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

IveSeenTheLight

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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?

Just to extrapolate this further ahead of TT83's responce

An interesting read which covers why an rUK government would not want to jeopardise the exports to Scotland and as such the scaremongering over the potentially 500,000 Scottish jobs could be considered a moot point and clearly contrived to be a headline figure to create fear of change

http://www.businessforscotland.com/scotlands-100-billion-of-exports-provide-the-foundation-for-a-wealthy-independent-country/

A_Medium_Size_Jock

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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



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



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?

What you believe is irrelevant.
This has been discussed and you are refusing to acknowledge facts about this issue.
The major one being that Westminster has the final say.


Also ............. jeopardise - there is an autocheck on here you know.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

No.

The First Minister is pushing her own agenda and ignoring the wishes of the majority of her country, as polls clearly show.
Again this has been discussed and you ignore the facts previously given.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Just to extrapolate this further ahead of TT83's responce

An interesting read which covers why an rUK government would not want to jeopardise the exports to Scotland and as such the scaremongering over the potentially 500,000 Scottish jobs could be considered a moot point and clearly contrived to be a headline figure to create fear of change

http://www.businessforscotland.com/scotlands-100-billion-of-exports-provide-the-foundation-for-a-wealthy-independent-country/

Scaremongering my whatsit.
If Scotland has such a rosy future, why has the First Minister not already made the most of the opportunities stated in your linked report?
Why has Scotland not been encouraged by The First Minister to increase exports?
Is that not part of her remit?

A_Medium_Size_Jock

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

Ah but the forthcoming election may change that.
As you say, "we await the decision".
If you're going to suggest the recent council elections, 32%-odd is hardly a resounding figure for mandate is it?

IveSeenTheLight

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

What you believe is irrelevant.

Likewise

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

This has been discussed and you are refusing to acknowledge facts about this issue.
The major one being that Westminster has the final say.

I've not refused to acknowledge that Westminster has retained the decision, however, I've suggested that the political fall out that would occur if Westminster did opt to go against the democratically voted position of Holyrood is why TM has not categorically said no.

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Also ............. jeopardise - there is an autocheck on here you know.

Oh dear. A sure sign when spelling and grammatical errors are pointed out in a social media forum that one has lost the argument.

I don't proof read or correct posts on an irrelevant discussion board.

Incidentally, did you know that: -

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteers be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe

IveSeenTheLight

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

No.

The First Minister is pushing her own agenda and ignoring the wishes of the majority of her country, as polls clearly show.
Again this has been discussed and you ignore the facts previously given.

No.
The First Minister is progressing the democratically elected mandate she has and the will of the Scottish electorate.

As for polls, we discussed that and you chose to ignore the latest poll.
In fact you were very dismissive of polls following our last discussion on the matter.

• 57% would prefer Independence in Europe
  as opposed to
• 43% wanted to remain in the UK out of Europe

IveSeenTheLight

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Scaremongering my whatsit.
If Scotland has such a rosy future, why has the First Minister not already made the most of the opportunities stated in your linked report?
Why has Scotland not been encouraged by The First Minister to increase exports?
Is that not part of her remit?

The opportunity is there.
An opportunity which could be realised once Independent.

IveSeenTheLight

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Ah but the forthcoming election may change that.
As you say, "we await the decision".
If you're going to suggest the recent council elections, 32%-odd is hardly a resounding figure for mandate is it?

I've already stated as such

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

As for the council elections, It was not a FPTP system, it was an STV system and limitations on candidates I think affects the councils seats and precludes that the councils essentially return no overall control.

I don't think you can rest all hope on the council elections for the result of the GE

A_Medium_Size_Jock

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Likewise



I've not refused to acknowledge that Westminster has retained the decision, however, I've suggested that the political fall out that would occur if Westminster did opt to go against the democratically voted position of Holyrood is why TM has not categorically said no.



Oh dear. A sure sign when spelling and grammatical errors are pointed out in a social media forum that one has lost the argument.

I don't proof read or correct posts on an irrelevant discussion board.

Incidentally, did you know that: -

Yet you persist.
Why can you not accept fact?
Do they scare you?:cool:
Politics has ALWAYS had political fallout - why should this maybe-sometime-never event be any different?
Grammar - an indicator. Yours is not good. More-so when the auto-correct actually highlights errors for you and you ignore them.
:rotfl:
By your standards you really should proof read before you press that "submit ...".