Perpetual UK Politics Thread Part Two

[pauli]

Three days with no posts, and almost no UK coverage in my news feed. I'm suspicious - what are you lot up to over there?

I did see this: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-63707941

The days of "cheap labour" must end to wean the UK off its "immigration dependency", Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has told business leaders.
Sir Keir called for a plan to train British workers and move the economy away from its "low-pay model".
But he accepted the need for skilled foreign workers and promised a "pragmatic" approach to immigration.
He later refused to commit to lower immigration overall, saying he was against a "fixed number".

His address to business figures in Birmingham followed that of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on Monday.
Mr Sunak told business leaders having "proper control of our borders" was one of the immediate benefits of Brexit and said curbing illegal migration was the "country's number one priority right now".
He spoke after CBI director-general Tony Danker said the UK needed more foreign workers to drive economic growth as the country faces a deep recession.
"People are arguing against immigration - but it's the only thing that has increased our growth potential since March," Mr Danker said.

If I'm reading this correctly: business leaders want more cheap labor coming in, Conservatives wants to keep everybody out, and Labour says "pay people better, and also keep people out."

Sir Keir outlined Labour's plans for reform including:

• Ensuring all employers able to sponsor visas are meeting decent standards of pay and conditions
• Speed up visa delays to avoid labour shortages damaging the economy
• Introduce training and plans for improving pay and conditions for roles that require international recruitment
• Reforming the Migration Advisory Committee to project future trends more accurately

Asked if his own party supported the policies, Sir Keir said Labour had "changed" adding: "We've turned Labour inside out."

That, it appears, they have.

 

[Yagisama]

There's also this:

Scottish government loses indyref2 court case

Even a "advisory" referendum with no legal effect was deemed to be a non starter since it would "have important political consequences relating to the union and the United Kingdom Parliament" as per Court president Lord Reed.

 

[ramases]

Even a "advisory" referendum with no legal effect was deemed to be a non starter since it would "have important political consequences relating to the union and the United Kingdom Parliament" as per Court president Lord Reed.

Legally correct but politically foolish.

The SNP will campaign next election on the basis of "a vote for us in the election is equal to a vote in a nonbinding referendum", which will allow them to claim more votes than a (binding or nonbinding) referendum would, and there is absolutely nothing that either Westminster or the Supreme Court could do about it.

This is why Sturgeon says she is okay with the ruling and will obey it -- because it still leaves open another option, one that she may have even preferred in the first place over a nonbinding referendum, because it allows to create a narrative around the following two points:

1) On the last referendum Westminster made a big deal out of continued EU membership of Scotland, then took Scotland out of the EU anyway even though the majority of Scots voted to remain within the EU. (not much editorializing there, this is pretty much an objective fact)
2) Now that they have taken us out of the EU Westminster refuses to even allow a general, non-binding polling of if that fact had any impact on how Scotish voters see their continued membership in the UK. (a lot of editorializing that gets cover by how the first part is neutral and fact-based)

 

[El Capitano]

Legally correct but politically foolish.

The courts are meant to be interpreters of law, not politicians, so they made the only judgement they really could, IMO. I think the SNP saw the case as win-win, being allowed a referendum would be an obvious win, but also not being allowed a referendum allows the SNP to beat the "English people holding us hostage" drum even louder.

 

[philmes]

I find myself wondering just how strongly Sturgeon actually wants independence. She's allegedly not stupid, so must clearly understand the immense economic costs and hardships that will follow from separation. Or is she just blinded by the same sort of ideological nonsense that afflicted some of the Brexiteers?

I'd had a lot more respect for the independence movement if they were honest and straight with people.

 

[Zod]

I find myself wondering just how strongly Sturgeon actually wants independence. She's allegedly not stupid, so must clearly understand the immense economic costs and hardships that will follow from separation. Or is she just blinded by the same sort of ideological nonsense that afflicted some of the Brexiteers?

I'd had a lot more respect for the independence movement if they were honest and straight with people.

I’ve wondered this myself. If Scotland did become independent, what future would the SNP have?

 

[ramases]

The courts are meant to be interpreters of law, not politicians, so they made the only judgement they really could, IMO.

I disagree. Rather hard, actually.

Lord Reed said: "A lawfully held referendum would have important political consequences relating to the union and the United Kingdom Parliament.
"Its outcome would possess the authority, in a constitution and political culture founded upon democracy, of a democratic expression of the view of the Scottish electorate.

There's two problems with this:

1) This ruling is arguably retrofitting what went down with the Brexit referendum (which was also non-binding), and the Court did not have to go there. "While actual implementation of a referendum choice would be required to be approved by Westminster, Holyrood is free to poll their citizens if they would support such a hypothetical, especially since it is not a good use of the UK Parliament's time to debate a motion that does not accord with the will of the voters" is a perfectly viable position.

2) The consequences the ruling portrays can only come to pass if a majority of voters vote for independence, so the view of the Scottish electorate exists regardless of referendum or no referendum. If your solution to this problem burns down to "well, then we just don't give them a way to express it", then whatever other arguments you may have made afterwards about democracy or legitimacy lack any standing. If a court finds that its proposed solution violates not only first principles but first principles it seeks to uphold especially, then the court needs to find another way because a court that abandons internal consistency abandons its purpose.

Personally I think that the case of Scottish Independence reeks of stupidity that is only eclipsed by the stupidity of how the Tory governments, with the help of people like Lord Reed, since and including Cameron have dealt with the matter. Conservative and Unionist Party, my ass.

 

[El Capitano]

I disagree. Rather hard, actually.

You disagree that it's legally correct?

 

[philmes]

Indeed. You'd be really hard pushed to find any credible legal source who thinks that the judgement is legally incorrect. The only minor surprise I can see is related to that fact that the SC didn't just refuse to issue a judgement at all.

 

[nimro]

I'm glad the SNP's argument that UN resolution 1514 applies to Scotland wasn't accepted by the court. Given our history, I found that to be an argument in particularly poor taste.

 

[Ananke]

I’ve wondered this myself. If Scotland did become independent, what future would the SNP have?

The SNP have been the party of government for 11 years (and a party of government for 4 years before that). Sure, their defining characteristic is that Scotland should be an independent country, but they're hardly a single issue party in the way that, say, the Brexit Party or UKIP are/were. If, somehow, Scotland were to become independent, they might fade a bit, but I suspect that they would remain the dominant leftwing power in Scotland for quite some time to come.

During that time they've certainly been no more incompetent than the Conservatives have been in either England or the UK, and I would argue somewhat less so, even if we discard the past two Tory governments as non-representitive.

 

[ramases]

On the matter of a binding referendum I do not disagree that the position they chose is legally correct, and that there's not much they could've done otherwise, except perhaps than to refuse to issue a judgement.

On the matter of a nonbinding referendum I do not dispute that the position of the court is legally incorrect, I dispute that this is the only legally correct position they could have chosen. I also do argue that they chose poorly.

Take the "even non-binding referenda can have authority and hence are impermisible" angle, which is both pretty obviously motivated by the Brexit aftermath and central to the Court's argument on nonbinding referenda: I think it is legal but IMHO stupid. It is also internally inconsistent in a way that may come back to haunt both Parliament and the Court, but because the inconsistency lies within political/ethical premises and the conclusion's implications this does not make it legally incorrect.

Regardless of how advisable the argument it is it is also (AFAICT) entirely novel, so they'd not have needed to go there and were free to search for other solutions.

And even if they chose to go, there they could have also tried to account at least a little bit for the legitimacy problems created by the "we can avoid giving authority to people's preferences on Scottish independence by simply not asking them about it" idiocy approach by stating that all referendum options must either be things Holyrood can do themselves, or that they must of the form "that Holyrood shall work with Westminster in order to obtain/propose a mechanism for X".

 

[tb12939]

I'm glad the SNP's argument that UN resolution 1514 applies to Scotland wasn't accepted by the court. Given our history, I found that to be an argument in particularly poor taste.

Regardless of taste, that was always about as likely as a Russian court finding against Putin's current adventures

 

[crazydee]

So... SNP get to keep pushing the grievance that Tories in Westminister are denying choice, and Tories in Westminster get to prevent a future Labour PM having 56 MPs from Scotland like Blair had.

I can't imagine either are unhappy with that outcome.

 

[philmes]

Regardless of taste, that was always about as likely as a Russian court finding against Putin's current adventures

I hope you mean that the likelihood was low because the argument was fucking stupid, rather than any attempt to compare the UK SC with the Russian court.

 

[Deleted member 827803]

I find myself wondering just how strongly Sturgeon actually wants independence. She's allegedly not stupid, so must clearly understand the immense economic costs and hardships that will follow from separation. Or is she just blinded by the same sort of ideological nonsense that afflicted some of the Brexiteers?

I'd had a lot more respect for the independence movement if they were honest and straight with people.

The SNP are operating under the (probably not unreasonable) assumption that, in the event of independence, that the Republic of Scotland will continue to get piles of cash from the rest of the UK, use the same currency, inherit all sorts of regulatory rights and relationships, and be automatically given North Sea Oil to own, and not inerhit any national debt, and therefore be able to keep up the assorted free stuff arrangements that currently exist.

They can't be too open about all of that of course, as it fundamentally undermines most of their public posturing.

Funny ol' world, politics.

 

[philmes]

(probably not unreasonable)

It's 100% unreasonable to assume iScotland will get any cash from rUK, or even a formal currency union for that matter.

 

[Demento]

Three days with no posts, and almost no UK coverage in my news feed. I'm suspicious - what are you lot up to over there?

I did see this: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-63707941




If I'm reading this correctly: business leaders want more cheap labor coming in, Conservatives wants to keep everybody out, and Labour says "pay people better, and also keep people out."


That, it appears, they have.

Sir Keir's statement of intent appears to be "Just as cunty as the Tories, but less incompetent." and hoping that the voters will flock to him.

It's never really set in at Labour HQ that their current polling is a measure of how much people dislike the government, and isn't actually a statement of approval for the Labour Party.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Now that Labour have purged the left they can chase the gammon vote. (polling shows that parties would gain more than they lose by taking an immigration friendly stance, even the Tories.)

 

[tb12939]

I hope you mean that the likelihood was low because the argument was fucking stupid, rather than any attempt to compare the UK SC with the Russian court.

Fun and all as it would be to debate the applicable meaning of colony (e.g. "a country or area controlled politically by a more powerful country") to interpret UN resolution 1514 and consider how 'fucking stupid' that argument actually is, I was referring to the likelihood of seeing a court decision on such a contentious issue going against the political leadership and putting the legitimacy of its own state into question.

 

[philmes]

Fun and all as it would be to debate the applicable meaning of colony (e.g. "a country or area controlled politically by a more powerful country") to interpret UN resolution 1514 and consider how 'fucking stupid' that argument actually is, I was referring to the likelihood of seeing a court decision on such a contentious issue going against the political leadership and putting the legitimacy of its own state into question.

It would indeed be fun to watch someone attempt to redefine a portion of a 300 year old unitary state as "a colony". The Justices did a good job of burning that idea.

On the matter at hand, the UKSC frequently rules against the government.

 

[Deleted member 827803]

It's 100% unreasonable to assume iScotland will get any cash from rUK, or even a formal currency union for that matter.

I meant that it's likely not unreasonable for them to assume that such an arrangement would be the outcome; whether it's a reasonable arrangement is an entirely different discussion

 

[mboza]

The fundamental contradiction exposed by the judgement is that the court believes that Westminster cannot simply ignore a non-binding referendum, but clearly Westminster can and does ignore Scottish election results or they would have already have accepted the SNP won a mandate for another referendum. It would have been quite possible for the court to allow a referendum to go ahead, and just leave Westminster to deal with the fallout from a non-binding referendum.

So the outcome is that enough people want independence to dominate elections in Scotland. The SNP will continue to campaign for independence. A resurgent Labour party could conceivably lead a unionist coalition, but its difficult to see a unionist Labour party winning enough support to get into government without either SNP or Conservative support, and its difficult to see a Labour government with Conservative support winning consecutive elections while fighting each other at Westminster. So even if the SNP do lose an election, its difficult to see them staying far from power for long.

What now is the best path to convince Westminster MPs to permit Scotland to have a referendum? The Conservatives don't want one. Unlikely that Labour will need SNP support after the next general election, and even if they do, it's not automatic that the SNP can secure a referendum as the price for supporting Labour, they don't really have an alternative. Win a majority of the Scottish seats at the next general election? Good enough for Westminster government, clearly not good enough for Scotland. Win a majority of the vote at the next general election? Still likely that a Westminster government with a bare handful of Scottish MPs just ignores it. Indeed, Westminster doesn't want to allow a referendum that has any evidence that they would lose. Does anyone think a peaceful protest campaign is going to be more successful than the climate movement?

Or from the other side, what does Westminster do to give unionists a chance at winning the next elections in Scotland. Rejoin the EU? Close Faslane? Drag UK politics fiscally left towards the centre of Scottish politics?

 

[philmes]

The fundamental contradiction exposed by the judgement is that the court believes that Westminster cannot simply ignore a non-binding referendum

That is not what the court found. The court believes that a non-binding referendum has political consequences. This is different:

Applying this test, the reserved matters which are relevant here are “the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England” and “the Parliament of the United Kingdom” (Schedule 5, paragraphs 1(b) and (c)). The latter reservation includes the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament [76]. The purpose of the proposed Bill is to hold a lawful referendum on the question of whether Scotland should become an independent country, that is, on ending the Union and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament over Scotland [77], [82]. The Bill’s effect will not be confined to the holding of the referendum. Even if the referendum has no immediate legal consequences, it would be a political event with important political consequences [78-81]. It is therefore clear that the proposed Bill has more than a loose or consequential connection with the reserved matters of the Union of Scotland and England and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. Accordingly, the proposed Bill relates to reserved matters and is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament [82-83], [92].

This is obviously true. A no vote, and a yes vote, would both have political consequences even if the result is ignored.

What now is the best path to convince Westminster MPs to permit Scotland to have a referendum?

Show a meaningful and sustained lead for shooting yourself in the face independence. The fact that the nationalists haven't been able to do that, despite Brexit and Boris Fucking Johnson, means that this will be easier said than done.

On one level, I find this entire discussion a bit weird. What other unitary state has granted a minority separatist block a single independence referendum, let alone multiple ones? Canada? Who else?

 

[philmes]

I meant that it's likely not unreasonable for them to assume that such an arrangement would be the outcome; whether it's a reasonable arrangement is an entirely different discussion

I think it's entirely unreasonable for them to assume such an arrangement would be the outcome. Which means they're either raging muppets, or duplicitous liars. Having seen the "quality" of the average SNP MP and MSP, mostly the former, with a scattering of the latter.

 

[mboza]

Meh, I don't think there is much difference between "cannot be ignored", and "important political consequences", but I'm happy to restate it as the court found that a non-binding referendum will have "important political consequences", but Westminster can and does simply ignore the political consequences of Scottish Parliament elections.

Show a meaningful and sustained lead for shooting yourself in the face independence.

Great, but you must accept that this is a higher standard than we have for any other political decision, just to ask a question, not even to do anything. How small a unionist minority should Westminster use to justify not holding a referendum. How long will they wait before accepting that a lead is sustained?

On one level, I find this entire discussion a bit weird. What other unitary state has granted a minority separatist block a single independence referendum, let alone multiple ones? Canada? Who else?

Sensible countries don't have political systems that put minority blocks into power, so the list will obviously be short. We didn't grant the minority separatist block in the American colonies even a single referendum before we allowed them their independence. I think we are also the only unitary state that has international sporting events without needing to involve any other countries, so it shouldn't be that surprising if things are a little weird.

 

[crazydee]

How small a unionist minority should Westminster use to justify not holding a referendum.

I don't know - but watch Northern Ireland for the answer real soon now. GFA is going to get a testing now that the union with the Republic is polling in the majority and Unionist parties aren't winning elections.

 

[El Capitano]

Show a meaningful and sustained lead for shooting yourself in the face independence. The fact that the nationalists haven't been able to do that, despite Brexit and Boris Fucking Johnson, means that this will be easier said than done.

The problem I find with this line of reasoning is that support for Scottish independence was way lower before the first referendum and support for it grew during the lead up and hasn't exactly dropped back down.

On one level, I find this entire discussion a bit weird. What other unitary state has granted a minority separatist block a single independence referendum, let alone multiple ones? Canada? Who else?

In fairness, most other unitary states don't officially recognise the existence of multiple nations within them. Counter-examples are the USA (which doesn't let states leave and states aren't quite considered countries) and the EU (which does, in fact, let member countries leave). There's also the matter that the UK at least claims to be a proponent of self-determination, which is weakened by repeatedly denying a government with a majority position in a national parliament.

Another interesting thing I saw when looking at polling figures, support for an imminent second referendum is a minority position in Scotland, but in polling that offers the option of within the next 2-5 years, "imminent" + "2-5 years" is actually a majority position.

 

[pauli]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63743259

UK net migration hit 504,000 in the year to June - the highest figure ever recorded, The Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimates.
The rise is driven by people arriving legally from outside the EU and the resumption of post-pandemic travel.
Reception of Afghan and Ukrainian refugees and people from Hong Kong are other factors.
The government has promised to cut net migration - the difference between the numbers entering and leaving the UK.

Overall, an estimated 1.1m people migrated to the UK in the year to June. After subtracting those who emigrated, the UK population has risen by 504,000 - the net migration total.
Asylum applications, including those arriving in small boats over the English Channel, reached 73,000 in the year to September - a figure that underlines that those migrants represent a very small proportion of all those who arrive in the country in any given period.
The rise in migration has been influenced by people from outside the European Union - including 170,000 people from Ukraine and 76,000 from Hong Kong under a scheme to resettle people who count as British citizens.
Some 277,000 people came to study - with the rate of student visas almost doubling on the previous year.

The chart is astonishing.

 

[Dr Nno]

Hey, you found one positive thing about Brexit! The UK is now incredibly attractive (for non-EU immigrants)!

 

[GloatingSwine]

Asylum applications, including those arriving in small boats over the English Channel, reached 73,000 in the year to September - a figure that underlines that those migrants represent a very small proportion of all those who arrive in the country in any given period.

Also for all the mithering about people abusing the system, 77% of asylum applications have been successful in the last year, and of the 20,600 cases investigated for pre-assessment removal to other countries (Rwanda) it was only intended to be applied in 21 cases (for all that money spent).

 

[wco81]

So they needed a new pipeline of cheap unskilled labor to replace the workers from other EU nations who were working in the UK before Brexit?

 

[philmes]

So they needed a new pipeline of cheap unskilled labor to replace the workers from other EU nations who were working in the UK before Brexit?

For fucks sake. Did you not read the article linked by Pauli?

"But non-EU migration has risen, primarily not because of the policies designed to replace EU free movement.
"The humanitarian routes for Ukraine and Hong Kong and a rebound in international students have played the largest role in boosting immigration levels.
"These unusually high levels of net migration result from a unique set of circumstances following the war in Ukraine and the recovery from the Covid-19 crisis.
"We cannot assume they represent a 'new normal', and it would be rash to take major policy decisions based only on these numbers."

 

[philmes]

Also for all the mithering about people abusing the system, 77% of asylum applications have been successful in the last year, and of the 20,600 cases investigated for pre-assessment removal to other countries (Rwanda) it was only intended to be applied in 21 cases (for all that money spent).

That doesn't really tell us much, does it? The mitherers would simply retort that our approval rates are too high, citing France as an example where only 27% of asylum claims are accepted.

 

[wobblytickle]

That doesn't really tell us much, does it? The mitherers would simply retort that our approval rates are too high, citing France as an example where only 27% of asylum claims are accepted.

(drunk) apples and oranges? our border is not as porous as theirs (i.e shegnen)

 

[wco81]

For fucks sake. Did you not read the article linked by Pauli?

For fuck sakes, there's never been instances of migrants being used for cheap labor?

What is the UK going to do, give a stipend for living expenses for these migrants indefinitely or are they expected to earn a living?

 

[Deleted member 827803]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63743259


The chart is astonishing.

Do you have any insight on what the 'change in methodology' represents on the second chart ? It might explain some of the jump I'm thinking.

The chart since '97 is intersting to see - usually these are truncated to beat up the current government; political ideology aside, I never did understand how Blair's lot thought that Britain could import a medium-sized city each year and cope, infrastructure- or other-wise.

On a different note, that figure of people from Hong Kong and Ukraine welcomed in ? That should be on billboards all over the country, it's a great thing to have done / be doing. The former will annoy the Chinese and their useful idiots too, so doubles all round.

 

[El Capitano]

The chart since '97 is intersting to see - usually these are truncated to beat up the current government; political ideology aside, I never did understand how Blair's lot thought that Britain could import a medium-sized city each year and cope, infrastructure- or other-wise.

Simple: people die and the UK's birth rate has been below the replacement rate for decades.

 

[philmes]

Simple: people die and the UK's birth rate has been below the replacement rate for decades.

We're a long way above replacement rate though. The population of the UK has grown by ~20% since 1997.

That would probably be fine were we not a nation of useless NIMBY's and had actually built housing and infrastructure to service that population growth.

 

[Deleted member 827803]

Simple: people die and the UK's birth rate has been below the replacement rate for decades.

My point was 'how did they think Britain could import a medium sized city each year and cope' - death rate in the UK is about 12k annually I think ? So even if we say each immigrant gets their own house; ignoring an inheritance; there's still 180,000 people each year to square away.

Plus, the fertility rate in Britian is about 1.7-1.8 (vs a target of 2.0) on average; that doesn't suggest we need to import c.200,000 working age people each year ? A few targetted years like that to 'top up' the birth rate ? I can see the logic there, especially if we're wedded to metrics like GDP and so on.

ONS Data
Age Profile Data

I mean, I was being slightly flippant - Blair's government were just rying to 'rub their (conservatives) faces in it' (cf. Peter Mandelson, Andy Neather, etc.), as they've declared publically; they never even considered how the country would cope.

We're a long way above replacement rate though. The population of the UK has grown by ~20% since 1997.

That would probably be fine were we not a nation of useless NIMBY's and had actually built housing and infrastructure to service that population growth.

Christ, I agree with you too 'in nomine patris, I command you.....'