2007 - 2021

Supreme Brexit

15350585_1309801445737307_1093667115002849776_nThe derision that followed Kezia Dugdales IPPR speech yesterday was amplified by its coming on the same day as the Supreme Court ruling on Article 50.

Most people will just be bored to tears by the Supreme Court proceedings and its turgid, dire, over-complicated nonsensical legalese. But it’s important. As Iain Macwhirter puts it succinctly: “The Sewel scam makes a nonsense of Kezia Dugdale’s call for federalism in UK. Who’ll believe it? The Scotland Act is toast.”

For those of us confused by what’s going on here, Lallands Peat Worrier is (as always) is a great scene-setter:

“Where this gets controversial, however, is when we turn to the so-called “Sewel convention”. Since 1998, Westminster has recognised that it will not legislate for devolved matters without the consent of Holyrood. What do we mean by devolved matters? Generally, this has been understood as (a) passing legislation which falls within Holyrood’s powers, or (b) changing the legislative competence of Holyrood by adding or subtracting from its authority, by devolving more powers, or re-reserving powers which were once reserved.

czjy9e3viaaepij-jpg-largeBut this convention gave Holyrood very limited legal protection. In states with codified and entrenched constitutions, the central government does not have the power to abolish regional parliaments, or to intrude on their competencies. The courts would block any attempt to do so. Some people wondered: why should Scotland be any different? Shouldn’t the permanence and privileges of Holyrood also receive some legal protection?

In the wake of the 2014 independence referendum, the Smith Commission report agreed that”the Scottish Parliament will be made permanent in UK legislation” and that the Sewel convention should be “put on a statutory footing”. Both of these commitments were reflected in sections one and two of the 2016 Scotland Act. But did these “constitutional protections” really make much difference?”

No, not really.

So what are the practical implications?

Stephen Paton (@stephenpaton134)  lays out eight conclusions. “Scottish Labour’s attempt to argue for a new “Act of Union” (or a federal UK) can only backfire on them for the following reasons”:

1) They already promised it in 2014 and didn’t deliver. In fact, they were instrumental in blocking key powers being devolved to Scotland.
2) They’ll argue that too much power lies with too few in one part of the UK, and accidentally build the case for Indy when nothing happens.
3) Folk are tired of Labour doing gimmicky stunts instead of being a decent opposition, like scheduled resignations after the Brexit vote.
4) Soft Yes folk who may have stuck with Labour will think it unfair they are trying to kill Indy with legislation in the face if Brexit.
5) Trying to “out-union” the Tories to get back support after inconsistent messaging on EU/single market support makes them look desperate.
6) Failing this kills any chance of them being able to whip up a 2nd “Vow” during , meaning it’ll need to come from the Tories.
7) It makes clear Labour are only interested in more powers for Scotland when A) the Union is threatened or B) it can win them back support.
8) And finally, folk already believe Scottish Labour are incompetent. This farce will just confirm it.

In short, it just seems opportunist. It’s grandstanding without principle.

Peter Arnott calls it a game-changer for Labour and the LibDems:

“There may not be any legal novelty in yesterday’s argument from the UK in the Supreme Court that Scottish Devolution is only a “whenever we feel like it” kind of thing, but it does reinforce the yawning cultural gulf in perception that has opened up between the Imperial and colonial administration of power in these islands. It should really be a game-changer not so much for Nats for whom it’s mere confirmation of “their” contempt and “our” irrelevance, but for the architects of devolution, for Labour and Libdem, this should represent a conceptual body blow from which it is nigh impossible to recover. It may be an accident that Kezia Dugdale is today echoing Gordon Brown’s call for a renewed and revised and more equal Union settlement, but surely even she can see that after the true status of our pretendy parliament was laid on the line yesterday, that such talk rings as hollow as the canyon that is opening up between us.”

Amongst the serious constitutional commentary, some, sadly, have added slapstick soundcloud:

But if the Scotland Act is really toast and the F word confined to the bin, it’s not all a positive outcome for indy forces. Pat Kane senses an emboldened Unionist shift:

“Watching the Tory govt’s lead advocate for Scotland, Lord Keen, in his performance in the Brexit case before the Supreme Court, was to see the Scottish Unionist establishment in its fullest pomp (Keen is also the Scottish Tories party chairman, who likes to hire castles and berate his MSPs for their mediocrity). But also, it seems to me, in its self-subverting arrogance too. In order to do the Tory Brexiteers bidding, Keen ripped to pieces the rags of the “respect” agenda towards the Scottish parliament – by making brutally clear that Westminster command will always take ultimate precedence over any determinations coming from Holyrood.

There is some signs that the Supreme Court has seen this. When Keen noted that the Sewel Convention, requiring that Holyrood gives legislative consent to any WM changes in its constitution, was merely a “self-denying ordinance”, Lord Sumption pointedly asked how it could be merely so, if it was written into the law of the Scotland Act? The preening and word-splitting thereafter from Keen could only have been improved on with a full periwig from 1707.

Cue outrage and told-you-so’s from constitutionally-aware Indy supporters. But as with so much of the current Brit-farce, my anxiety is that the ambient Western nihilism about any kind of representative politics is reacting powerfully with a rising Unionist recalcitrance, especially towards the ambitious politics of independence. “Don’t bother me with your demanding dreams and aspirations! Enough chaos and disruption!”

So the spectacle of devolution dissolved by the acid tongue of an Edinburgh advocate may provide a good canvassing line for the doorsteps, or the next pub conversation. Yet I am increasingly doubtful – and the stuttering Indy poll ratings may indicate this – that the tinsel show of contemporary and “official” politics is really that effective, at least in so far as it triggers sustained collective resistance in Scottish life. The constitution is one thing; but constituting power and confidence, in the everyday realms of Scottish life, is quite another.”

This may prove to be an end point for Kezia Dugdale, who’s advisors presumably expected this to create some much needed gravitas and even to present her as a player on the UK stage. Sadly it did no such thing, but we can expect #ActofUnion to be trending for some time as the complete failure of the case for federalism is exposed and stark choices revealed.

Comments (47)

Leave a Reply to Patrick Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Wolf says:

    Mike, I have to be brutally honest and say that Stephen’s comments and to a lesser extent Peter’s both sound like they’ve been born out of a hardcore Yes twittersphere, for the consumption by said twittersphere in an angry blast of populism. They seem a million miles away from the pragmatic, consensual and welcoming atmosphere you’ve sought to create with Bella as part of the wider move to keep the spirit of the IndyRef going. I know it’s been a trying year for the left and the Indy movement but we have to remain better.

    There are massive, valid concerns about the UK Government seeking to diminish the Sewel convention and we should be shouting them from the rooftops. If the UK Government succeeds, they have the precedent to move the relationship with Holyrood to a similar standing of that between the Catalan Parliament and the Cortes in Madrid, where legislation can routinely be overturned or ignored. This is particularly worrying given the UK Government’s active opposition to IndyRef2.

    But we need to look at how this, and Kezia’s federalism ideas can be turned to an advantage.

    Federalism is not a stupid idea, or even a bad one. The political system in the UK is massively imbalanced and desperately unequal, with the balance of power held in the south east. We’ve had two failed attempted to rectify that – Prescott’s devolution project and Cameron’s mayors – and one partially successfully – Scottish, Welsh and Irish devolution. Reexamining federalism, giving English regions real power over their governance, strengthening the Welsh Assembly and creating federal arrangements for defence and diplomacy has the potentially to give Scotland a much greater proportional say in these matters then we’ve ever had. As for the possibility of the other constitutional changes that could be tagged on – reform of the Lords into a senate, changes to the franchise in England – we should be embracing those as a movement anyway. And in terms of how, calling for a Constututional Convention is exactly the way to go about this. It needs to be a popular movement that can be subscribed to, that, like Kenyon Wright’s Convention, can be used to force the hand of those who are happy with the status quo.

    The federal option may well kill full independence for a decade or more, but the reality is that it looks like we’re heading that way anyway with the Torys ascendant, Scotland being dragged out the EU and a Scottish Government that seems to have forgotten how to legislate. The polls are against us, and only going to get worse as EU-born Scots residents examine leaving the country (because God knows why they’d stay for this nonsense Brexit). We’re being dragged out of the EU and into an economic quagmire and if that hasn’t shifted the polls sharply in our favour then we need to make sure we’re doing something badly wrong.

    Come on Mike, Bella’s positive ethos has been leeching away at the time we need it most!

    1. Graeme Purves says:

      I was in London for a symposium yesterday. English progressives were clinging to the idea of a federal constitution like a life-raft. I doubt that they will lift a finger to make it happen!

    2. Thanks for the comment – I’m sorry i disagree with you that federalism is workable or likely or progressive, but I’m not sure why this takes us away from our positive ethos? We’d welcome someone making the case and explaining how Labour will deliver this?

      1. douglas clark says:

        Can I make a stab at it?

        Labour are in crisis. Labour will say anything. Doesn’t matter what. After the Gordon Brown ‘vow’ which he was in no position to deliver, anything, anything at all, will be possible if you just vote Labour. Was Kezia Dugdale not at one time in favour of staying in the EU? I forget, perhaps for five minutes or summat.

        She is the mistress of inconsistency is oor Kezia.

        Still, go with the flow, that is what we desperately need from our political leaders.

        End of.

  2. manandboy says:

    Kezia Dugdale shows very little interest in the public. It’s only fair the public show very little interest in her.
    Or in her party.
    Currently, her only concern is to save her career.

    1. Patrick says:

      Currently, her only concern is to save her career. 100% agree with you!
      Follow Mhairi Black she is in focus of what really matter in Scotland.

  3. Patrick says:

    Federalism is not a stupid idea, no is a silly one, to transition to Federalism first you have to obtain the Independence, the other way around you only change your status of slavery.
    Independence is the best of the option for Scotland.

  4. douglas clark says:


    You make some interesting points. The Nationalist twittersphere is, perhaps sadly, a minority pursuit. I doubt the Celtic and Partick Thistle supporters heading to Firhill tomorrow will be debating the Sewel Convention with the same passion that they may direct towards their respective teams. I doubt that very many people have watched even ten minutes of the Supreme Court, I think I lasted nine.

    Though a constitutional debate about where power resides ought to exercise more folk, it doesn’t. It is only when the outcome of that decision becomes apparent, immediate, life threatening that active political engagement takes place.

    We are not there yet.

    And, frankly, the opinion polls about Scottish Independence are essentially unchanged. It only takes around 6 0r 7% of the population to change their mind from no to yes and, well….

    1. tartanfever says:

      ‘Though a constitutional debate about where power resides ought to exercise more folk, it doesn’t. It is only when the outcome of that decision becomes apparent, immediate, life threatening that active political engagement takes place.’

      Not sure this is true. The AV vote of 2011, if passed, would have prevented a Tory majority in the last election and may have even stopped Cameron offering an EU referendum in his manifesto as the polling of the time showed a pretty even split.

      If he wished to continue a coalition Government with the Liberals, then he would have been forced to take the EU referendum off the table as they would not agree to this, either that or campaign with UKIP which would have turned many soft Tories off.

      So with this in mind, how much reflection have we given to the lost opportunity of altering the UK election system with the AV vote ?

      Absolutely none.

      Yes, AV was a bad proposal, but was it better than what we have ? Clearly yes. I have yet to come across one single newspaper article or public debate which even considers this, yet if we had voted for AV, there’s a high probability we would not be leaving the EU.

      I haven’t seen any public political engagement amongst discussing this wasted opportunity.

    2. Patrick says:

      ” frankly, the opinion polls about Scottish Independence are essentially unchanged. It only takes around 6 0r 7% of the population to change their mind from no to yes and, well.”

      It is a relativism If you compare the data of voting in Scotland , the result given by the people to the Scottish Gov is a 10% over the vote of UK gov to trigger the Independence without a second referendum. And the EU then will give Scotland the EU membership without delay.
      One trusted newspapers like Bella is more to be feared than a thousand bayonets.

  5. tartanfever says:

    We should also consider how bad this is going to make Theresa May look. As Home Secretary she had a reputation for bringing forward futile cases that were doomed to fail and only succeeded in wasting tax payers money.

    Now, with Eadie’s poor performance just happening as I write this (he’s getting bogged down in his summation and having to re-explain his remarks from 2 days ago) the futility of bringing forward an appeal after the High Court ruling is looking more and more like a huge mistake for the Tory Government.

    Either May will look foolish as the Supreme Court will rule that the devolved administrations need to be ‘consulted’ or Scots will realise that Holyrood competence is only at the discretion of Westminster – which is a huge stick with which to beat Mundell with every time he pontificates as Scottish Secretary.

    If the Supreme Court rule against the Government, then May’s arrogance in appealing against the High Court decision has just made the whole Article 50/ Brexit debacle a lot more complicated than it needed to be.

    She’s proving herself completely incompetent.

    1. Redgauntlet says:

      Anybody who declares they want a “red, white and blue Brexit” in the current circumstances is clearly in la-la land…

      …another mad Prime Minister to join the list which includes Blair, Brown and Thatcher.

      Dave wasn’t mad to be fair, he was just incredibly thick.

      1. Patrick says:

        “Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit”
        Someone, I could explain that there is a difference between taking a liter of a purgative or taking two liters, if in the end the result will be equal to diarrhea
        I firmly believe that in this Westmister they have given hemlock to all who wanted to go.

        Why BBC does not publish another voices? Don’t let to listen a silly explanation of one who said: Better Out.
        Battle over Brexit and Parliamentary Democracy

    2. Patrick says:

      We should also consider how bad this is going to make Theresa May look. As Home Secretary she had a reputation for bringing forward futile cases that were doomed to fail and only succeeded in wasting tax payers money
      Would you really want to see how she will look? Follow the link

  6. Redgauntlet says:

    So, the following having forced upon the people of Scotland against their will…

    1) Three terms of Maggie Thatcher
    2) Trident x 2
    3) The brutal de-industrialization of Scotland and mass unemployment
    4) The Iraq War
    5) The Blair-Brown Banking meltdown – bank bale-out
    6) David Cameron
    7) David Cameron again
    7) Brexit

    We hear that our Parliament is an irrelevance when it comes to big Constitutional questions… and yet the polls show support for independence dropping.

    Maybe Scotland is, after all, a lost cause…

    1. Juteman says:

      But what about the great British bake-off?
      Will we still get to watch that after Mr Sewell has his convention?
      Who is Mr Sewells partner in Strictly?

      1. K. A. Mylchreest says:

        Sewel´s dancing partner? Now don´t tell me, I´ll get it in a moment … after all I would normally recognise her … 😉

    2. Patrick says:

      “We hear that our Parliament is an irrelevance when it comes to big Constitutional questions… and yet the polls show support for independence dropping.

      Maybe Scotland is, after all, a lost cause…”

      I disagreed support for independence is huge today and moreover the support in the EU ; what happen today like yesterday is:
      Alex Salmond: BBC bias was ‘significant factor’ in deciding Scottish independence referendum

      Exclusive: Former First Minister renews attack a year on from historic vote

      The main reason Scotland need its independent Broadcasting System. BBC SCOTLAND not reflex our interests nor cultural neither political.

      1. Maria F says:

        Alex Salmond: BBC bias was ‘significant factor’ in deciding Scottish independence referendum”

        Have you watched the film based on the book ‘London Calling’ by GA Ponsonby, Patrick?

        If you haven’t, I invite you to do so. This film not only corroborates the above fact that the Union Broadcaster, rather undemocratically, played a very active role for the Better Together bunch, but also it makes a strong case for Scotland to have its own independent broadcaster, controlled and operated by the people of Scotland, from Scotland and for the people of Scotland.

        It is about one hour long. It has made me deeply regret to fund this vile entity via the TV licence.

        Happy watch!

        1. Patrick says:

          Maria , the documental is an excellent job and excellent edition.
          Don’t worried and be happy Scotland will have its Broadcast System radio, television, and WIFI inclusive with a very low cost, I can assure you and all Scottish . This is why all of us Scottish must say to Scottish Parliament ” we want Independence Now”.

        2. Patrick says:

          Maria F; Here another well done documental, and anecdote from my grandmother, she alway said to me: Majesty money comes only to beauty place, and friendly people, I leave London because they are not friendly and less beauty than Scotland beside Scotland is my Motherland and England is a bad stepfather. If after see the documental still has doubt that Scotland will be better along, then you must ask a Jamaican, an Indian, and an American if they want to belong to the Kindom.
          Al Jazeera Correspondent – Scotland the Brave?

        3. Patrick says:

          Hola Maria F, I let you and all Scottish undecide to obtain the Independence and be part in the world like many other nations that want a better world, perhaps those videos are not allowed to see in UK, but if you can see it could help you to have a better understanding why our Independence is soo important.

          John Pilger talks on RT about Trump, Very Interesting Interview

          John Pilger World War III Is Already Under Way

          Secret World of US Election: Julian Assange talks to John Pilger (FULL INTERVIEW)

  7. bringiton says:

    All those Scots who thought that Holyrood and the EU would protect them from the worst excesses of England’s Tories without the need of taking a risk with independence must now realise their mistake.
    The Tories (blue and red) never wanted a parliament in Scotland and appear to have ensured through devious means (the use of the word “normally”) that they have complete control over our affairs should they wish to so do.
    Any prospect of Scotland being “allowed” to act independently of Westminster e.g. EFTA membership is now gone,irrespective of the legal outcome of the current appeal process.
    The choice for Scots is between another generation of English Tory governments or taking a chance that we really can manage our own affairs successfully as an independent state.
    Of course,the Tories are going to fight tooth and nail to ensure that we don’t get that choice.

  8. Shibboleth says:

    The significance of Lord Keen’s submission and the comments from the Justices cannot be underestimated. In effect, the ‘sovereignty’ of Holyrood is simply an illusion; it can be ignored by Westminster by the inclusion in the Scotland Act of one word – ‘normally’! The Sewell Convention is no more than a MOI – or at best a gentleman’s agreement, where the offering hand is that of a liar.

    If Scotland doesn’t declare independence from this shower of wankers before the new year dawns, then frankly it should sink with the ‘Union’.

    1. Patrick says:

      They only need peaceful civil disobedience on the streets, with a single motto Independence Now.
      Not a day, not a week, not a month until the Declaration of Independence is published in the press, radio, and tv. Like India did for her Independence.

      Are you afraid of the police, if so don’t worried they also are interested in our freedom; Go ahead
      and Chant Independence Now, OM.

  9. john young says:

    Wee bit off topic but for me anyway Robin McAlpine has a very good article on common space,just about sums up the SNP for me.

  10. MBC says:

    I really don’t know why folk bother with Scottish Labour, or British Labour, for that part. Both are devoid of passion and leadership. Much more worrying are the Conservatives. Moderate Labour folk (the kind of people who’ve voted Labour out of ancestral memory) are suddenly finding that the Tories make sense, and with that nice, cheery Ruth Davidson as a figurehead, are finding them far more congenial.

    It’s Ruth Davidson’s bullshit we really need to tackle.

    1. Patrick says:

      “It’s Ruth Davidson’s bullshit we really need to tackle.” 100% TRUE, she does not merit be in the Scottish Parliament I have not seen any debate of her that make sense, only insane criticism without a solution, the leadership of the Conservative Party in Canada is different .

      Popular displeasure with society’s elite has been linked to the year’s greatest political upheavals, including the U.K.’s referendum decision to leave the European Union.

  11. Fay Kennedy. says:

    Yes more tackling this bullshit that has become so normalised. Like babes at their pap we seem to soak it up and ask for more. Oh for some straight talking and truth to power. Back to basic principles that is if any of them have heard that word recently.

  12. East Neuker says:

    Wee note for Pat Kane, re the quote from him in the article… It’s worse than that, Pat, Lord Keen of Elie doesn’t have to hire a castle to berate Tory backsliders in, he owns one. It’s a several hundred year old giant ultra posh beach side holiday house.
    He is the quintessential very rich upper class Scottish Unionist Tory, and also a dangerous man.

  13. Alistair says:

    Your average voter doesn’t care one iota about the details of Holyrood’s status. They’ll only change sides when they lose their house or their job. Brexit and Trump could just possibly burst the debt bubble, but the EU must look like an attractive alternative, which might or might not be the case.

    1. K. A. Mylchreest says:

      One thing the SC case has brought home to me is just how many of our rights these days are guaranteed by EU membership. Had we not joined, then as attitudes evolved over the past few decades, these safeguards might well have been included in domestic law. But since we were in the EU it was simpler and probably safer to graft them on to an existing system. But now if we leave the EU all these safeguards fall by the wayside, and I can´t see a rabid Tory (or worse?) government in WM being in any hurry to re-instate them.

      But how to get this across to the average citizen simply busy making ends meet? By the time they notice it could well be too late.

  14. Willie says:

    Democracy does not work. Scots votes are irrelevant. We can talk the esoteric and the semantic till the cows come home. But at the e d of the day the eletism and lack of democracy eventually engenders a more fundamental response. Bella contributors by and large, together with a now rather comfortable SG disregard this at their peril.

    1. MBC says:

      Of course democracy works. What you’ve just noticed is that the UK does not work as a democratic entity.

      1. Alf Baird says:

        A majority of Scots MP’s is all that is legally required to end the 1707 Union, in precisely the same way as it began. We have enjoyed such a (95%!) majority since the 2015 UK General Election, but instead ‘our’ 56 MP’s prefer to draw the union’s salaries, enjoy the London lifestyle and to make speeches in Westminster (on everything except Scottish independence!). The 56 should therefore withdraw from the UK Parliament now and re-establish the Scottish State (which is probably what most other UK nation’s MP’s thought they would do) and there is nothing anyone, not even the UK High or Supreme Courts could do about it. That is democracy. We Scots do have a tendency to make life rather more difficult for ourselves than it really is, or should be, always snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. In reality Scotland already holds all the aces but the SNP leadership refuse to play the hand. A canna unnerstaund whit fir?

        1. Patrick says:

          Well, Baird; I agree 100%, but we must be just not all 56 . We have some that work for Westminster and receive instructions under the table. It happen anywhere , let me give you an example Cubans in exile has the same problem, and it happen because A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights. Once upon a time said Bonaparte If Scottish people, realize UK has more need of me Scottish than I have need of UK
          Then all miseries disappear

          1. Alf Baird says:

            Aye Patrick, Fidel hid a muckle mankit slump tae del wi. Scotlan haes a muckle mankit slump anaw, bungfu o unionist elites.

        2. John B Dick says:

          From at least before 1950, maybe before 1939, till the run up to the first (40%) devolution referendum SNP strategy was to aim for 50%+1 Scottish MPs,when they would seceed and reconvene in Edinburgh.

          If that were to happen now, the two parliaments would need to co-opt each other.

          1. Alf Baird says:

            Holyrood is merely a Departamente (i.e. a regional ‘Executive’ Administration ) of Westminster. Holyrood and the devolved UK ‘parliament’ (sic) located there is a unionist construct, and therefore a sub-part of Westminster. Hence the UK ‘Home’ Civil Service appoint all the lead officials in both the Scottish Government and the Holyrood corporate body. Thus Holyrood as it stands would not necessarily form a part of a re-established Scottish State, nor would it be required to do. The 56 MP’s could assemble anywhere in Scotland. Sovereignty and hence power lies with them, not with any UK devolved administrative vehicle at Holyrood.

        3. Willie says:

          Too right Alf. 56 out of 59 seems to be a democratic majority. That’s the system. In fact no lesser than Margaret That her declared that if Scotland returned a majority of SNP MPs then that was what was needed for independence. But it seems not as our exceedingly well fed fifty six lush up on their Westminster salaries and expenses whilst shooting the Westminster Breeze on everything but independence.

          1. Alf Baird says:

            Cheers Willie. Yer richt thair, thon 56 cuid dae wi suim ‘gurr’. Thay’re nae lyons, mair lyke leuchen hyenas, takkin thon Unionist bawbees. Thay shuid aw bi black affrontit.

    2. Patrick says:

      “Democracy does not work. Scots votes are irrelevant.”
      Well, Willie, you will sooner rather than later, what is all about ” Remain and In an Independent Scotland” ; However if, you referred to democracy in Westminster, then I agree with you.

  15. Patrick says:

    Alf Baird jajaja
    “Aye Patrick, Fidel hid a muckle market slump tae del wi. Scotland haes a muckle market slump anaw, bungfu o unionist elites.”

    If they are like them, don’t worried, they are like the chameleon change color according to their convenience, you know everyone around the world say U.S.A is a banana Republic , but when a diarrhea comes everyone want a green banana to stop the diarrhea.
    So our in Scotland will join when people go to street in mass.

    1. Alf Baird says:

      A tak yer pynt, Patrick, muchos-gracias amigo.

      “mankit” = corrupt, bi the wey.

  16. Patrick says:

    Alf Baird
    “mankit” = corrupt, bi the wey.”

    Corruption is a natural stage in nature, the real problem is inequality, inequality only exists in human society or in other world is a man create. Always will exists it is the line of less effort you see in birds, plants, fish, etc. Tackle inequality and corrupt will reduce to a minimum.

  17. Patrick says:

    Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May has moved to ease business concerns over Brexit talks.

    Speaking to the Confederation for British Industry, a leading business organization, she said her government plans to attract more firms by lowering corporate tax rates.

    Anyone, wants to explain me how she will accomplish the task? Taken on account that Gov is a minor before law.

    1. Patrick says:

      An advance
      LuxLeaks whistleblowers go back to court in Luxembourg

      The PricewaterhouseCoopers workers who exposed dirty tax deals are appealing their convictions. They had passed more than 30,000 documents on to the investigative journalist Edouard Perrin.


Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.