TORY MP Andrew Bowie clashed with SNP representative Drew Hendry at Westminster after both quoted the National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS) to support opposing sides of the Internal Market Bill debate.
Hendry, who represents Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, quoted the union as saying: “It is the clear view of the NFU Scotland and the other farming unions of the UK that the proposals pose a significant threat to the development of common frameworks and to devolution.”
Interrupting, Bowie also quoted the NFUS, this time as saying: “The NFU Scotland’s fundamental priority in the clear interests of Scottish agriculture is to ensure the UK internal market effectively operates as it does now.”
READ MORE: Andrew Bowie caught repeating 'false nonsense' at Prime Minister's Questions
No longer quoting the union, the Tory MP goes on: “That is what this bill delivers. Nothing of what the honourable gentleman [Hendry] has said up to this point is in any way relevant to this bill today.”
The SNP MP answered: “Of course he [Bowie] is entirely wrong with his selective quoting there.
“And I would just say that this absolutely underlines why the Tories have not won an election in Scotland since 1959 … because they do not listen to the people of Scotland and they don’t have their interests at heart.”
Who was right?
Both MPs were actually quoting the same article. Published by the NFUS on August 14, 2020, it had the headline: “White paper proposal presents risks to vital internal UK markets.”
Bowie was quoting the introduction to the article, which reads: “The UK Internal Market is critical to the interests of Scottish agriculture and the vitally important food and drinks sector it underpins.
“Responding to the UK Government white paper on internal markets, NFU Scotland said it is of the utmost priority that the UK Internal Market is enabled to operate as it does now.”
The union clearly supports the internal market operating smoothly, but does not say it supports the bill.
It goes on to say: "It is the clear view of NFU Scotland, and the other farming unions of the UK, that the proposals pose a significant threat to the development of Common Frameworks and to devolution.
READ MORE: Holyrood to refuse consent for the Tories’ power grab bill
“The union is clear that Common Frameworks would provide the most effective alternative to manage policy divergence between parts of the UK, whilst respecting devolution, and so enable the UK Internal Market to operate without friction or distortion.”
NFU Scotland president Andrew McCornick is then quoted. He said: “The proposal on ‘mutual recognition’ contained in the paper raises the potential for Common Frameworks to be rendered meaningless.
“Since 2017, the Common Frameworks process has intended to specifically manage policy differences between all parts of the UK based on agreement and founded on respect for devolution.
“Common Frameworks can manage the practical regulatory and market implications of the UK leaving the EU and is the specific tool that was jointly designed by the UK Government and devolved administrations.
“However, the UK Internal Market proposals put forward limit the devolved administrations’ ability to act if any standards were lowered and give the UK Government a final say in areas of devolved policy, such as agriculture, the environment or animal health and welfare.
READ MORE: Scottish Greens accuse Westminster of treating Holyrood with contempt
“As it stands, the UK Government proposals for legislation on a UK Internal Market undermine the Common Frameworks process both in principle, as they move from agreement to imposition, and in practice by removing the incentive for the UK Government and the devolved administrations to agree ways of aligning and managing differences when mutual recognition rules require acceptance of standards from other parts of the UK.”
Conclusion
It appears Bowie was misled as to the union’s views.
While the NFUS supports the bill’s stated aim, of ensuring the UK internal market continues to function as it does now, it does not support the bill.
Instead, it advocates common frameworks to “enable the UK Internal Market to operate without friction or distortion”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel