When Jacob Rees Mogg threw dead fish into the Thames at WETminster, I thought, like most of you, he was making a point on behalf of the Fishing INDUSTRY.

It was only yesterday that we all learned he was acting on behalf of the FISH.

Fish happiness, not Brexit, was the goal!

Bloody hell some ones built a hall of shame for the SNP.

https://t.co/qxyMnUS4iX

1. Derek Mackay sending text messages to a sixteen-year-old boy telling him he was really cute.

2. Mhairi Black bringing a drag queen called Flowjob to a primary school

3. Derek Mackay spending £230 million on ferries that were not built

4. John Swinney overseeing an exam fiasco leading to marks being inflated

5. John Swinney being responsible for teaching primary school children about anal sex, rimming and pornography.

6. Natalie McGarry resigned the SNP whip because of fraud offences relating to the Women for Independence group. She pleaded guilty was convicted and jailed, but later had the conviction quashed. She still faces trial for embezzlement.

7. SNP coverup over the Covid outbreak connected with Nike in Edinburgh

8. SNP Government involved in clinical waste storage scandal

9. SNP MPs Chris Law, Ian Blackford and Brendan O’Hara had expenses claims totally £760,000 from the UK Parliament. They were the three with the

I really can’t see how, after the last four and half years, the breakup of the UK can be avoided. What a historical irony that a Brexit intended to make Britain ‘great again’ actually brings about the demise of ‘Great’ Britain.

I actually don’t see this as a bad thing. After all, the aggressive chauvinistic nationalism, hubris, and exceptionalism that made Brexit possible is predominantly an English phenomenon. Part of the historical paradox whereby Englishness expresses itself through Britishness,

without explicitly recognising that this nationalism is primarily embedded in England rather than the Celtic periphery. A United Ireland is long overdue. Scotland - regardless of the debates about the economic viability of independence- has reached the point when a decisive

breach now seems inevitable. If this happens, Wales may well follow. Then, finally, England will have to decide what it wants to be, and look at the flaws and failings - political, economic, and constitutional - that it has put off dealing with, or blamed on others

Not arguing that Brexit was therefore a progressive development btw - far from it - but a country that was willing to do something so fundamentally harmful, and so stupid, and which allowed itself to be taken over by political forces of the kind we’ve seen, is an ill country

1/ What are the ‘new’ demands the UK says the EU has made in the Brexit talks and are they actually new? There are 3 specific areas of contention that have emerged, one each on state aid rules, the Level Playing Field/Governance, and fish. None of them should be a total surprise.

2/ First, on state aid. The UK says the EU wants the Commission and European Investment Bank to be given carve-outs from the subsidy control provisions in the deal. It says this would create an unfair imbalance, because there would be no similar exemption for British authorities.

3/ This is particularly relevant in light of the bloc's €750bn Coronavirus recovery fund. It has already been delayed by an internal political row, and the EU is keen to ensure that isn't exacerbated by legal disputes with the UK next year. Brussels denies this is anything new.

4/ The Commission is an ex ante regulator, meaning it is called in to pre-authorise state aid spending by EU countries. The EU wants the UK to set up its own independent regulator to approve subsidies in the same way. If it does so, many of the state aid problems will fall away.

5/ LPF/Governance. This is about the 'ratchet clause' which the EU has relabelled as 'equivalence' of standards. It addresses what happens if one side raises its standards on say environmental or labour rules in the future and the other doesn't, creating a competitive imbalance.

At today's Future Relationship with the European Union Committee - we're hearing from @CSBarnard24 that the deal has a slightly "alice in wonderland quality" about it - nothing really appears quite as it first looks. If you compare to what we had until 1 Jan, it falls short. 1/

For example, there's a statement that the dispute resolution mechanisms doesn’t apply, but if you plough on until the end you see that some chunks of the DSM are actually incorporated over non-regression provisions. @CSBarnard24 2/

From @SamuelMarcLowe: "the premise of this agreement [is] to remove tariffs & do v little to remove barriers to trade and services. If you’re prioritising the economic status quo and economic integration with Europe then of course this deal is going to disappoint you." 3/

"This deal is actually very unstable", says @CSBarnard24. "One of the problems is that this constant contestation of the deal creates quite a lot of difficulties for businesses." 4/

"If you’re a car manufacturer that wants to invest in a new plant, you don’t know whether tariffs are going to be imposed either because the deal is brought to an end or due to potential govt retaliation - this is the main concern of this deal." @CSBarnard24 5/