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

IveSeenTheLight

kabayiri wrote: »

Weren't you saying Sept 2018 a few months back?

Now you sound less sure, more woolly.

Come on - I don't expect an exact date ... within a couple of months.

But...if you insist on your descriptions I predict it will be "later rather than sooner"

TM and NS had a meeting where TM advised the expected date for completing the Brexit negotiations was Q3 2018 - Q1 2019.

We hear now that the Brexit negotiation may take longer (not surprising given the UK governments procrastinating)

NS wants the referendum to occur post Brexit negotiations.

So if the date is wooly, its surely because the date is wooly from TM

A_Medium_Size_Jock

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

TM and NS had a meeting where TM advised the expected date for completing the Brexit negotiations was Q3 2018 - Q1 2019.

We hear now that the Brexit negotiation may take longer (not surprising given the UK governments procrastinating)

NS wants the referendum to occur post Brexit negotiations.

So if the date is wooly, its surely because the date is wooly from TM

Bull parp.
Show us where it has been said officially recently that Brexit negotiations might take longer?
Because that was said many times even before the referendum by media, so your excuse that NS is using that now is lame.

In case you are unaware, the official date is still Friday March 29th 2019.
No one has officially suggested otherwise.

mollycat

cogito wrote: »

I'm sorry that you feel that way but I'm not going to change my posting style under the threat that someone might complain to MSE. If I see evasiveness or hypocrisy, I'll show it up for what it is and whoever the poster is.

Well said!

"Contentious poster gets flak from others shock!!!"

Hold the front page.

kabayiri

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

TM and NS had a meeting where TM advised the expected date for completing the Brexit negotiations was Q3 2018 - Q1 2019.

We hear now that the Brexit negotiation may take longer (not surprising given the UK governments procrastinating)

NS wants the referendum to occur post Brexit negotiations.

So if the date is wooly, its surely because the date is wooly from TM

Why don't you (ie NS) go and ask the EU then?

They are just as pivotal in these negotiations.

You seem to think it's all in May's control. It's not.

I fully understand why May has to be single minded, and it leaves the SNP in limbo land a bit.

sss555s

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

When the SNP tell you Brexit is bad because Fraser of Allander say 120,000 jobs are at risk but fail to publicise themselves that independence is worse because the same institute of economists they apparently trust for their propaganda say 500,000 are at risk from dreams of Alba how can anyone in any corner of the world take the SNP or any of you Indy posters on here seriously?

Commissioned by the Scotland office headed by David Mundell. That doesn't sound very impartial to me.
The report has been done in one of a number of methods (the one most favored by the commissioners no doubt) and is based on a mixture of government figures from various recent years.

It's all a bit of a storm in Trickys tea cup unless the English are going to stop trading with their closest neighbor and ally.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

sss555s wrote: »

Commissioned by the Scotland office headed by David Mundell. That doesn't sound very impartial to me.
The report has been done in one of a number of methods (the one most favored by the commissioners no doubt) and is based on a mixture of government figures from various recent years.

It's all a bit of a storm in Trickys tea cup unless the English are going to stop trading with their closest neighbor and ally.

Shall we take that to be a "no" from you to Tricky's request then?
Which to remind you was:

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Prove me wrong and let's see one of you acknowledge that the risk to jobs and trade from independence is 4+ times higher than that of Brexit.

Does that make you the first "of the pro indy posters they can" not "converse with in a rational evidence based manner instead of ignorant speculation."?

(With thanks to TrickyTree83 for the original post.)

TrickyTree83

sss555s wrote: »

Commissioned by the Scotland office headed by David Mundell. That doesn't sound very impartial to me.
The report has been done in one of a number of methods (the one most favored by the commissioners no doubt) and is based on a mixture of government figures from various recent years.

It's all a bit of a storm in Trickys tea cup unless the English are going to stop trading with their closest neighbor and ally.

Laughable, you know that any argument you use to shoot down the 500,000 figure can be applied to the 120,000 right?

So if that report is crap, so is the SNP report (from the same institute) regarding jobs at risk from Brexit - the current bedrock of the pro indy campaign.

Either you're saying both are crap, biased and wrong (p.s. I'd love to read your own expert opinion) or they're both correct, in either scenario the Indy argument finds itself in another quandary which you fail to acknowledge, which as I said before shows you to be caught in your own lies.

And on the topic of trade, iScotland in the EU will mean the trading relationship is defined by the outcome of Brexit negotiations. Do I need to draw it for all of you with crayons before you catch on? I'm sick of repeating it so tell me what I need to do in order for you to read and learn.

sss555s

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Shall we take that to be a "no" from you to Tricky's request then?
Which to remind you was:
TrickyTree83;Prove me wrong and let's see one of you acknowledge that the risk to jobs and trade from independence is 4+ times higher than that of Brexit.

Does that make you the first "of the pro indy posters they can" not "converse with in a rational evidence based manner instead of ignorant speculation."

That report estimates the number of jobs linked to the demand for exports. Is our closest neighbor and ally really going to stop trading with us?
Brexit will make us lose our competitive edge which will drive down demand world wide losing business and lowering profits causing more harm and job losses.

That's more (Common sense) proof than any biased Westminster funded publication. Look at their track record.

sss555s

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Laughable, you know that any argument you use to shoot down the 500,000 figure can be applied to the 120,000 right?

So if that report is crap, so is the SNP report (from the same institute) regarding jobs at risk from Brexit - the current bedrock of the pro indy campaign.

Either you're saying both are crap, biased and wrong (p.s. I'd love to read your own expert opinion) or they're both correct, in either scenario the Indy argument finds itself in another quandary which you fail to acknowledge, which as I said before shows you to be caught in your own lies.

And on the topic of trade, iScotland in the EU will mean the trading relationship is defined by the outcome of Brexit negotiations. Do I need to draw it for all of you with crayons before you catch on? I'm sick of repeating it so tell me what I need to do in order for you to read and learn.

I'd say (personal opinion) both reports are to be taken with a pinch of salt and common sense should be used instead.

Scotland and the rest of the UK will continue to trade as the rest of the UK's closest EU ally.

IveSeenTheLight

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Bull parp.
Show us where it has been said officially recently that Brexit negotiations might take longer?
Because that was said many times even before the referendum by media, so your excuse that NS is using that now is lame.

In case you are unaware, the official date is still Friday March 29th 2019.
No one has officially suggested otherwise.

Once again, happy to clarify

Theresa May: Brexit talks could take longer than two years

During Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons, May said the Brexit deal would be subject to “lengthy negotiations over the course of those two years and more.”

I see now that she is suggesting that only a framework of how to proceed will be made and that there will be an as yet unidentified "implementation period"