BC UK

SNP thread

1. Scotland's independence rested on the UK staying in the single market - that is why we saw repeated Brexit related litigation in the Scottish courts.

2. If an independent Scotland wished to join the EU, a hard border between Scotland & England would be required to protect the single market & prevent migrants using Scotland as a route into England.
3. Then there are the issues re currency & debt which would need to be settled before EU membership became a serious proposal.

Many in the SNP realise this, hence the divisions we're witnessing.
4. Just as the Brexit Party popularity waned after mission accomplished, the SNP's popularity rests on campaigning, rather than achieving what they're campaigning for.

Polls show that a hard border isn't popular in a country that relies heavily on tourism.
5. The SNP would have been better placed to set their sights lower & supported an Efta/EEA Brexit, but they went all out to stop the UK exiting the EU and ultimately lost.

A hollowed out cause is all that remains for the SNP, with no realistic prospect of success.
6. Repeatedly skirting the issues re eligibility to join EU won't cut the mustard - people deserve a clear plan, to know how long the process would take & how the hurdles will be overcome.
7. A decade spent in the wilderness, independent, trying to reduce existing debt, to settle debts to UK, sort out a currency, border, UK/Scotland trade deal, before accession process to the EU can commence would be painful.

The SNP know this,
We know this, &
The EU know this.
8. But most of all, it's the damage a 2nd indyref would cause the SNP if independence was rejected again. They've placed so much emphasis on it, a 2nd indy failure would reduce the Party to tatters.

The realistic politicians in the Party know this.

More from Uk

Just finished reading an article by Iain MacWhirter that is so full of demonstrable falsehoods & logical fallacies that it requires a firm response: So seeing as I’ve done one nuclear thread this week already, I might as well do another... 🧵☢️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇺🇳

Iain is able to correctly identify that the submission that @SNP_SITW group made to the UK #IntegratedReview - and therefore wasn’t policy about an independent Scotland - but that’s where his grip on reality ends.

We called for unilateral disarmament, as I pointed out on Monday:
https://t.co/DwHt9knqHh


Iain chooses to elide the fact that our submission was clearly not about policy in an independent Scotland, and therefore seeks to portray our request to the UK Government to be serious about its own commitments to multilateral arms control treaties — like the NPT — as SNP policy

Despite revealing that he knows a thing or two about internal SNP procedures, he then goes on to conflate two unconnected things — our submission, and a putative conference motion that the democratically-elected conferences committee (not the Leadership) decided not to accept
A short thread on why I am dubious that the government can lawfully impose charges on travellers entering the UK for quarantine and testing (proposed at £1,750 and £210)

1/

The UK has signed up to the International Health Regulations (IHA) 2005. These therefore create binding international legal obligations on the UK.

The IHA explicitly prevent charging for travellers' quarantine or medical examinations.

https://t.co/n4oWE8x5Vg /2


International law is not actionable in a UK court unless it has been implemented in law.

But it can be used as an aide to interpretation where a statute isn't clear as to what powers it grants.

See e.g. Lord Bingham in A v SSHD https://t.co/RXmib1qGYD

/3


The Quarantine regulations will, I assume, be made under section 45B of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984

https://t.co/54L4lHGMEr

/4


That gives pretty broad powers but I can't see any power to charge for quarantine. Perhaps it will be inferred from somewhere else in Part 2A?

But...

You May Also Like