The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

kabayiri

cogito wrote: »

Woo hoo! What did I win?

You win either :
- Argos vouchers worth £250, or
- an iScotland complete with SNP management.


(whichever has the greater value...)

elantan

2 Scottish council by elections already ... one caused by a disgraced Tory one by an independent. .. not sure what his reason is

They didn't last long

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You can't have it both ways.

I don't believe it is a black or white situation.
I'm open to all colours of the spectrum

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

If a bad deal is not a bad deal because "solutions will be found", then there's no need for independence because of leaving the EU, the mandate for a referendum disappears in a puff of smoke.

There's already a mandate.
It was voted for in the Scottish parliament, following it being in the manifesto and numerous discussions prior to the Scottish elections

This GE will further strengthen that mandate if the majority of MP's returned are pro independence or indeed weaken if the majority is anti-independence

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You look to be going around in circles trying to hurdle this 500,000 job figure and the 64% of trade with the rUK.

Not at all. You've misunderstood my thoughts, I thought I made it perfectly clear.

I don't believe a Westminster and Scottish government would impact conclude to work against each other in exports between the two of us.

I read somewhere that Scotland exports £50 Billion to the rUK, but imports over £60 Billion from the rUK.

Why would Westminster jeapordise that export with Scotland?

IveSeenTheLight

.string. wrote: »

You're not as good as you think on analogies. Nor, it serms, introspection.

Play the ball, not the man.

Be more specific in your point about the topic and then we could discuss better.

antrobus

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

..There's already a mandate...

There might be mandate to request one.

But Parliament is sovereign. Parliament decides.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You can't have it both ways.

If a bad deal is not a bad deal because "solutions will be found", then there's no need for independence because of leaving the EU, the mandate for a referendum disappears in a puff of smoke.

You look to be going around in circles trying to hurdle this 500,000 job figure and the 64% of trade with the rUK.

Solutions will be found and I've already outlined possible solutions for you several times. Scotland will transition with the UK onto EFTA/EEA trade terms. Then stay there while independence is sorted out, following which Scotland will have another vote to rejoin ( or not ) as full EU members.

64% trade and all those jobs will be safe enough since Scotland can still trade freely with rUK. So there you go, there is a 'solution'.

The facts are that the best possible deal between the UK and the EU is more favourable towards independence. The worst possible deal is more favourable towards Scotland as part of the UK.

You're going to get a very bad deal from the EU, they keep telling you this. If May even bothers hanging about trying to negotiate one at all.

Should May and the UK look like crashing out of the EU on WTO terms, Sturgeon will call a vote or a fully legal Scottish election vote ( based on independence) faster than you can say 'who needs a section 30'.. with even die hard No voters, previous no voting business sectors, all sorts technology, science, banking and education professionals on top of already 45% of the country stampeding to the polling station in order to secure a seat on the life boat. Not caring whether it's EU, EFTA/EEA or even which party is in charge at Holyrood as long as it's full single market access.

Those are the only facts you need worry about regarding keeping the union intact after 8th June and these Brexit negotiations really start to get going.

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

No, you misunderstand.

It's not about discussing terms again, it's about the initial opening terms. Scotland right now is putting the whole of the UK at a disadvantage than if you had shown solidarity and discussed the issue after everyone had sorted out their plans.

I don't misunderstand.

Scotland is not harming the whole of the UK and putting it at a disadvantage.
We're not involved and you've already covered that Westminster can do what it wants when it wants.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Independence, independence, independence. That's all we hear from Nicola, never what's in the best interests of the UK as a whole.

As opposed to The Scottish Conservatives which mentioned : -

• Nicola Sturgeon, Independence and the SNP somthing like 43 times
• Ruth Davidson or the Conservatives 9 times (one was her signature)
• Education 0 times
• Transport 0 Times
• Health 0 Times
• Etc Etc

in their recent leaflet.

I think you are also confused. Nicola Sturgeon is not an MP, she is an MSP. the First Minister of Scotland whose sole duty is to work for the Scottish people by the mandate she was democratically elected on.

Her priority is not the UK

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The SNP asked voters to "vote with independence in mind" in the EU referendum.

We could be here all day citing references of parties urging voters to vote in certain ways, like Ruth Davidson saying she would block the SNP in every way, oppose Health policies, oppse education, etc etc etc

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

There's no co-operation from the SNP, just demands as others have rightly pointed out. These demands, broadcast across the EU by SNP representatives in the EU parliament and the First Minister and others meeting with EU representatives to discuss accession into the EU weakens the UK position.

The Scottish electorate voted to remain in the EU.
She would not be doing her job as the First Minister or MSP if she did not seek to fulfill the Scottish electorate wishes

IveSeenTheLight

antrobus wrote: »

There might be mandate to request one.

But Parliament is sovereign. Parliament decides.

Actually a mandate from the electorate by way of being elected with their manifesto. as well as the MSP democratic vote to proceed with the request.

We await the decision then.
As ever, the UK government has a record of procrastination

IveSeenTheLight

cogito wrote: »

Such as a separate Brexit deal which would allow Scotland to remain in the single market. You can google it yourself.

I know about it.

The PM she would get an agreement with the devolved governments as a way of uniting the country.

The First Minister is trying to protect the Scottish electorate democratic wishes.

The PM failed to get an agreement as promised.

TM is already showing how out of touch she is and failing to unite the countries

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

There might be mandate to request one.

But Parliament is sovereign. Parliament decides.

Yes, the Scottish Parliament. A second vote is going to happen one way or the other antrobus, you might as well accept the inevitable.

If it's a Yes vote, and the UK Parliament refuses to ratify it despite a peaceful, democratic, free and fair vote, the Scottish Parliament will simply go elsewhere ( UN, EU, International courts ) for full recognition as an independent country anyway. There's very little point by then in keeping Scotland in a Union it does not wish to play a part in anymore. Their MP's would simply withdraw from Westminster and the Scottish Parliament would refuse to implement Westminster policy.

Or May could just get it over with an allow the question to be asked.