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

Shakethedisease

cogito wrote: »

More paranoid blether.

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

I said I didn't know twice. What else do you want me to say ? It's like talking to a brick wall.

Fishing is devolved. Leadsom should be talking to the Scottish Govt anyway, not getting ars*y about leaked letters that should've gone to Holyrood keeping them informed every step of the way on their own devolved areas.

TrickyTree83

cogito wrote: »

Oh, Dear. I asked you about Sturgeon's response to Leadsom's letter, not what the SFF had to say about it. The letter is in full in this link:

http://www.itv.com/news/border/2017-05-10/election-row-over-claim-uk-government-will-sell-out-fishing-industry/

When you've read it, you might care to answer my question. Was Sturgeon lying? Most reasonable people would conclude that she was.

And in answer to your question, I think the Tories position is pretty clear from the contents of the letter.

She and the SNP have been caught in many lies of late.

It's how they operate it seems. The curtain is falling away, just like the dreams of Alba.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I don't give that story much credibility. I think Sturgeon is only trying to insert an element of "maybe there won't be a neverendum" into the GE process in order to dissuade those who don't want one from giving their vote to another party. It was the same in the last Scottish election I believe.

You may note that Shakey mentioned 2021 a couple of posts above; I think we can reasonably assume that this a part of the collective's misinformation project.

String, I said 2021 in case Brexit talks are extended before the other EU countries start ratifying and voting. Nothing to do with the SNP or misinformation.

sss555s

.string. wrote: »

Liability by association with a failing economy, so some decrease in the value of Sterling.

I asked how you justify it as we all knew what would happen?

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

She and the SNP have been caught in many lies of late.

It's how they operate it seems. The curtain is falling away, just like the dreams of Alba.

Any thoughts on what it means to be in a union yet ? What England and Wales vote for England and Wales get ? What Scotland votes for Scotland.... ?

TrickyTree83

Something else that occurs to me, many nationalists here say that it is nonsense to suggest that the rest of the UK would cease trading with Scottish firms if Scotland were inside the single market but outside the UK.

But calls for a new referendum are based on the "fact" that the EU will stop trading with the UK if it's outside the single market. Truly a mark of genius, no?

Perhaps that small dose of irony will help certain posters to understand the situation more clearly. Then again based on track record, most probably not.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Any thoughts on what it means to be in a union yet ? What England and Wales vote for England and Wales get ? What Scotland votes for Scotland.... ?

We all vote as one on UK issues, there's a great example of it coming up on June 8th 2017.

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You've scrambled around for ways to discredit the figure of 500,000 jobs at risk. You're not the only one, ISTL just said "I don't believe the figure".

For clarity and purposes of the discussion, I embraced the 500,00 figure presented and asked in this hypothetical extreme condition, what would be the impact on rUK jobs?

Also for clarity, the reason I don't believe the figure would be 500,000 is because I don't believe we would finish up in the extreme you propose and have answered that if that extreme was a reality, the rUK would be well and truly up the creek without a paddle.
In that situation, being positioned in a market 8 times that of the rUK would likely be the preferential situation, in your hypothetical extreme scenario of course.

I'm sure there are enough open minded people to be able to come up with a solution which does not result in going to your extreme though

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

As usual you retreat into 'grievance mode' whenever it suits.
The problem for you and the SNP is that for every Scot that falls for the now hackneyed England or the Union is repressing us 'line' there are increasingly more Scots who are rejecting this juvenile rhetoric and many are quite frankly embarrassed by it.
As much as you want it to, the Scottish Parliament cannot operate totally free from the constraints of our Union, to do that you`ll have to persuade enough of your fellow Scots to vote for independence, and there`s the rub.

Tricky and others here go on about Scotland being part of the UK. Then in the next breath kab says Scotland is irrelevant to UK negotiations. You can't have it both ways whenever it suits.

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Something else that occurs to me, many nationalists here say that it is nonsense to suggest that the rest of the UK would cease trading with Scottish firms if Scotland were inside the single market but outside the UK.

But calls for a new referendum are based on the "fact" that the EU will stop trading with the UK if it's outside the single market. Truly a mark of genius, no?

Perhaps that small dose of irony will help certain posters to understand the situation more clearly. Then again based on track record, most probably not.

Have you considered what trade would be ceased and what impact that would have on the rUK?