What’s fascinating about @lewis_goodall’s report👇of @ukhomeoffice reaction after a senior police officer in Glasgow decided to release people detained by UK officials is the begged questions.
Who are “the frontline”?
Which is “our country”?
Who’s in charge?
A🧵/1.
Clearly, there were two “frontlines” in this case (not counting what the HO described as a “mob”): UK immigration officials, & the (Scottish) police. /2.
And there are two countries. The UK. And Scotland. That’s far from a purely historical, emotional or cultural point. Although it’s that too. It’s a political, legal & operational one. As we saw in Glasgow earlier. /3.
Which brings us to who’s in charge. In Scotland, the police ultimately (but, quite properly, not operationally) answer to Scottish ministers. UK immigration officials answer to UK ministers. /4.
As it turns out, that means the UK officials’ authority in Scotland can be substantially constrained compared to England (UK ministers double up as “English” ministers). /5.
Among approx. 5.5 million people in Scotland, there’ll be varied, views about what happened in Glasgow. But I’d be very surprised if you found many who thought Scotland’s police shouldn’t have the authority to do their job. /6.
Or that Scotland’s laws shouldn’t be observed. Or ministers with responsibility for the governance of Scotland shouldn’t be able to exercise the necessary political & legal authority to do their jobs. /7.
Against that background, the HO statement looks plaintive.
Backing one half of a “frontline”, the other half of which, under the authority of another government, decided what would happen. /8.
Claiming authority over “our country” when, in large part, the people of the country in which the operation took place neither recognise as theirs the country referred to (UK), nor willingly accept the authority of that country’s officials in their country (Scotland). /9.
In short, purporting to be in charge in Scotland when, self-evidently, the authority is, at most, shared. “Reserved” matter or not. /10.
And, increasingly clearly, that authority is, on an almost daily basis, slipping away from the UK government. Morally & politically, in the eyes of perhaps half of people in Scotland. Maybe more. And practically. (The two are connected).
We don’t know who the “senior ally” of @BorisJohnson quoted by @Telegraph is. We can guess. @DavidGHFrost well knows that if the Northern Ireland Protocol is “dead in the water”, so is the “oven-ready” Brexit. Either that or the Good Friday Agreement. /1.
So, which is it, folks? The “senior ally” complains that the NIP breaks the GFA. That means Boris’ Brexit does. Recall: we’re talking about a legally binding international agreement. And we know @BorisJohnson@DavidGHFrost & the Cabinet would never break international law. /2.
Obviously that also means they would never countenance a border across Ireland. We all know the upshot of all that is the UK has to accept the need to return to the EU’s customs union & single market. Or substantially identical arrangements. /3.
Read @LordRickettsP’s book, “Hard Choices: What Britain Does Next”. You simply won’t get a better account anywhere of what it’s been like trying to guide the UK through the tectonic shifts of global power these last few decades. You’ll learn much. If you’re willing. /1.
No one who knows @LordRickettsP - considerate, calm, clear-sighted - would think of him as brutal. But don’t be fooled. His book isn’t for the faint of heart. If this extract strikes a chord with you, you’ll want to read more. If it doesn’t, you need to.👇/2.
As @LordRickettsP says, quoting Thucydides: “The strong do what they can & the weak suffer what they must”. And, as others have pointed out: on the global stage, all European powers are small. The difference lies between those who’ve understood that & those who haven’t. /3.
UK vaccine distribution, which has been better than many, worse than some, doesn’t bring dead people back. Nor does it reverse bereavement. Of 130,000 Covid deaths in the UK, the vast majority were entirely avoidable. /2.
Even taking a lenient view of a series of catastrophic failures last year, 100,000 were. US research suggests a “kin bereavement multiplier” of 9. This looks at family, not friends. Including the latter would give a higher multiplier. /3.
People who don’t understand French, or the EU, or immigration & frontier control, really shouldn’t comment on @MichelBarnier talking (in French) about those subjects.
▪️the EU should strengthen the Schengen external frontier. (Note: the UK wasn’t in Schengen); /2.
▪️France, a sovereign nation in the EU, while still allowing students & refugees to come, should pause immigration from non-EU countries for a few years. /3.
Yes. The parliamentary election on 6 May returned a majority of MSPs from parties with it as a manifesto commitment. A prominent one (obviously).
Full stop.
But, if you want to play Vote Count Lotto, do it properly.
A 🧵. /1.
For that, you need to know what the Scottish electoral system is. And, if you do know, acknowledge its nature & implications.
So, a recap. Bear with me. /2.
It’s a form of proportional representation. Specifically, an “additional member” system. Somewhat over half the seats are voted for on a constituency basis (“first past the post” or plurality voting: whoever gets the most votes wins the seat). /3.
Most of England - politicians, media, public - has little idea of the extraordinary political event which has taken place in Scotland.
The same’s true of many Scottish unionists.
The Union’s closer to break up than any time in 314 years.
Ostriches won’t save it. What might?/1.
Because opinion on independence is approx. evenly split (itself a huge deal: around half of people in Scotland want to leave the UK!) relatively small shifts can tip the balance.
And, no doubt, everything will be tried to achieve that. /2.
But, what’s really made a difference to support for independence is England’s & Westminster’s descent into what’s perceived as chaotically unreliable, untrustworthy, incompetent & cruel governance. /3.