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

A_Medium_Size_Jock

sss555s wrote: »

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.

Squirming a little?

Again then:

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?

Selective (common sense) proof then, is it?
When the same group suggest 500,000 are at risk due to independence it appears that your version of "proof" is at best selective.
As suggested, either both are wrong or both are right.
Which is it?

IveSeenTheLight

kabayiri wrote: »

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.

You seem to think its all in Sturgeons control, its not.

NS has clearly stated, time and again that she wants the referendum to allow the people of Scotland to decide post Brexit negotiations.

When they occur, she proposes that the referendum takes place.

IveSeenTheLight

sss555s wrote: »

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.

Indeed, especially when some chose to ignore the rUK exports to Scotland which is greater than the Scotland exports to the rUK

A_Medium_Size_Jock

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Once again, happy to clarify

Theresa May: Brexit talks could take longer than two years



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"

Ahem.
I did say "recent".
You realise that your link is from October last year?
Before Article 50 had been presented.
And you ignored this from your own link:

Her official spokesperson said the prime minister had been referring to the fact that Article 50 talks “can be extended if needs be.” An extension of Article 50 talks would require unanimous backing from the European Council. However, the spokesperson said no discussions had been held with other EU states about an extension.

Clear enough then - that it was NOT said recently that Brexit negotiations might take longer.
Unless you have something since Article 50 was put forward?

IveSeenTheLight

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Squirming a little?

Again then:

Selective (common sense) proof then, is it?
When the same group suggest 500,000 are at risk due to independence it appears that your version of "proof" is at best selective.
As suggested, either both are wrong or both are right.
Which is it?

The 500,000 are at risk because of the £50B export to the rUK and the insinuation that this opportunity to trade will be removed.

The same then would apply to the £65B imports from rUK to Scotland.

Its plain scaremongering to suggest there is impact only one way and that a solution cannot be obtained.

If in this extreme world was to be a reality, the rUK would be stuffed and it would be far more appealing for an iScotland to have access to a market 8 times larger than rUK

A_Medium_Size_Jock

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Indeed, especially when some chose to ignore the rUK exports to Scotland which is greater than the Scotland exports to the rUK

Are you trolling again?
That has been answered.
Many times, too.

sss555s

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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.

You're showing yourself to be very dim and simple. How can I be telling lies? Do you think I have a crystal ball? I can only say what I believe to be the truth going forward which is very different to what Westminster would have people believe.
Senior politicians admitted that Scotland was lied to pre the 1979 referendum so why should I trust their faux reports now?
Don't let me stop you playing with crayons as it suits your mental age or you could just grow up and understand that not everyone is stupid that sees things from a different objective than you do, you great big keyboard warrior that you are.

IveSeenTheLight

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Ahem.
I did say "recent".
You realise that your link is from October last year?
Before Article 50 had been presented.
And you ignored this from your own link:


Clear enough then - that it was NOT said recently that Brexit negotiations might take longer.
Unless you have something since Article 50 was put forward?

I'm not getting into a semantics flaming spiral with you.
It was said by the PM, its still remains a possibility and many reports and EU leaders believe that it will take longer.

IveSeenTheLight

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Are you trolling again?
That has been answered.
Many times, too.

If I'm trolling, I'm only trolling the same lame argument that has been put forward many times

Are you guys trolling the same scaremongering point again?

sss555s

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Are you trolling again?

:rotfl: The irony