Makes more sense to have local people decide on their local statues, rather than having it decided by central government. I don't see why central government should be able to tell eg the City to get rid of statues they want to keep.
The closest thing that would have been available would have been single market and customs union, which would have resulted in big trade barriers with rUK. I totally agree that big trade barriers is what the SNP position leads to, however there seems to be an unwillingness to admit as much - much in the same way that the DUP and Cons are still struggling to admit that there are significant new barriers to GB-NI trade.
Government doesn't need to force people to move somewhere, it can instead just let people work from anywhere.
I dont think theres any evidence the NI protocol was on offer for Scotland (single market minus contributions or FoM). The NI protocol is a response to the particular history of NI.
I also don't think the SNP came out in favour of customs and regulatory checks at Berwick either, which is what this would look like on land.
Totally agree with both. I imagine this is related to the fact that Ministers will inevitably be in London due to proximity to parliament, which then tends to mean a lot of Directors like to be there so they're proximate, and then it just goes on and on.
Part of this is probably about leading by example. Just thinking of that big old 'tech hub' that was built under Cummings in No.10. Even there - despite the real meat being the data that would drive the metrics that the 'hub' would monitor, they still made it primarily a physical single-location thing. Some people just like the idea of being embedded in a physical team I guess.
I totally agree that's not how it works (that's why it's good to understand the detail). We left the EU 5 weeks ago, but we've known we've been leaving for the last 5 years - that's why, for instance, we've been negotiating those roll-over deals. I don't think anyone expects a line-by-line examination of tariffs, but atleast some idea of our main priorities, and where the govt expects or is willing to give way. The terms of these trade agreements could impact all of us - so it's important we properly discuss, debate, and ultimately understand what the government is signing us up to. Otherwise we end up forcing through things in haste that we later regret (NI protocol perhaps?)
People dont seem to be naysaying, they're just asking for detail of what we'd get vs what we'd give away - which is quite a rational approach.
If India wanted to give us everything we want for nothing in exchange I imagine we'd have an FTA already.
I dont think the sentiment is controversial, I think its just very skin deep and high level. What would an FTA with India look like? What barriers that UK companies face exporting goods and services to India would be lifted? And most importantly, what would India's asks be in return? The worry is that this government is more interested in the ceremony around FTAs than the detail.
I really don't see how putting up a hard customs and regulatory border with the rUK whilst simultaneously cutting public sector spending is going to boost growth.
I think a lot of this comes down to how you define a quango - the £206 billion John mentions is mostly made up by the NHS budget.