UK government's Brexit impact assessment 'shameful' says Sturgeon
Nicola Sturgeon has described as “shameful” Westminster’s failure to consider the impact of Brexit on the economy, as her own government prepares to publish a “clear-eyed, hard-headed” analysis of potential outcomes of leaving the EU.
Interviewed on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show on Sunday morning, Scotland’s first minister said that, although she had seen “some redacted material” from the UK government’s Brexit impact assessments, “I think everyone has concluded that what we were told previously by David Davis were in-depth impact studies are no such thing”.
Nicola Sturgeon told the BBC’s Andrew Marr the government
‘hasn’t even bothered’ to properly assess the impact of Brexit.
Jeff Overs/BBC/PA
“I really do think it is shameful that the UK government, that is the government that is looking to take the UK out of the European Union, hasn’t even bothered to properly look at the impact on our economy.”
Speaking ahead of the publication of the assessment by Scottish government economists on Monday, she said that the modelling would look at the impact of three different Brexit outcomes on GDP, trade and immigration: staying in the single market and customs union; a free trade agreement; or reverting to WTO terms, and would conclude that the first scenario would be least damaging to the country’s economy.
Sturgeon continued to put pressure on the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, to join the SNP in coalition against a hard Brexit. She said: “There’s a real window of opportunity. I believe that there is a majority in the House of Commons for remaining within the single market, if Labour gets its act together.”
The leader of the SNP at Westminster, Ian Blackford, invited opposition leaders from across the Commons to a new year summit last Tuesday to coordinate cross-party efforts to limit the “catastrophic damage” of a hard Brexit, but Corbyn did not attend.
Sturgeon added: “Jeremy Corbyn has to decide where he stands on this. I think most of his supporters will be deeply disappointed that he appears to be only slightly less in favour of a hard Brexit than the Tories are and many will find that completely inexplicable.”
Her remarks came as Andrew Adonis described Sturgeon as a “powerful voice” on Brexit, while insisting the “tide is turning” in England against leaving the EU.
Adonis, who resigned as Theresa May’s infrastructure tsar at the end of December in protest at the government’s handling of Brexit, told Scotland’s Sunday Herald: “Her voice is a powerful one and I hope I can work closely with her in forcing Theresa May to let the people of the UK make the final decision on the Brexit deal that’s negotiated.”
Sturgeon has said previously that calls for a second EU referendum may “become difficult to resist”.
The SNP leader earlier this week reiterated that the Scottish government would not recommend that Holyrood approve the EU withdrawal bill in its current state, after the Westminster government failed to bring forward amendments to a highly contentious clause that centralises more than 100 European powers in Whitehall after Brexit, even though they involve policy controlled by the devolved parliaments.
She told Andrew Marr that, while legislative consent is a convention, “it is unthinkable that the House of Commons would ignore the views not just of the Scottish parliament but the Welsh assembly”.
=============================
by Libby Brooks
There may be links in the Original Article that have not been reproduced here.
Tags
Who is online
424 visitors
I was surprised the other day to get a few Replies to a seed about Brexit. It is a topic that interests me. I have French citizenship, so most EU news is important to me.
If there are other members who are interested in Brexit, I will continue to post on the topic.
I suspect there are a few, and even though we disagree on Brexit, your seeds on the topic are welcome.
As for Sturgeon
“I really do think it is shameful that the UK government, that is the government that is looking to take the UK out of the European Union, hasn’t even bothered to properly look at the impact on our economy.”
She left out the word possible here.
In Scotland we had a referendum, I was in favour of independence for many of the same reasons I voted for Brexit. I've accepted the results from both, Ms Sturgeon hasn't.
It should be noted she wasn't concerned about the possible economic ramifications of leaving Britain.
I believe that much of what Sturgeon says is tainted by her desire for an new referendum in Scotland, I would urge caution at accepting her words at face value.
The Scottish vote was massively "remain". How would you feel about Scotland leaving the UK in order to rejoin the EU? (Easier said than done, I know...)
The Californian vote was massively is favour of Clinton, but she isn't President.
I'm the oddest of Scottish Nationalists, I actually want full independence.
I've never understood the mainstream parties desire to leave one union, only to join a much larger union in which we will have even less say.
Considering the constitutional differences between the UK and the US, that's pretty much irrelevant. And I assume you know it. Please avoid such childishness. Let's stick to adult conversation.
So... You'd like a fully independent Scotland. Five million in a world of ten billion. How do you see that working? Singapore?
Not really, Scotland is part of Britain, not an independent nation. The overall vote matters. The furore made over the Scottish vote was in part a ploy to justify another Scottish referendum, this idea was slapped down at the General Election.
So... You'd like a fully independent Scotland. Five million in a world of ten billion. How do you see that working? Singapore?
About 7.6 billion.
There are other successful small independent nations.
I'm on my way out, so I'll answer any responses later.
I don't pretend to be a specialist, but I seem to remember that originally Scotland and England were a crown union under James VI / I. Elizabeth is "Elizabeth I" in Scotland. The Act of Union did not integrate Scotland into England, but created "Great Britain". Which has since become the UK, with significant powers devolved to the component countries.
Now... One more time... I think you know this as well as I. You are playing fast and loose with the truth when you say "Scotland is part of Britain". You are doing this on purpose. I don't know why, and I don't care... but I won't continue for long. Either we converse frankly, as completely as we know how... or we do not converse at all.
Ok. Which would you take as examples for an independent Scotland? This isn't a trick question. It is perfectly straightforward. I don't know of many fully independent small countries. So perhaps you can educate me.
Sorry I posted in the wrong place.
I don't pretend to be a specialist, but I seem to remember that originally Scotland and England were a crown union under James VI / I. Elizabeth is "Elizabeth I" in Scotland.
James the VI of Scotland became James the I of England, the Union of the Crowns didn't form Great Britain.
The Acts of Union, 1707 formed Great Britain.
The Acts of Union 1800 formed The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801.
Elizabeth I was an English Queen.
Elizabeth II is a British Queen.
Great Britain means the physical landmass encompassing England, Scotland and Wales, but it is also a political term for the same area.
The UK is a political term referring to the independent nation that encompasses all of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
It's ok they are often used interchangeably, only a pedantic poster will make an issue of it.
Which has since become the UK, with significant powers devolved to the component countries.
These powers don't include making treaties with foreign nations, only the UK Parliament can make these decisions, I think you vastly overestimate the powers granted to the devolved bodies. Think of an American State attempting to make a political alliance with a foreign nation, would that be legal?
Now... One more time... I think you know this as well as I. You are playing fast and loose with the truth when you say "Scotland is part of Britain".
No, I think you misunderstand the political realities of the UK.
The UK joined as a political unit, the UK voted to leave as a political unit, the individual parts don't get a veto. That the majority in Scotland voted to stay is politically meaningless, save as a cudgel for Ms Sturgeon to use, this was completely mitigated by the General Election results.
It is perfectly straightforward.
I'm not in Government, what I'd like to see is irrelevant, but as you've asked, in part Israel.
Alternatively, a precise poster. Which I try to be.
I am not participating in any high school debating society. I am discussing (I hope) intelligently. You do not seem to be doing the same. You're "scoring points"... which doesn't interest me.
If you really do not think that Scotland's massive "remain" vote was politically significant, then we certainly do not understand politics in anything like the same way.
Have a nice life.
Alternatively, a precise poster. Which I try to be.
What part of "often used interchangeably" didn't you get.
I am not participating in any high school debating society. I am discussing (I hope) intelligently.
So, not getting the answers you want equates to others lack of intelligence.
The Scottish parliament doesn't have the powers to make or break treaties, these are reserved for Westminster, this is what we call a fact.
That you don't seem to like this fact is irrelevant.
That it doesn't fit your position is irrelevant.
You do not seem to be doing the same. You're "scoring points"... which doesn't interest me.
So, we've established you don't like to be corrected, not my problem.
If you really do not think that Scotland's massive "remain" vote was politically significant, then we certainly do not understand politics in anything like the same way.
Within the broader Brexit vote, no it wasn't.
Ask yourself this, has it altered the Brexit vote?
No!
Or this, does Scotland get to stay in the EU because of the vote?
No!
The main political significance of the vote revolves around Scotland's continued position within the UK, that's where it had significance.
OK... One last attempt, and then you go on my "ignore list".
I said what I was trying to do: "discussing (I hope) intelligently". I did not say anything about your intelligence, but rather about you objectives and methods. You are hammering your points, as though insistence can make them true. Unfortunately, some of them are at least partially wrong, and I think you know it. So I find myself doubting your honesty, and I'm not going to waste my time conversing with someone who is dishonest.
Simple test: Is Elisabeth Windsor "Queen Elizabeth I" or "Queen Elizabeth II" in Scotland?
I know that she is Elizabeth I. I spent a little time in Scotland, and that was something I noticed. So your statements "Elizabeth I was an English Queen, Elizabeth II is a British Queen" is... not "the whole truth", to say the least. I am not interested in that kind of conversation.
I want to learn, but I must have confidence in the sources who would inform me. For the moment, you're not inspiring confidence.
"Great Britain" is the biggest of the British Isles. Its name goes back to Norman French, "Grande Bretagne" as opposed to "Petite Bretagne", now known as Brittany. If you'd like, I could go into the intricacies of the other islands, from the Orkneys to the Channel Islands, and their relationships with "Great Britain" and with "The United Kingdom" which are not the same thing. Please do not assume that because you are a local, you can say any sort of approximation and make it stick.
I read a great deal, including about Brexit. I know quite a bit. And I would be happy to learn more, from whatever source, including other NT members. But I do not want to feel that I must double-check everything a person says.
For example, I know (from lots of articles on the topic) that Scotland's massive "remain" vote is a political problem now. How it will play out is unclear (to me at least), but to say it is not significant is just plain false.
You say, "the individual parts don't get a veto." Of course not. No one suggested that. My original question to you was not about a veto. I asked "How would you feel about Scotland leaving the UK in order to rejoin the EU?" This is a quandary for May. She intends to leave the EU on the basis of a fairly narrow vote, so she can hardly argue against Scotland leaving the UK when Scotland's "remain" vote was significantly higher than the overall "leave" vote. And Sturgeon is using that situation to maximum effect.
So... Do you want to talk about this in good faith, or do we pack it in?
You are hammering your points, as though insistence can make them true.
Many of my points are factual, they already are true. The only ones that aren't factual are my conclusions.
I know that she is Elizabeth I.
What you think you know is factually wrong
Simple test: Is Elizabeth Windsor "Queen Elizabeth I" or "Queen Elizabeth II" in Scotland?
She's is Queen Elizabeth II in Scotland as well!
Queen Elizabeth II and Scotland
So your statements " Elizabeth I was an English Queen, Elizabeth II is a British Queen" is... not "the whole truth" , to say the least.
Yes it is, they are different Queens.
Queen Elizabeth I
Elizabeth, the last Tudor monarch, was born in Greenwich on 7 September 1533.
Queen Elizabeth II
Her Majesty the Queen was born on 21 April 1926 in London,
"The United Kingdom" which are not the same thing. Please do not assume that because you are a local, you can say any sort of approximation and make it stick.
I didn't say it was the same thing , my post detailed the differences, however they are used interchangeably locally, with only the pedantic insisting the correct one be used.
For example, I know (from lots of articles on the topic) that Scotland's massive "remain" vote is a political problem now. How it will play out is unclear (to me at least), but to say it is not significant is just plain false.
Not so, for decades Scotland has voted differently to England, this finally led to a strain on the continuance of Scotland's position within the UK. We had a referendum, and the vote was to remain part of Britain.
The difference in the remain vote has been undermined by the last General election result, where the SNP lost a great deal of ground.
How would you feel about Scotland leaving the UK in order to rejoin the EU? " This is a quandary for May . She intends to leave the EU on the basis of a fairly narrow vote, so she can hardly argue against Scotland leaving the UK when Scotland's "remain" vote was significantly higher than the overall "leave" vote. And Sturgeon is using that situation to maximum effect.
Was, past tense, the last General elections put paid to any plans the SNP had to hold another referendum in Scotland.
I don't know who you've been listen to, but I'd stop.
Again with the good faith nonsense, didn't you learn from the last time?
To show I'm not speaking in good faith you'd have to prove what I'm saying is wrong, unfortunately I've linked evidence to show I'm speaking the truth.
Let's not waste our time, both of us, ok?
Let's not waste our time, both of us, ok?
The links I've provided prove what I'm saying is true, I don't see that as a waste of time.
Do you deny the evidence of my links?
I only looled at one, the court case about Elizabeth. You presented the link as evidence for your Queen of Great Britain line. In fact, the court ruled that she could call herself whatever she wants.
Not at all the same thing.
As I said, I'm not interested in eternal double-checks.
I only looled at one, the court case about Elizabeth. You presented the link as evidence for your Queen of Great Britain line. In fact, the court ruled that she could call herself whatever she wants.
And she calls herself Elizabeth II, as demonstrated in the other two links.
As I said, I'm not interested in eternal double-checks.
Especially if they show you're wrong.
How much evidence does it actually take?
You should look at all of them, there is no reason for anyone to live in ignorance.
Now, I can give you my impressions about where we are at this point in time.
In part she is attempting to form a coalition to force the Governments hand in Westminster, as covered in the article.
She is also I suspect priming the public for the doom and gloom of the impact report she will issue. It will be easy enough to see if I'm right about the report, I suspect it will be almost entirely negative.
She is also looking at having as many of the returning powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament s possible, I can provide a link for this if you want.
In the medium to long term I believe she's hoping for a disastrous Brexit, in the hopes that this will reignite public desire for another referendum in Scotland. This I can't provide a link for as it's speculative on my part.
I don't pretend to be a specialist, but I seem to remember that originally Scotland and England were a crown union under James VI / I. Elizabeth is "Elizabeth I" in Scotland.
James the VI of Scotland became James the I of England, the Union of the Crowns didn't form Great Britain.
The Acts of Union, 1707 formed Great Britain.
The Acts of Union 1800 formed The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801.
Elizabeth I was an English Queen.
Elizabeth II is a British Queen.
Great Britain means the physical landmass encompassing England, Scotland and Wales, but it is also a political term for the same area.
The UK is a political term referring to the independent nation that encompasses all of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
It's ok they are often used interchangeably, only a pedantic poster will make an issue of it.
Which has since become the UK, with significant powers devolved to the component countries.
These powers don't include making treaties with foreign nations, only the UK Parliament can make these decisions. Think of an American State attempting to make a political alliance with a foreign nation, would that be legal?
Now... One more time... I think you know this as well as I. You are playing fast and loose with the truth when you say "Scotland is part of Britain".
No, I think you misunderstand the political realities of the UK.
The UK joined as a political unit, the UK voted to leave as a political unit, the individual parts don't get a veto. That the majority in Scotland voted to stay is politically meaningless, save as a cudgel for Ms Sturgeon to use, this was completely mitigated by the General Election results.
It is perfectly straightforward.
I'm not in Government, what I'd like to see is irrelevant, but as you've asked, Israel.