May even ignores Scottish Tories.
It seems to me that Colonel Davidson’s glory days were short lived. When the Tories became the opposition in Scotland and then won seats in the UK elections, Ruth was the all conquering hero; the golden girl. She could do no wrong.
Then came the deal with Foster.
Who knows if buoyed by all her successes (and I know that not only didn’t she win anything, in fact, she trailed a dismal second to Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP in both Edinburgh and London, but it was, without doubt, considerable progress), perhaps she became a bit cheeky with May. It’s hard not to get above yourself when you’ve been relatively successful and your smart ass boss has just made a monumental idiot of hersel;f.
When May had to bribe Foster to the tune of between £1 billion and £1.5 billion to keep herself in power, after her disastrous attempt to show Europe just how strong, stable and red, white and blue she was, there is no doubt that Colonel Davidson was not best pleased.
Davidson made the clear to May, quite rightly, that she wouldn’t tolerate any of the DUP’s loonie right wing, orange, religious claptrap bigotry, and she did it very publicly. Although to be fair there has yet to be any stoning of gays, or beheading those who have had abortions since the DUP have been keeping the Tories in power (so Ruth may have been heeded) it seems that her star has been somewhat diminished.
And now May’s stuttering, stumbling toady second in command has made it clear that he (read May) doesn’t give a fig what the rt honourable and gallant lady thinks about desperately needed immigration to Scotland, the UK government is going to press ahead with what England wants.
In the meantime, Mundell made it clear that he wouldn’t allow Northern Ireland to get a shedload of dosh while Scotland got nothing, shortly after which he appeared to suffer from some sort of amnesia on the subject. Arlene got loads of money and an RAF flight home to Belfast, while Nicola Sturgeon was told to use the tradesman’s entrance when she called, and speak to the parlour maid.
I suppose it would be fair to say that a number of the Tory MPs elected in Scotland were thus chosen because of the Tory hard line on the EU. North East Fishing communities have long considered that the EU quota system to have been responsible for a decline in their living standards. Leaving the EU and getting them their fishing rights back was Tory policy.
Note the tense of the verb.
Because, a couple of weeks ago, Wee Govey took himself off to Denmark to reassure the Danes that, of course, they would be able to fish in Scottish waters after the UK left Europe. (Having your cod and eating it?) There was some notion that we actually couldn’t cope with all these fish on our own. Too wee, too poor and too stupid again, I guess
So, yes, the Tories are certainly fighting hard… it’s just that it’s with each other, and not for Scotland.
We were very tolerant towards your lesser self in the early stages of our taking over the top job at the centre of the Empire at No 10 Downing Street, London ENGLAND. We think we may even have done you the honour of visiting you in your bedsit at Bute Cottage in Aberburgh, although, of course, we do not recall.
However, following our tremendous and spectacular General Election victory, and now that we have grown in stature in our position as triumphant leader of OUR United Kingdom and become close to world statesmen such as Mr Netenyahu and Mr Erdogan, not to mention HRH Excellency Trump and His Majesty King Salman, we feel that further discussion with a junior minister of a mere district would be inappropriate. Besides which, as I am now busily (and successfully) engaged in a red, white and blue Brexit, which means Brexit (including for your district) so that Britain can take back control of everything from the foreigners who are out to get us British people, I’m simply too busy to be bothered with inferiors.
It has been decided, therefore, that if you have anything that you wish to discuss with your superiors here at Empire Central, in our great capital city of London, you should address those matters with the Rt Hon David Mud… Mund… well, you know who I mean, and of course, if you can find her (she seems to have gone walkabout since Ms Arlene and I struck up a friendship) the Rt Hon and Gallant Lady, Colonel Davidson. Alternatively, you may try to approach the Noble Lord Duncan in his Baronial Castle, although I understand that he doesn’t much like commoners. A curtsey is appropriate.
You will not, any longer, be allowed to address yourself directly to us personally, and we intend to instruct the queen that she is no longer to grant you an audience, but must hold herself always in readiness for any occasion on which we wish to have a photo-opportunity with her, or get her to open our parliament.
Do not let any of that make you feel any less important than you already are.
Rule Britannia. God save the Queen and Theresa May
Her Britannic Empr , sorry, Prime Ministerialness
Signed per pro
in her absence.
(Note to Cabinet Secretary: Send same sort of thing to that Welsh blokey, and the people in IOM, Channel Islands, and Gibraltar, Falklands and the rest of my empire. DO NOT ON ANY ACCOUNT SEND TO BELFAST on pain of death.)
When it comes to saying something stupid, you can always trust Muddle. According to him, the new Tory MPs from Scotland are going to represent people who voted no to independence.
And there was me thinking that they were obliged to represent ALL the people in their constituency, old and young, black or white, Scottish or English, unionist or independentist, Tory or Liberal, whatever.
Maybe Mr Muddle could supply a list of alternative MPs who will be available for people in these Tory constituencies (including his own) who are supporters of a free Scotland. And hopefully, he will bring ‘his influence’ (snigger) to bear to overturn the rules that say that MPs may not deal with issues from people from without their constituencies.
In the meantime, Mrs May proved that once you have become known as an incompetent clumsy, useless idiot there is simply nothing that will go right for you. She should ask Gordon Brown. He knows all about that.
It’s like Scotland had voted the same way as England and Wales and wanted to remove itself from Europe. When, in fact, it voted 62-38 to remain in Europe.
It’s perfectly true that in 2014 the Scottish people voted to remain within the UK. They did so based on a promise from David Cameron, conveyed through Gordon Brown (because Cameron knew he was unpopular in Scotland, and no one would believe him) that we would have the most powerful devolved parliament in the world with as near to federal powers as it was possible to get in a union like the UK’s where one member comprises 85% of the population.
Now, you really only have to look around the world, to Canada, the USA, Denmark, Germany, Australia, India, Belgium… and so on, to see that that is utter rubbish.
The powers that we were promised were watered down firstly in the Smith Commission (with 6-4 unionist-independentist members), and then further by the Tory/Liberal Democrat, largely English Cabinet before being sent to Scotland. When a bill for more powers came before the UK parliament, no amendments put forward by recently-elected Scottish MPs were accepted. All were outvoted by UK MPs.
And of course one of the most specific warnings at the time of the Scottish referendum was the threat that were we to leave the UK we would be thrown out of the EU, and that that would be a catastrophe. Some young people, with a view to travelling, studying and working in other EU countries may very well have been swayed by these threats (as may well have been businessmen and others).
No one is asking the Scottish people to make a decision on the outcome of the Brexit negotiations before they are completed. (Although, given that there will be no referendum on the outcome of the talks, no one in Britain will be given a voice.) It has been made clear that negotiations are to be finished by October 2018…in 18 months’ time. Now is not the time. After the negotiations are completed IS the time, before Scotland is dragged out of the EU against its will.
One might ask why the will of 55% of the Scottish people in 2014 is more important than the will of 62% of the Scottish population in 2016.
The Scotland Office says that leaving the EU gives us a unique opportunity, and then continues with some drivel about being fairer and more united and outward looking. Seriously, that is insulting after the warnings we were given about how disastrous it would be to leave the EU.
The UK will not be united. There’s about a 50-50 split, and two of the four integral countries of the union are opposed to leaving and will be badly affected by it.
The UK will not be fairer. A good deal of the fairness which exists here is down to EU law. It’s already been suggested by people like Mr Fox that Britain will have to deregulate business so that they can take advantage of opportunities. A trade deal with the US will demand that we work to their standards (which are far less rigorous than the EU’s). The Human Rights legislation of the EU will be binned and our access to European courts will be removed.
It won’t be stronger, and I have no idea why anyone would think that isolating yourself would make you more outward looking. I’d have thought that with people no longer able to travel, study, live, work anywhere within the large and getting larger EU, we are likely to become even more inward looking that we have always been.
But why am I surprised? The Scotland Office has never represented the will of the Scottish people. How could it, run as it is by the Tories who managed to get only one seat out of 59 in our country in the elections of 2015.
Oh, and how many times are you going to repeat Mrs May’s latest catchphrase “Now is not the time”. Presumably the time is when Scotland has been dragged out of the EU; EU people have left to make a better home for themselves and can no longer vote and people with dual nationality have moved to the other country to which they are attached.
Still, it’s better than the “Brexit means Brexit” and “Brexit is red white and blue” that she came up with before.
There can be little doubt that if you wanted a cause to succeed in Britain, one of the very last people you’d chose to be the cheerleader for it would be Tony Blair. (But then no one chose him; he just did it.) He undoubtedly has some fans left, although I think most of them form the hard-right-wing of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Outside of that, I suppose George W Bush likes him, I’m sure that Jim Murphy is still a fan and Mystic Meg look alike, John McTernan, is bound to be lurking somewhere in his slipstream, making prophecies from hell.
But with something as important as Brexit, it might have been comforting if those arguing against Blair had a little more to dish out than personal insults (not that I’m averse to anyone handing Mr Blair his backside on a plate).
Here then, are some questions that another Blair fanboy, Alistair Campbell, has come up with and had published in the European. I lift the text from their website (see link), unaltered and without their permission or Mr Campbell’s. (OK, I’m no fan of Alistair either, but this is good stuff. Credit where it is due.) The illustrations are mine.
So, without further ado, questions to those who are leading the cheers for Brexit:
1. Do you accept that many people who voted Leave did so without knowing the full terms of Brexit?
2. Do you accept that it is open to the people to change their minds if they decide Brexit will in fact harm their own and the country’s interests?
3. Do you accept that there is no monopoly on patriotism and that there might be a patriotic case for wishing to reverse the referendum decision, if enough people feel it will be damaging to the UK?
4. Do you agree the government approach can now Be defined as “Brexit at any cost”?
5. Do you accept that people are entitled to be concerned at the scale of that cost, economically and politically?
6. Do you accept that the financial cost of withdrawal, the UK having to pay for previous EU obligations but not benefit from future opportunities, could be as high as £60bn?
7. Do you agree with the Prime Minister’s and the Chancellor’s former views that maintaining our partnership with the biggest political union and largest commercial market on our doorstep fulfills rather than diminishes our national interest?
8. Is there not something surreal about the Prime Minister and Chancellor now claiming hard Brexit is a huge boon for the country when during the campaign they said the opposite, in Hammond’s case with real conviction?
9. Do you accept that politics, not economics or the genuine national interest, is now driving the Hard Brexit chosen by May?
10. Are you seriously saying the PM’s vision of Britain as a “great open trading nation” is best served by leaving the largest free trading bloc in the world? Might her vision of Britain as a bridge between Europe and the US be more realistic if we remained part of the EU?
11. In what way will her call for a fairer capitalism be met by moving to a low tax, light regulation economy?
12. Do you accept that if the right-wing ideologues pushing a hard Brexit so Britain becomes a low tax, low regulation, offshore hub have their way, we will need huge tax and welfare changes? Were they voted for in the referendum?
13. Will this approach in fact lead to less not more public money for the NHS?
Less not more protection for workers?
14. Is it not the case that the UK government could make these changes now, but wouldn’t because they know they do not have public support for them?
15. Is there any chance at all that Brexit will lead to £350m a week more for the NHS
16. Please define the “big argument” that Tony Blair argues is missing from this pursuit of hard Brexit, and how it will benefit Britain economically.
17. Do you agree that of the many arguments put forward for Leave in the referendum, only immigration and the ECJ (European Court of Justice) are still really being pursued?
18. Do you accept that the Leave campaign deliberately conflated the ECJ and the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights)?
19. Can you confirm that that ECHR is not and never has been a EU body?
20. Can you name any laws the UK has not been able to pass because of the ECJ?
21. Can you confirm that of net immigration into the UK in 2016, over half was from outside the EU?
22. Do you accept that as May wants to keep those EU immigrants who come with a confirmed job offer, and students, this leaves around 80,000 who come looking for work without a job?
23. Do you agree that of these 80,000, roughly a third comes to London, mostly working in the food processing and hospitality sectors; and that the practical impact of Brexit on our “control” of immigration is on analysis less than 12% of the immigration total?
24. Do you agree that most of the immigrants we are talking about in this 12% work hard and pay their taxes?
25. Do you think the biggest constitutional, political, economic and social change of our lifetime is merited by such numbers as set out in questions 22 to 24?
26. Do you accept that the immigration most people worry about – that of people determined to challenge our security and way of life, in the name of a perverted view of Islam – is not affected by Brexit?
27. Do you agree that the post Article 50 negotiations are going to be as complex as any we have experienced, covering a vast number of areas?
28. Do you accept, as a matter of fact, that the single market covers around half of our trade in goods and services?
29. Do you accept that leaving the Customs Union may adversely impact on trade with other countries like Turkey?
30. Can you confirm that we will need to negotiate the replacement of over 50 Preferential Trade Agreements we have via our membership of the EU?
31. Do you accept that EU-related trade is actually two thirds of the UK total?
32. Do you accept scientific research and culture are both going to suffer as a result of Brexit, and indeed already are?
33. Are you content to have the WTO as a fall back strategy should we fail to reach a satisfactory deal within two years?
34. Do you accept this too has enormous complexity attached to it; that we would need to negotiate the removal not just of tariff barriers; but the prevention of non-tariff barriers which today are often the biggest impediments to trade?
35) Do you agree that the fall in the value of sterling against the euro and the dollar as a result of Brexit is an indication that the international financial markets believe we are going to be poorer?
36. Do you accept that therefore the price of imported goods is up and so will be inflation?
37. Do you agree that the single market and enlargement were huge foreign policy successes for the UK?
38. Do you agree that the single market has brought billions of pounds of wealth, hundreds of thousands of jobs, and major investment opportunities for the UK?
39. Do you agree that enlargement has enhanced EU and NATO security?
40. Do you accept that in the early 21st century, most countries are seeking to forge rather than break regional and economic alliances?
41. Do you agree we can do more on issues like the environment with others than alone?
42. Do you agree that the route taken on and since June 23 has helped revive the argument about Scotland leaving the UK?
43. Do you accept that the failure to address the question of how to maintain EU freedom of movement without a hard border between Ireland and the UK is destabilising the peace process?
44. Do you accept the government is obsessed with Brexit, and has no choIie but to be so?
45. Do you accept that the scale of government focus on Brexit is having a detrimental impact on their ability to deal with other issues, such as the NHS, education, the new economy, crime, prisons – and, er, immigration policy?
46. Do you accept there is a cartel of right wing newspapers skewing the debate in the broadcast media, and whose support for May is contingent on her pursuing a hard Brexit policy?
47. Do you agree that had the business survey mentioned by Blair said the opposite – namely huge confidence in Brexit – it would have led the news because the cartel would have splashed on it, not ignored it?
48. Do you accept Brexit has divided the country across its nations, regions and generations, contrary to May’s claim to have 65million people behind her?