. 

[2530Ubon]

20 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Prior to the Act of Union, Scotland had a feudal economy without a central bank. It had no debt - none whatsoever. It did, however, have some very rich individuals who had total control over the country. Their private endevours in the Panamas, and the subsequent threat of England introducing the Alien Act, saw them, as private individuals, near bankrupt, and led them to enter a union that was universally rejected by the (powerless) population. So our country was sold to pay the private debts of a few. 

You may be referring to the Darien Scheme - albeit incorrectly. They were not private endevours, Scots decided to colonize Panama... This isn't possible with only a few merchants.

 

In the late 1690s, thousands of ordinary Scottish folk had been tempted to invest their hard earned money in a plan to link the two great oceans of the world by establishing an overland trading route between the Pacific and Atlantic. Almost every Scot who had £5 in his or her pocket, invested in the Darien Scheme to establish a Scottish colony in Panama.

Poorly planned, the venture ended early in 1700 with significant loss of life and financial ruin for the Kingdom of Scotland.

With many influential individuals and whole families left bankrupt by the disaster, a few financial incentives appear to have convinced some dithering Scottish MPs of the potential benefits of a union with England. In the words of Robert Burns, they (the Scottish MPs) were “bought and sold for English gold”.

 

Or from the University of Glasgow;

At this time, while Scotland and England shared a monarch, they were still largely politically and economically independent. The scheme was intended to secure a wider market for Scottish traders as, under the English Navigation Acts, Scotland was deemed a foreign country, incapable of participating in the trading privileges of England. Interest in the scheme was so universal that during only a few years an extensive Darien literature came into existence.

 

Thousands of Scottish lives were lost, as was the cash raised. This led to the union. An unfortunate sequence of events, seeing as us English folks did some truely horrendous and cruel things in Scotland throughout multiple attempts to conquer by force, and failed each and every time.

 

Edited November 17, 2020 by 2530Ubon

[stevenl]

He should have kept his mouth shut.

[RuamRudy]

7 minutes ago, 2530Ubon said:

You may be referring to the Darien Scheme - albeit incorrectly. They were not private endevours, Scots decided to colonize Panama... This isn't possible with only a few merchants.

 

In the late 1690s, thousands of ordinary Scottish folk had been tempted to invest their hard earned money in a plan to link the two great oceans of the world by establishing an overland trading route between the Pacific and Atlantic. Almost every Scot who had £5 in his or her pocket, invested in the Darien Scheme to establish a Scottish colony in Panama.

Poorly planned, the venture ended early in 1700 with significant loss of life and financial ruin for the Kingdom of Scotland.

With many influential individuals and whole families left bankrupt by the disaster, a few financial incentives appear to have convinced some dithering Scottish MPs of the potential benefits of a union with England. In the words of Robert Burns, they (the Scottish MPs) were “bought and sold for English gold”.

 

Or from the University of Glasgow;

At this time, while Scotland and England shared a monarch, they were still largely politically and economically independent. The scheme was intended to secure a wider market for Scottish traders as, under the English Navigation Acts, Scotland was deemed a foreign country, incapable of participating in the trading privileges of England. Interest in the scheme was so universal that during only a few years an extensive Darien literature came into existence.

 

Thousands of Scottish lives were lost, as was the cash raised. This led to the union. An unfortunate sequence of events, seeing as us English folks did some truely horrendous and cruel things in Scotland throughout multiple attempts to conquer by force, and failed each and every time.

 

 

Please explain which parts of my post were incorrect?

You even included this in your own cut and paste:

 

9 minutes ago, 2530Ubon said:

With many influential individuals and whole families left bankrupt by the disaster, a few financial incentives appear to have convinced some dithering Scottish MPs of the potential benefits of a union with England.

 

So, as I explained to you previously, this was private, not public debt. Some Scots may have faced bankruptcy but it was an economic impossibility for the country to be near bankrupt because it had no debts.

 

As for the 'every Scot with a fiver' suggestion, whilst I have no information on the number of subscribers, I doubt that there were many Scots with much to spare for their immediate welfare, let alone a speculative punt on something they could barely comprehend. 

 

But, of course, this is all academic. It is telling that whenever the subject of independence is raised, opponents raise this as an angle of attack. Of course, in the absence of any contemporary benefits to point to, I understand the intent but really, it is a massive stretch to convince anyone today that, because some rich people made poor decisions 300 years ago, we should continue to be screwed by successive Westminster governments. 

[RuamRudy]

I have lost count of the number of polls this year, but virtually every one has independence or the SNP in an overwhelmingly encouraging position. These 10 polls have all been issued since August and every single one shows Yes leading No by up to 16%.

Johnson is the SNP's best friend. More, Johnson, more!

 

Edited November 17, 2020 by RuamRudy

[2530Ubon]

26 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

whilst I have no information on the number of subscribers, I doubt that there were many Scots with much to spare for their immediate welfare,

Well, it just so happens that i do have those numbers, there were thousands. It's not academic, it's recorded history. Also, this isn't an "angle of attack" - It's just what happened at the time. There is nothing to attack anyway, it's not a bad idea to join as one nation. It would be madness for Scotland to try and go it alone - both of our nations would suffer because of it.

 

Many a nationalist has given a speech such as yours "our country was sold because of a few rich businessmen who ruled the country" - and these kinds of overtones make people turn out to vote, even though they are patently false. Thousands died on the journey there, these numbers can't be hidden! Thousands invested everything and lost.

The same thing happened with Brexit - catchy slogans about how much money the EU stole and how we can plow it all back into the NHS. It's all BS... Look at history and judge it by the facts.

[RuamRudy]

35 minutes ago, 2530Ubon said:

Well, it just so happens that i do have those numbers, there were thousands. It's not academic, it's recorded history. Also, this isn't an "angle of attack" - It's just what happened at the time. There is nothing to attack anyway, it's not a bad idea to join as one nation.

 

How many thousands? One thousand? One hundred thousand? Scotland had a population of 1 million in 1707 so a couple of thousand people going bankrupt would be personal disasters, but at a national level, where the majority of the population were living in feudal circumstance, it would have minor consequence. 

 

38 minutes ago, 2530Ubon said:

It would be madness for Scotland to try and go it alone - both of our nations would suffer because of it.

 

That is a statement of opinion and, of itself, meaningless. To put in context your statement, over 60 countries have seceded from the British Empire in the past 70 years and not one has asked to be readmitted. There is nothing mad about wanting to take control of your own affairs, as every independent nation on earth would testify.

 

40 minutes ago, 2530Ubon said:

Many a nationalist has given a speech such as yours "our country was sold because of a few rich businessmen who ruled the country" - and these kinds of overtones make people turn out to vote, even though they are patently false.

 

What is 'patently false' about that statement?

 

42 minutes ago, 2530Ubon said:

Thousands died on the journey there, these numbers can't be hidden! Thousands invested everything and lost.

 

But going back to your first post, you are simply incorrect. You previously stated,

 

2 hours ago, 2530Ubon said:

England agreed to give Scotland money to pay off its debts,

as if to suggest that the debt was public. And even though your later Wiki copy and paste makes it clear that this was private debt, you still try to suggest that this was something other than a private disaster for a relatively small number of people. 

 

44 minutes ago, 2530Ubon said:

The same thing happened with Brexit - catchy slogans about how much money the EU stole and how we can plow it all back into the NHS. It's all BS... Look at history and judge it by the facts.

 

We are here because of Brexit. You will get no argument from me about it being anything other than a lesson in lies and manipulation, but at a Scottish level, it exposed the lie that we are a union of equals. When David Cameron said to us, lead, don't leave, some still believed he meant it. Thankfully, however, the scales are falling from more and more eyes every day.

 

[soalbundy]

11 hours ago, stevenl said:

He should have kept his mouth shut.

It could be the last straw, how ironic, blasting the EU saying we want our country back then denying a country within its own realm of power the same right. The UK  has left a power block for spurious reasons and is now about to get even smaller, wait now for Wales to start getting fidgety.

[JonnyF]

I wish these Scots nationalists would drop the charade.

 

They don't want Independence like the UK electorate voted for in 2016.

 

What the Scots nationalists really want is to become a minnow in a group of 28 'states' in an increasingly federalist, undemocratic EU. That is far from Independence.

[GinBoy2]

OK so here's my suggestion for y'all.

 

Four national parliaments, pick a city for the English one. Manchester, Birmingham seems to be the logical two choices.

 

Get rid of the House of Lords, which even as much as I love you guys, is totally nuts. Replace it with a Senate with say, 50 members each from each of the four countries. 

The House of Commons composition is still based on population.

 

Then start afresh on what powers should be ceded, not devolved from the national parliament's.

 

Then maybe you really would have a structure that might keep you all together, I hope!

[Rookiescot]

13 hours ago, 2530Ubon said:

That's what the Scottish agreed to...

In 1707, England agreed to give Scotland money to pay off its debts, and both countries’ parliaments passed the Acts of Union to become one nation.

Americans fought a war to join unite as one nation, England bought another nation (after several failed attempts at conquering). You could say the scots are part of the oldest recorded profession.

No. The Scots did not agree to it. There was no referendum to join. Indeed if there had been it would have been heavily defeated. 

The rich decided to join the union because of their bad investments in the Darien scheme. A scheme which collapsed because of the actions of England. Westminster then paid these rich people. There were riots on the streets for months after the union was signed.

Scotland had no debt. England on the other hand had huge debts owing to its ongoing wars.

[Rookiescot]

40 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I wish these Scots nationalists would drop the charade.

 

They don't want Independence like the UK electorate voted for in 2016.

 

What the Scots nationalists really want is to become a minnow in a group of 28 'states' in an increasingly federalist, undemocratic EU. That is far from Independence.

 

There is no charade. Whether we rejoin the EU or not will be a decision for Scotland AFTER independence is obtained. 

The UK did not vote for independence in 2016. It voted to leave the EU. The UK had never lost its independence. 

[JonnyF]

14 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

 

There is no charade. Whether we rejoin the EU or not will be a decision for Scotland AFTER independence is obtained. 

The UK did not vote for independence in 2016. It voted to leave the EU. The UK had never lost its independence. 

 

Actually it will be a decision for the EU.

 

Seeing as you fail many of the EU's own rules for joining that decision will likely be No. Then you'll be left out in the cold, having your monetary policy, including interest rates, dictated by the Bank of England since you will still be using our pound.

 

Still, you know what you're voting for! Good luck, you'll need it.????

[stevenl]

Just now, JonnyF said:

 

Actually it will be a decision for the EU.

 

Seeing as you fail many of the EU's own rules for joining that decision will likely be No. Then you'll be left out in the cold, having your monetary policy, including interest rates, dictated by the Bank of England since you will still be using our pound.

 

Still, you know what you're voting for! Good luck, you'll need it.????

Those decisions should be up to the Scots, not the English.

[Rookiescot]

6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Actually it will be a decision for the EU.

 

Seeing as you fail many of the EU's own rules for joining that decision will likely be No. Then you'll be left out in the cold, having your monetary policy, including interest rates, dictated by the Bank of England since you will still be using our pound.

 

Still, you know what you're voting for! Good luck, you'll need it.????

 

You are right it will also be a decision for the EU. 

IF we continue using the pound then interest rates would be set by the Bank of England. Given how closely aligned our economies are that would not be an issue. Should it become one then Scotland can start its own currency. Just like the 65 (!) other countries which have left the British empire. Not a single one of which has ever asked to return.

Yes we do know what we are voting for because independence is defined. There is no soft or hard independence. 

[JonnyF]

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Those decisions should be up to the Scots, not the English.

 

The decision was made in 2014 by the Scots, and they decided to remain. You can't re-run the vote every time the wind changes direction, much as the SNP would like to.

 

Decisions on the pound will continue to be made by the Bank of England. Therefore if they do get another referendum (doubtful) and they do vote to leave (50/50), the Bank of England will set their monetary policy until they join the EU or form their own currency. 

 

PS The EU would need to break their own rules on membership to allow Scotland to join so that is no foregone conclusion.

[JonnyF]

6 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

 

You are right it will also be a decision for the EU. 

IF we continue using the pound then interest rates would be set by the Bank of England. Given how closely aligned our economies are that would not be an issue. Should it become one then Scotland can start its own currency. Just like the 65 (!) other countries which have left the British empire. Not a single one of which has ever asked to return.

Yes we do know what we are voting for because independence is defined. There is no soft or hard independence. 

 

Being ruled by the EU commission in Brussels as one of the smaller 28 states in an increasingly federal EU project is not Independence.

 

But if it makes you feel good to pretend it is, don't let me stop you.

[Rookiescot]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

Being ruled by the EU commission in Brussels as one of the smaller 28 states in an increasingly federal EU project is not Independence.

 

But if it makes you feel good to pretend it is, don't let me stop you.

I was you who claimed that Scotland joining the EU is no foregone conclusion. Make your mind up.

I do not understand why you Brexiteers get so upset with the idea of Scottish independence. After all you were warned that a vote to leave the EU risked the union breaking up. This obviously did not matter to you then so why does it matter now?

[stevenl]

9 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

The decision was made in 2014 by the Scots, and they decided to remain. You can't re-run the vote every time the wind changes direction, much as the SNP would like to.

 

Decisions on the pound will continue to be made by the Bank of England. Therefore if they do get another referendum (doubtful) and they do vote to leave (50/50), the Bank of England will set their monetary policy until they join the EU or form their own currency. 

 

PS The EU would need to break their own rules on membership to allow Scotland to join so that is no foregone conclusion.

Brexit, looking at the scottish vote there, could have a big impact on a decision like this. So IMO a rerun after brexit is very much justified. When circumstances change dramatically decisions can change.

 

Scotland joining the EU or not is not part of the discussion, that should be none of England's business.

[Srikcir]

15 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

Powers are ceded from the States to the center in Washington.

That should be 'certain powers are ceded from the States' much in the way of devolving powers to Scotland.

The US is a federation of 50 individual sovereign States, each resembling a sovereign nation in its own right - aka "state rights."

The authority of the US Federal government over the states is specifically cited in the US Constitution. Where not cited, authority defaults to the states. The US government does not have 'blanket' authority over state rights even by inference or nuance. Except to the extent that state rights specifically violate the US Constitution.

 

[luckyluke]

22 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Being ruled by the EU commission in Brussels as one of the smaller 28 states in an increasingly federal EU project is not Independence.

 

But if it makes you feel good to pretend it is, don't let me stop you.

It seems you feel good to claim that the states member of the E.U. are no more independent. 

Fair enough. 

As Belgian I feel independent, and to be sure we really are, I checked the list of Independent Countries, we are still on it. 

Now it can also be a matter of perception. 

This being an individual feeling, one can be what one which to be, regardless of the facts. 

[JonnyF]

44 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

I was you who claimed that Scotland joining the EU is no foregone conclusion. Make your mind up.

I do not understand why you Brexiteers get so upset with the idea of Scottish independence. After all you were warned that a vote to leave the EU risked the union breaking up. This obviously did not matter to you then so why does it matter now?

 

I have no problem with Scotland leaving the UK. No problem at all, if that's what the Scots want. I have English, Irish and Welsh blood but have no feelings of allegiance towards the Scots whatsoever so I certainly wouldn't be upset if you left (more mildly amused). However, the fact remains that your countrymen voted 55/45 to Remain in the UK in 2014 and the SNP using every single political event to try to get another vote is devious and opportunistic.

 

My main issue is the SNP claiming they want Independence. Running off to hide under the EU's skirt is not Independence. Stop thumping you chest and claiming you want Independence when you want nothing of the sort.

[2530Ubon]

2 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

OK so here's my suggestion for y'all.

 

Then maybe you really would have a structure that might keep you all together, I hope!

A Yank giving US lessons... please!

 

Your districts are so gerrymandered that your politicians openly boast that the electorate doesn't choose it's politicians, politicians choose the electorate.

 

The senate is an absolute joke - proportional representation? Why do all states get two senators? Wyoming - population just over 500k - two senators. California - population 40 million - 2 senators. Does this sound fair?

 

The electoral college is a farce - twice (just off the top of my head, there may be more) a President has been elected who LOST the popular vote. That would never happen in any other democracy around the world.

 

Fix your system first

 

One more thing... I've had enough of all of the plastic paddy's and scots in America. You have NEVER been to Ireland, Scotland or Wales and it was centuries ago that some of your ancestors lived there. Why do you fake the accents and pretend that you love the 'old country' that you've never seen?

Edited November 18, 2020 by 2530Ubon

[Rookiescot]

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

I have no problem with Scotland leaving the UK. No problem at all, if that's what the Scots want. I have English, Irish and Welsh blood but have no feelings of allegiance towards the Scots whatsoever so I certainly wouldn't be upset if you left (more mildly amused). However, the fact remains that your countrymen voted 55/45 to Remain in the UK in 2014 and the SNP using every single political event to try to get another vote is devious and opportunistic.

 

My main issue is the SNP claiming they want Independence. Running off to hide under the EU's skirt is not Independence. Stop thumping you chest and claiming you want Independence when you want nothing of the sort.

But its OK to have a general election every two years when it suits the Conservative party?

So being under the skirt of England is supposedly better than being under the skirt of the EU? Although we would be an independent country within the EU which we are not while part of the one sided union.

Scotland voted 55/45 on the premise we would stay in the EU. You guys have screwed that up. Its worth noting that we voted 62/38 to remain in the EU so it would appear being in the EU is more popular in Scotland than being with Westminster.

And as you said. Scotland joining the EU is not a foregone conclusion. So stop claiming we will be under anyones skirt.  

[natway09]

It is a darn shame that the UK & Ireland is so split.

The unification would make it a country to be reckoned with, but being aware of the history 

this is impossible, so the segments will just become less important as time goes on 

to the rest of the world

[sawadee1947]

Well, the most horrible desaster was to vote for Boris. 

I reckon his desastrous management opened the eyes of most Brits now. 

The Scots realized it already. ????