Explain this "power grab" thing to me - don't get the logic!(41 Posts)
So it's been announced that after Brexit the UK government plans to take control of things like food labelling, animal health and rules about chemicals for the whole of the UK while we pick our way through the Brexit mess. These are issues which are currently decided in Brussels for the EU as a whole.
Scottish government kicking off about a "power grab". They think that Scotland should have total control over everything. Hardly surprising standpoint as their aim is independence and a break from the rest of the UK.
So here to me is the total logic fail - it's perfectly OK for the EU to decide what Scotland puts on its food labels with very little consultation with the Scottish people or Scottish government as we have 6 MEPs out of 750. But it's most definitely NOT OK to allow the Uk government to do the same job, even though Scotland has a lot more influence and the UK government have already said that some of these new "powers" would be devolved at some point in the future?
EU rules won't necessarily be directly transposed into laws covering the UK, and, as the saying goes, "there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip." What if UK laws were being passed at a time of negotiations with a powerful trade partner, with a reputation for... shall we say lower-cost standards and/or enforcement?
But quitelikely that's my point - the "powers" are exceptionally minor, and the Scottish government has until now been perfectly happy to allow Brussels to have the "power".
I think it's an important point. Under the conditions of the Scottish Parliament, all powers are devolved unless they are specifically reserved - i.e., Westminster has to explicitly say and justify why a power is not being devolved. This approach drives a bulldozer through that philosophy - Westminster are saying that they will take everything to themselves without the agreement of the Scottish Parliament. It's just involving fairly minor things at the moment but understanding is that it fundamentally changes the relationship between the two parliaments to give more power to Westminster and hence has to be challenged.
At the moment, I would guess (don't know details enough to say for sure) that there are some benefits of allowing the EU to decide those things i.e. Scotland gets benefits from being part of the EU, as well as laws being standardised across the zone meaning that trade, etc. are perhaps easier for Scottish companies.
However, if Westminster takes that control, what are the chances of Scotland's needs being taken into consideration (hopefully high, but perhaps lower than England's?) and what will Scotland get out of Westminster sorting it out on their behalf?
Whilst it does seem like NS does want independence, perhaps it is just a cautious approach as you might have with a couple splitting up - perhaps they paid the bills through a joint account and now one of them - DH maybe? - has said, 'don't worry love, I'll close the joint account, and I'll sort it all out from my account and I'll let you know what you need to pay'. Now, on the one hand, you may have loved this person, shared a long relationship, trusted them and been an amicable split.....but, do you go along with it or do you go for the cautious approach and say 'erm, no, actually, I'd like to see all the bills myself and then we can agree who pays what.'.
That may be a terrible example! Perhaps it's less independence and more protection of control. Perhaps Scotland trusted the EU more than Westminster.....
How could we realistically have a single market in the UK if we don't have UK wide quality standards?
Many powers would simply be used by Sturgeon to build a wall between Scotland and the rest.
Generally if you take a standard like number of insect parts allowed in soup. Different countries have different allowances. The EU has one allowance, the US another, Australia another - you decide your companies level depending on where you want to sell. If for example the UK decides to tighten up on its standard but Sturgeon to lessen Scottish exports to England decides to not follow that change.
Scotland never had the powers England are accused of grabbing it is a manufactured problem to enable Sturgeons continual grievance whine. If it does cause a constitutional crisis the answer is obvious shut Holyrood down.
If it does cause a constitutional crisis the answer is obvious shut Holyrood down.
And therein lies the problem Attitudes like that demonstrate why the SNP (and the Greens, don't forget) are correct to be concerned.
Not just the SNP and Greens, this time, LibDems and even Labour agree that the power grab is unreasonable.
I read that it really hinges on a couple of words. The Welsh and the Scots want there to be "agreement" when it comes to drawing up the necessary UK-wide frameworks for food standards etc. WM say they will "consult" the Welsh and the Scots, but give no guarantee that they won't just completely ignore us.
The EU were happy for Scotland to ban fracking, to ban GM foods, to keep the Scottish NHS; so you think Westminster will do the same? Not a chance. Just look at the list of things they want control over. It's not for Scotland's good, that's for sure.
Westminster are worried that Scotland's high standards will scupper their trade deals. They won't agree to having to obtain the Scottish parliament's agreement (which the Scottish MSPs have agreed "would not be unreasonably withheld") because their plan is to propose changes which the Scottish parliament, and the majority of the Scottish people, would never agree to.
Nobody who watched the unfolding of the Vow and its aftermath will ever trust Westminster's protestations otherwise.
So the EU held these powers previously. Scotland has been, on the whole, happy with how that's gone. Who can blame the Scottish parliament (not just SNP MSPs but the majority of MSPs) for attempting to prevent Westminster grabbing these important powers and rides roughshod over Scots' wishes (as with Brexit itself)? Except of course for those who see Scotland and indeed the rest of the UK as simply an extension of England, to be used and abused as Westminster decides.
CD, There's a reason Scotland wants to be able to set our own standards and it's not simply to build a wall between us and England (FFS). We currently have different standards and trade just fine with each other. It's little England that wants to go their own way and leave the EU and have to make new trade deals around the world. They can trade their own goods and agree whatever standards they want. Hands off Scotland's industries.
K2p2 - did you say 'scotland has a lot more influence'? In the UK?? Are you having a laugh?? Scotland has influence in the UK
We're not even to be allowed to have a say on powers that were supposed to be devolved.
Also K2 - "the "powers" are exceptionally minor"? Really. Control of those powers that Westminster wants to keep away from the Scottish government means control over decisions on farming, fishing, environmental standards, pesticides, food and drink...I must be misunderstanding you because I don't think anyone would call those 'minor'?
The EU were happy for Scotland to ban fracking, to ban GM foods, to keep the Scottish NHS
Those things had nothing to do with the EU - Scotland has no standing in Brussels - all of those things were devolved from Westminster.
Whilst it does seem like NS does want independence
She's spoken of little else since she was elected as an MSP. The woman is obsessed with her teenage dream.
Scotland has 6 out of 750 seats in the Euro parliament. 0.8%
Scotland has 59 out of 650 UK parliament seats. 9%
So it's obvious that when your area represents 9% of the total, you have more of a voice than when you represent less than 1% of the total. (But that doesn't fit with the nationalist rhetoric of "the english hate us")
Also Nyx, if these things like fisheries and food and drink are SO important, why are the SNP happy to delegate them to Brussels, where Scotland is less than 1% of the total Euro Parliament seats and where the 6 Scottish MEPs have hardly any influence at all?
It's just all coming over as a bit petty.
"Those things had nothing to do with the EU - Scotland has no standing in Brussels - all of those things were devolved from Westminster."
Eh? Scotland has MEPs - 6 of them, I think?
The devolution settlement meant that certain things were reserved to Westminster. Everything else was devolved, and these things we're discussing were not reserved (probably because as you say, the EU held the reins). But the principle remains. They are not reserved and therefore should go to the devolved parliaments. The UK is supposed to be a union. The union does not mean that Westminster should get to decide on everything no matter what the Scottish people vote for.
Omg kp2. Nobody's rhetoric is 'the English hate us'. Show me where I or anyone else says that. But we have every reason to trust the EU over Westminster. The conservatives' whole reason for wanting these powers is to prevent Scotland from keeping the high standards and laws we currently have. Do you seriously think they want what's good for Scotland?
Just a couple of points,
As PPs have said,
SNP / Labour / Greens / Lib Dems are all against this - it's not just the power hungry SNAP
Wales have the same concerns and are also putting forward a very similar bill to the Scottish one to try to prevent Westminster completely ignoring devolution.
Scotland has no MEPs - Britain has 73.
The union does not mean that Westminster should get to decide on everything
Yes it does, Westminster is the sovereign parliament, Holyrood is a devolved assembly. Its powers all come from Westminster.
Nyx I see you have a standard separatist response - facts are goady, when arguments fail tackle the person.
I'm away to eat Walkers shortbread from a Union Jack tin.
The fact is that Scotland has 6 MEPs. Sigh. Your post is the definition of goady. But away and enjoy your shortbread
CD - your Walkers jibe is goady. As is everything you post about SNP or Holyrood.
Well I think Holyrood is a waste of money and pointless as long as the single thought SNP are in control.
In your opinion was Holyrood 'pointless' and 'a waste of money' when labour was in charge?
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.