John Swinney setting out ScotGov's no-deal Brexit analysis and mitigation plans; says "impacts" of such an exit would be "particularly severe". "There is no amount of preparation that could ever make us ready, in any real sense."
John Swinney tells MSPs that a no-deal Brexit "has the potential to generate a significant economic shock which could tip the Scottish economy into recession". Says prices could rise by 5% and push 130,000 people into poverty
If UK leaves EU without a deal, ScotGov plans to repurpose the disused port at Stranraer to hold up to 300 HGVs in case of disruption in traffic from Northern Ireland. Will also make £1.5m available to small and medium sized firms to prepare for impact
ScotGov will also allocate £7m "rapid poverty mitigation fund" for local authorities, to help vulnerable communities with things like fuel poverty and food insecurity in no-deal scenario, John Swinney tells MSPs
John Swinney says ScotGov is "preparing for the possibility of disorder at sea" in a no-deal scenario, which could "seriously threaten the safety of marine users". Wants UKgov to "confirm its capacity to respond to any serous incident" at sea
Police Scotland has a "flexible resource" of 300 public order trained officers ready to deal with "any Brexit related civil contingency issues that may arise" in a no-deal scenario, John Swinney says. Also supported by "Brexit coordination centre" at Bilston Glen.
John Swinney tells MSPs that "much of the responsibility" for tackling no-deal issues lies with UK govt - for example with cross-Channel flow of goods. But he says "the level of engagement from UKgov has been inadequate", which has made planning "unnecessarily difficult"
John Swinney says theres only so much that *any* govt could do to prepare for a no-deal Brexit. "To even countenance no-deal as a realistic prospect has always been illogical & economically reckless. Now, under the Benn Act, it is also illegal". Calls on UKgov to rule out no-deal
Gosh, there was a *lot* in that statement. John Swinney concludes that "there is no doubt that a no-deal outcome would have profound consequences for jobs, investment and living standards across Scotland - UKgov should do the responsible thing, and rule it out now"
Tory MSP Donald Cameron says best way to avoid a no-deal exit is to get a deal; but "any responsible government" should be preparing for no-deal. John Swinney says its "not terribly credible" to say that leaving with a deal is Tory position, as current offer is "designed to fail"
For Labour, Alex Rowley says the Tories would be responsible for "severe & unnecessary" harms of a no-deal exit, and talk of a deal is "disingenuous" given package of "unworkable solutions" put forward. John Swinney agrees that its time to remove the "reckless & damaging" UK govt
John Swinney says he found Priti Patel's Tory conference remarks about ending freedom of movement last week "chilling and stomach-churning"; "we need to encourage migration into our country", he says. Free movement is an "economic and social and moral enhancement of our country"
Patrick Harvie asks about support for EU nationals, who he fears may be "thrown under the bus" by UKgov if Tories re-elected on no-deal ticket. John Swinney says we need an immigration system "appropriate to Scotland"; the UK one is "hopeless" and "we want nothing to do with it"
Alex Cole-Hamilton says no-deal will be "devastating" to everyone in the UK and must be stopped; asks how govt's other work being affected by no-deal prep work. John Swinney notes "significant financial undertaking" in "redeploying resources to take account of planning required"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
ScotGov has released its external legal advice from the Salmond judicial review. It's basically set out as a timeline of documents; starting from 27 Sept, when counsel were satisfied that most grounds were "weak", but there was "real risk" over the ground of procedural unfairness
However advice changed quickly on 31 October, when the extent of contact between the investigating officer and complainers became clear; Roddy Dunlop QC said he was "very concerned indeed" and said this "presents a very real problem" - adding that IO may have been "not eligible"
Paper trail then jumps forward a month to 6 December, where Roddy Dunlop and Christine O’Neill say that “the ‘least worst’ option would be to concede the petition”. However emails from the following week say the Lord Advocate argued there was “no question” of dropping the case
From independence strategy to trans rights, NEC factionalism to Alex Salmond, the SNP gives every impression of being a party threatening to tear itself apart on the eve of a crucial election.
People will point to the SNP still polling very strongly (and perhaps more to the point, opposition parties very poorly) but there’s an old saying about divided parties not being winners for good reason...and about there only being one poll that matters
In order to turn a majority in the polls into an *actual* majority - particularly in the Holyrood system, which actively discourages them - you need to turn out your base, to get those who say they’d vote for you to actually do it. Infighting *really* doesn’t help with that.
The (virtual) Court of Session will be hearing arguments about whether or not Holyrood can legislate for indyref2 today and tomorrow - case brought by activists like @MartinJKeatings rather than ScotGov, but obvs the ruling could have interesting implications...
As is standard with the Court of Session I don't imagine there will *be* a ruling this week, but the judge says her "intention is to provide an opinion within days rather than weeks"
It's going really well so far anyway, with a row developing between the judge and the QC for the petitioners over the timetable for the hearings which appears to have ended with everyone being muted. So yes, the zoom courtroom has some similarities to your family zoom quiz
Latest in the back and forth between Alex Salmond and the Holyrood inquiry committee - they're now asking if he can come in on February 2nd *at the very latest*. Have also offered 26 January - altho they've also invited Peter Murrell to give further evidence on one of those dates
One minor detail I'd pick out from that letter is the note that committee members "unanimously" agreed to invite Mr Salmond to give evidence on 2 Feb. Perhaps a hint that things have not been entirely unanimous during their deliberations so far...
If they can't come to an agreement, *in theory* the inquiry committee could actually compel Alex Salmond to attend, although I imagine he would be able to produce a "reasonable excuse" what with the whole pandemic thing going on
Figure a lot of people have a lot of questions right now so thought a quick thread signposting to where what info we have is might be helpful...
This is the current law on travel restrictions, in force now. It includes a legal ban on travel between Scotland and the rest of the UK, and in and out of council areas in levels three and four, without a “reasonable excuse” legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2020/344/s…
Again the cross-border travel laws are in force *now* - the plan was they would be relaxed for Christmas, the change is that they now will not. Travel *within* Scotland permitted on Christmas Day - but next day whole mainland goes into L4, which means no movement between councils
MSPs will vote on a motion of no confidence in John Swinney as education secretary today. We already know it'll fail, because the Greens won't back it - so why are the opposition pressing ahead with it? [thread alert] bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla…
While the outcome is obvs the immediately important thing for parents and pupils, politically the narrative is significant too, with an election looming - and ScotGov seem to have successfully seized control of it
Especially with focus now shifting to A-level results down south, with Scotland as a case study in a potential solution which pleases students rather than of the underlying problem, opposition parties can't afford to leave this as essentially a "John Swinney saves the day" story