If we vote for Brexit what happens

Thrugelmir

A senior consultant at our local hospital has been suspended for domestic violence. His wife (an arranged marriage) has only been in the UK 6 weeks. Shows how culturally different the UK has become. Even in what one might regard as educated circles.

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

Actually, he didn't say that at all, he said "It's why the SNP promised the economically risible idea of using the pound, promised to stay in the EU and wanted to keep the Queen as Head of State".

As far as I am aware that is a statement of fact. The SNP did state that an independent Scotland would retain the Queen as head of state. Even if England became a republic.:)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/wintour-and-watt/2011/may/25/alexsalmond-queen

Obviously what the Scots themselves want might well be something different. I am not going to make the mistake of confusing a political party with a country.:)

I think the fact that the former Queen Mother was born in Scotland, would be far closer connection to Scotland than any of that.

And shouldn't it be Stewarts if you are true Scot? Stuart is the French spelling of the name, adopted by old James One, largely because his mother was basically French, despite being Queen of Scots. (Her mother was French, she was raised in France etc)

I'm not getting into an argument on a thread about the EU regarding the Scottish/UK monarchy. But needs must..

However, Gen implied, that the SNP 'wanted to keep the monarchy' as if Scotland had nothing to do with it. The Scots obviously do. End of. You're making far too much out of it. So it's not why the SNP proposed it. It was never 'proposed' as it was never in contention.

No one has or ever was implying a vote for independence was a vote to dissolve the Union of the Crowns, which preceded the Union of the Parliaments ( which is what the ref was about ). Least of all the SNP.

The spelling of Stuart is irrelevant to being a 'true Scot'. And I'm an avid reader of UK history books.

Back to the EU thread then...

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I'm not getting into an argument on a thread about the EU regarding the Scottish/UK monarchy. But needs must..

However, Gen implied, that the SNP 'wanted to keep the monarchy' as if Scotland had nothing to do with it. The Scots obviously do. End of. You're making far too much out of it. So it's not why the SNP proposed it. It was never 'proposed' as it was never in contention.

No one has or ever was implying a vote for independence was a vote to dissolve the Union of the Crowns, which preceded the Union of the Parliaments ( which is what the ref was about ). Least of all the SNP.

The spelling of Stuart is irrelevant to being a 'true Scot'. And I'm an avid reader of UK history books.

Back to the EU thread then...

What you think Generali "implied" would be your problem. The statement he made was true. It's not his fault that the SNP made a big deal about retaining the Queen as head of state, and that Salmond gave a "gushing interview" on the topic. Neither did he say anything about Scotland 'not having anything to do with the monarchy'; that was all you.:)

You are the one that is "making far too much out of it", and going off on a rant, largely because you mis-read what had actually been written.:rotfl:

And of course, the reason that Salmond made a big deal about it, was that there were plenty of Yes campaigners about who wanted to 'ditch the queen'. It is not as if there wasn't such a thing as 'Scottish Republicanism'

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/republican-plot-to-ditch-the-queen-after-yes-vote-1-3452710

Aside from the fact that Salmond himself was once a member of the 79 Group which advocated republicanism and even got himself briefly expelled from the SNP when a little tiff developed.

http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/snp-fall-out-that-saw-salmond-expelled-but-put-party-on-new-path-1-1030419

wotsthat

Thrugelmir wrote: »

A senior consultant at our local hospital has been suspended for domestic violence. His wife (an arranged marriage) has only been in the UK 6 weeks. Shows how culturally different the UK has become. Even in what one might regard as educated circles.

Yes proof indeed.

gfplux

angrypirate wrote: »

There isnt a "no change" option on the ballot box and I think that is becoming more evident amongst the general public by the day. If you look at every newspaper today - Juncker is now saying that the UK has to take more asylum seekers or they will tear up the Dublin agreement. The EU plays by their own rules and they are rules they can tear up and change at any one time.

Your pound against euro figures look wrong. 1 year change is down about 2%, 3 month is down about 5%. You conveniently miss out the 5 year change where we are UP 12%.
Source http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=gbpeur=X&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=#{"range":"5y","allowChartStacking":true}

Markets go up, markets go down. Go back to 08, pound was almost parity to euro. 2007 and pound was 2:1 against the dollar.
One of the big reasons for the downward pressures on sterling is that the markets had factored in an interest rate rise later this year. Mark Carney disclosed that the soonest now we might expect 2017

Did you not understand that the "no change" option meant just that. To continue with our membership and except all the changes that the EU put in place.

Yes currency does fluctuate and I did not want to fudge any figures. I just quoted the snap shot on the day.
However the pound has declined (long term) against the Euro. I am interested in understanding what will happen to the pound/euro rate if we leave. Selfishly I am interested in a strong pound

I have pounds and live in the Euro zone

CLAPTON

very clear and truely worthy of the corrupt eu spin

'no change' within the EU means 'continuous unknown change'
whereas BREXIT 'continuous unknown change'

gfplux

CLAPTON wrote: »

very clear and truely worthy of the corrupt eu spin

'no change' within the EU means 'continuous unknown change'
whereas BREXIT 'continuous unknown change'

Hello Clapton,
I think I know what you mean. That is why I am trying to understand what the BREXIT "continuous unknown change" will be.
We have had many years of "continuous unknown change" within the EU. Therefore that would just continue.
If we BREXIT there is the unknown but there surely is the Known as that can be modelled (by people cleverer than me, that's why I keep asking) using the words of the treaty.

CLAPTON

gfplux wrote: »

Hello Clapton,
I think I know what you mean. That is why I am trying to understand what the BREXIT "continuous unknown change" will be.
We have had many years of "continuous unknown change" within the EU. Therefore that would just continue.
If we BREXIT there is the unknown but there surely is the Known as that can be modelled (by people cleverer than me, that's why I keep asking) using the words of the treaty.

there are very few 'knowns' about BREXIT , nothing worth modelling even by clever people

Mistermeaner

It's like the Scottish referendum where everyone is voting blind - the terms of separation will not be discussed until after it is decided to leave.... making it impossible to know what you're voting for.

Favours a stay vote IMO. Devil you know and all that

gfplux

Hi Clapton.
Please help me. Can you list those few "knowns"
Just to help my understanding.
Thank you.