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

cogito

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I don't know and neither do you. Because neither of us know what the Tories have planned with the fishing industry and Brexit negotiations. That's why I asked you your thoughts. Are they going to sell the fishermen out again do you think ? Do you think they'll use fishing as a bargaining chip or not ?

What I DO know though is that the fishermen used for authoritative quotes to back up push these these articles, who were also photographed posing with Davidson, are very dubious characters indeed and I don't trust them to be telling me the truth on this matter since at least two of them are rabid Sturgeon/SNP haters.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/18/scottish-trawlerman-fisheries-scandal-buchan?CMP=share_btn_tw

Anyway, do you not think fishing will come up at all in Brexit talks then ? And if they do, will May use them as some sort of bargaining chip ?

You see, this is what you do. You are asked one question and ramble on about something altogether different. Are you ever going to answer my question? (Fourth time of asking)

cogito

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I don't know and neither do you. Because neither of us know what the Tories have planned with the fishing industry and Brexit negotiations. That's why I asked you your thoughts. Are they going to sell the fishermen out again do you think ? Do you think they'll use fishing as a bargaining chip or not?

What I do know is that the Tories have stated that leaving the EU means that the UK will also leave the Common Fisheries Policy. What I also know is that an independent Scotland on joining the EU would be obliged to join the CFP. So what the Tories do is irrelevant. I believe that this has been explained to you before but I can't be bothered searching the thread.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

What part of once negotiations are completed and the other 27 countries are voting on it did you not understand string ? Once the other countries know the deal they are voting on, so obviously will Scotland = referendum/vote.

There are two parts to my reply to that.

The first is that my post and question was to ISTL, not you, and your remarks don't address the question. I'm awaiting an answer from ISTL who wrote the sentence which I was querying.

The second, disregarding your rudeness, is about the criteria applying if Scottish voters in any referendum are to have the facts available to them in order to make an informed decision.

The SNP claim that time is in the time frame October 2016 (or even September) and March 2019. They also claim this was agreed with May. But it was not and you can read this in the link below:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/general-election/snp-seize-on-claim-brexit-terms-will-be-clear-by-2019-1-4411992

Where it says

A SNP spokesman said Mrs May’s comments supported the timetable set out by Nicola Sturgeon, who has formally requested a second independence referendum by spring 2019, when the First Minister says “both the terms of Brexit and the implications and opportunities of independence” will be “clear”.

A row erupted following of the two leaders in Glasgow last week, when the Scottish Government claimed Mrs May had agreed that the terms of Brexit would be made clear within Ms Sturgeon’s timetable. Downing Street denied any such assurance had been given.

Apart from noting the denial by Downing Street that any assurance had been given on dates, I ask you also to note the quote attributed to Sturgeon where she said “both the terms of Brexit and the implications and opportunities of Independence​” will be “clear”.

So two remarks on that:

The timeframe mentioned is a planning date and could indeed slip, even Sturgeon acknowledges this when she stated in her letter to May asking for a Section 30 Order,
As I have said previously, if the timetable you have set out changes, we will require to consider the implications for the timing of a referendum.

As has been mentioned, there is no guarantee that the planned timetable will be kept and the detail will not be known until even 2 years after Brexit itself.

The second remark I have is related to knowledge of the two alternatives being clear to Scottish voters in making their decision.

The decision to be made is whether to live in a Scotland independent from the UK or within the UK. Scots have a right to know what each entails and the words "the terms of Brexit and the implications and opportunities of independence" is not only a biased statement, it is incomplete and should include knowledge of the trade deals with not only the EU but also the "opportunities of Brexit", in other words a realistic insight on what has and would be achievable on both sides of the choice.

These events are some years in the future and the request for a Section 30 Order is, at best premature.

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

I've tried to educate you on this topic (which is clearly sorely required) but you refuse to listen.

You're just going to lead others astray, like a drug dealer peddling wares that might seem like a good idea at the time but lead to disaster in the end due to a lack of understanding, care, or both.

TrickyTree83

sss555s wrote: »

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.

Look, clearly some of us are well read on the topic and others not.

I'm done placating on this thread, it gets me and others nowhere because you and others simply are not open to evidence based reasoning. You're just not, in the face of overwhelming evidence you do the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "la-la-la".

You and others think that iScotland will do as they please once a member of the EU. WTO tariffs - not a problem for iScotland, that 64% of trade and those 500,000 jobs will still be there because of.... magic? Trade conditions bestowed upon iScotland by the EU, ONLY for iScotland but not the rest? What is it? What's the solution that gives the protection of that trade and those jobs once Scotland is inside the EU and out of the UK? What precisely is that solution because according to the TFEU (and if you don't know what that is clearly you need to) you cannot, you will not, now or ever be able to negotiate specific trade terms with the rUK whilst the other member states continue on with the outcome of the Article 50 negotiations that are occurring now.

And that really is all there is to say on the matter. Either you live in the real world, or your nationalist fantasy on this thread.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Kab I think is trying to convince themselves that Scotland won't matter during the Brexit negotiations and that May will take care of it all for us truly getting the best deal for Scotland with that huge majority she's going to get in a few weeks. In other words we can be dismissed as irrelevant.

However, while posters here and elsewhere are convincing themselves that polls/whatever May/Davidson say about a second referendum/Scot's don't want it/this GE a defacto referendum etc are all by far the most important things to concern themselves with. They've forgotten that Scottish democracy has already taken place on this question. And it will come back into play immediately after this GE is over.

Scotland does matter, as part of the UK, but Scotland cannot demand what it likes and expect it to happen when you're in a union, you'll find that out when the nationalists on here don't get this magic deal for iScotland that protects the 500,000 jobs if the rest of the EU is on WTO terms.

Shakethedisease

cogito wrote: »

What I do know is that the Tories have stated that leaving the EU means that the UK will also leave the Common Fisheries Policy. What I also know is that an independent Scotland on joining the EU would be obliged to join the CFP. So what the Tories do is irrelevant. I believe that this has been explained to you before but I can't be bothered searching the thread.

No. This is what you do. I told you I didn't know because I don't. It was the first line in my response. However I don't think you read the full article because this is what Bertie is saying

Armstrong said the industry clearly accepted that other EU nations would continue to fish in UK waters after Brexit, and that any trade deal would need to take account of EU rules and standards for seafood imports.

That's the CFP in effect. Did you not notice this at all ?

Also fishing for the moment is a fully devolved area and has been since devolution. Leadsom should be keeping the Scottish Govt fully and 100% informed as to what's going on. This letter should not have had to be leaked to anyone and should've been fully public from the outset.

To be absolutely and perfectly honest with you. The amount of sheer lies that were told to Scotland and the other devolved areas of the UK in the run up to the Brexit vote.. fully informed, seats at tables, equal representation, single market membership, more powers over fishing/agriculture/environment coming your way blah blah. We'd be complete idiots to believe anything we're told now as fact. We know none of them are happening now. They want to take powers back instead.

Good luck to the fishermen. They're going to need it. Scotland will probably now have to go for EFTA after an independence vote for reasons already discussed. The SNP have never liked nor supported the CFP.

Oh and really enjoyed debating with you as fellow poster on actual topical issues by the way. Just for reference.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

There are two parts to my reply to that.

The first is that my post and question was to ISTL, not you, and your remarks don't address the question. I'm awaiting an answer from ISTL who wrote the sentence which I was querying.

The second, disregarding your rudeness, is about the criteria applying if Scottish voters in any referendum are to have the facts available to them in order to make an informed decision.

The SNP claim that time is in the time frame October 2016 (or even September) and March 2019. They also claim this was agreed with May. But it was not and you can read this in the link below:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/general-election/snp-seize-on-claim-brexit-terms-will-be-clear-by-2019-1-4411992

Where it says


Apart from noting the denial by Downing Street that any assurance had been given on dates, I ask you also to note the quote attributed to Sturgeon where she said “both the terms of Brexit and the implications and opportunities of Independence​” will be “clear”.

So two remarks on that:

The timeframe mentioned is a planning date and could indeed slip, even Sturgeon acknowledges this when she stated in her letter to May asking for a Section 30 Order,
As I have said previously, if the timetable you have set out changes, we will require to consider the implications for the timing of a referendum.

As has been mentioned, there is no guarantee that the planned timetable will be kept and the detail will not be known until even 2 years after Brexit itself.

The second remark I have is related to knowledge of the two alternatives being clear to Scottish voters in making their decision.

The decision to be made is whether to live in a Scotland independent from the UK or within the UK. Scots have a right to know what each entails and the words "the terms of Brexit and the implications and opportunities of independence" is not only a biased statement, it is incomplete and should include knowledge of the trade deals with not only the EU but also the "opportunities of Brexit", in other words a realistic insight on what has and would be achievable on both sides of the choice.

These events are some years in the future and the request for a Section 30 Order is, at best premature.

Sturgeon has until 2021 to call a referendum/vote. The Brexit negotiations by EU criteria and accepted on triggering Article 50 are two years long. At the end there are 6 months to ratify the UK's Brexit deal by 27 other countries in the EU. The vote/ref will be called when all the other EU countries are voting on it. If May walks out without a deal then I guess all bets are off.

There's no ambiguity here string. Once Brexit negotiations end, then in Scotland too there will be a vote on the end deal. For the moment there is a fixed timetable set in EU law regarding the length of Brexit talks.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Scotland does matter, as part of the UK, but Scotland cannot demand what it likes and expect it to happen when you're in a union

Wake up to what a union means and you'll find that neither can England. England/Wales can leave if that's what the people in England/Wales want. Scotland can choose not it if that's what the people of Scotland want. If it destroys the union in the process than that's just tough. England/Wales are 'only part of the UK' too. In fact without Scotland the UK doesn't actually exist.

Why should Scotland have to kowtow and go along with every decision England/Wales make in a union yet the same not be true in the other direction ? Get over yourself. England and Wales can't demand what they like either and still expect to be in a union.

You can't go on about unions meaning anything, then just ignore the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh and NI as if they don't matter and are of no relevance to the UK. What kind of union is that ?

you'll find that out when the nationalists on here don't get this magic deal for iScotland that protects the 500,000 jobs if the rest of the EU is on WTO terms.

No idea what you're on about here. And if I'm anywhere close then it's likely, for the 1000th time of saying it, Scotland will go with EFTA/EEA first.

cogito

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No. This is what you do. I told you I didn't know because I don't. It was the first line in my response. However I don't think you read the full article because this is what Bertie is saying That's the CFP in effect. Did you not notice this at all ?

Also fishing for the moment is a fully devolved area and has been since devolution. Leadsom should be keeping the Scottish Govt fully and 100% informed as to what's going on. This letter should not have had to be leaked to anyone and should've been fully public from the outset.

To be absolutely and perfectly honest with you. The amount of sheer lies that were told to Scotland and the other devolved areas of the UK in the run up to the Brexit vote.. fully informed, seats at tables, equal representation, single market membership, more powers over fishing/agriculture/environment coming your way blah blah. We'd be complete idiots to believe anything we're told now as fact. We know none of them are happening now. They want to take powers back instead.

Good luck to the fishermen. They're going to need it. Scotland will probably now have to go for EFTA after an independence vote for reasons already discussed. The SNP have never liked nor supported the CFP.

Oh and really enjoyed debating with you as fellow poster on actual topical issues by the way. Just for reference.

More paranoid blether.

And you still haven't answered my question. We all understand why that is. It's like trying to knit fog