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

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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

We'll vote as one on who sits at at the UK parliament in Westminster. A few pages ago you were saying it was a defacto referendum on Scottish independence. Make up your mind. Again you can't have it both ways when it suits.

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

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

These are not my extremes are they, I did not author the reports.

TM is asking for a mandate, she's said that no deal is better than a bad deal. If there is no deal, the situation described by the ~120,000 jobs at risk from Brexit will come to fruition, then we will see how accurate the Fraser of Allander institute is. For Scotland the UK market is many times more important than the EU market. They've tried to put a figure on it for ease of understanding, but that's never going to be completely accurate, yet it will certainly be indicative.

I've always maintained that because the eventual outcome of negotiations are unknown it is a spectrum of possible outcomes, looking at both extremes of the spectrum is the only way to draw conclusions at this moment in time.

I would have been happy with an EEA/EFTA deal since our ability to trade without being blocked by Bulgarian farmers is what I sought. If we get a good deal from the EU without needing to be controlled in any way by Brussels then that's even better. It is a personal belief that being able to strike our own trade arrangements puts us in a strong position to remedy that situation quickly as opposed to those under the EU trade arrangements who need agreement from the other 27 members to do the same.

I'm not lying to myself or others about this nor am I about the impact of Scottish independence. I wish the same could be said of nationalist posters on here.

Also I would agree with you that I do not think what Nicola and the SNP are telling everyone is true at all. I agree that there should be enough fair minded people involved in negotiations for a good outcome, in which case iScotland would be economically viable since there would be little to no risk to 120,000 jobs or 500,000 jobs. Not that the SNP are helping matters by threatening independence, that's certainly not helping the UK to achieve a good outcome.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

We'll vote as one on who sits at at the UK parliament in Westminster. A few pages ago you were saying it was a defacto referendum on Scottish independence. Make up your mind. Again you can't have it both ways when it suits.

Of course we can, if it's OK to break down the EU referendum vote to a regional level to use as propaganda and generate anger and momentum for your cause then you cannot expect the same tactic not to be used against you in the upcoming general election.

I firmly believe the EU referendum result was a UK result, there was no concept of a Scottish result, Welsh result, Northern Irish result, etc... I firmly believe that the result of the UK general election on June 8th 2017 will be a UK wide result and again the concept of regional results is wrong. But I'm quite happy to hoist the nationalists by their own petard.

The precedent of "having it both ways" was set by you and friends in your nationalist separatist cause. You're just going to get the same manure thrown back that you've been throwing about for years. Such as the Fraser of Allander institute figures on jobs, and UK election/referenda results.

sss555s

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Incorrect, as per.

Westminster will impose nothing.

Whoever commissioned the report did not compose the report, do you know who composed it? The Fraser of Allander institute, do you know who else they composed a report for? The SNP, about jobs at risk from Brexit in a worst case scenario.

Ok, I'm glad we agree on that. So trade will flow as close to how it is considering the extra tariff. Though it may be better for Scotland to buy some things tariff free as part of the EU.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The trade Scotland would benefit from by being a country... so lets see,

You just listed more negatives when to question was benefits. We don't know the exact effect a border will have. Possibly Ireland is the best guide. There are so many benefits to becoming an Independent Country and most large businesses want a base there.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Then there's the indisputable fact that Scotland does most of its trade with the rest of the UK. You cannot run away from that one,

You have just contradicted yourself from your first statement.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

It's a lie is it?

The way you are implying it is a lie as pointed out before. I'm not to fussed about these kind of unrealistic estimates from either side.

TrickyTree83

sss555s wrote: »

Ok, I'm glad we agree on that. So trade will flow as close to how it is considering the extra tariff. Though it may be better for Scotland to buy some things tariff free as part of the EU.




You just listed more negatives when to question was benefits. We don't know the exact effect a border will have. Possibly Ireland is the best guide. There are so many benefits to becoming an Independent Country and most large businesses want a base there.




You have just contradicted yourself from your first statement.




The way you are implying it is a lie as pointed out before. I'm not to fussed about these kind of unrealistic estimates from either side.

Perhaps I speak a different language, how did I contradict myself? Explain please.

If it's a lie, then the risks from Brexit are a lie too.

Come on, you can get there too.

You don't seem to be catching on yet, but as my sentence above implies I hope you do, that anything you reference regarding Brexit is applied (unequally) to iScotland. Unequally because the rUK market is more important to Scotland than the EU market is to the UK as a whole.

The UK does approx. 44% (iirc) of its trade with the EU, so if only some of the iScotland - rUK trade will be lost under WTO tariffs as you suggest then the same is true for Brexit.

Come on, I'm willing you to make that logical step from way down south here. You can do it, I believe!

Shaka_Zulu

sss555s wrote: »

How do you justify the negative impact on sterling from Brexit?

No need to justify anything all the perceived bad news is the price already. We have taken that hit.

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

These are not my extremes are they, I did not author the reports.

I accept, you did not author the report, but you do accept its an extreme and are perpetuating the extreme in these forums.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

T
TM is asking for a mandate, she's said that no deal is better than a bad deal.

Why does she believe no deal is better?
I can understand holding a strong position, but she must believe this strong stance point is poker play to negotiate a better hand.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

If there is no deal, the situation described by the ~120,000 jobs at risk from Brexit will come to fruition, then we will see how accurate the Fraser of Allander institute is.

Its interesting to consider, only 120,000 Scottish jobs are at risk from Brexit as a result of the proportional trade (£12.3B) with the EU as opposed to the trade with the rUK (£50B), but absolutely no consideration is being made to the impact on the loss of UK jobs as a result of losing the £240B trade with the EU.

A simple extrapolation would suggest that there is a potential 2.4 million risk of jobs to the UK from loss of trade with the EU

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I'm not lying to myself or others about this nor am I about the impact of Scottish independence. I wish the same could be said of nationalist posters on here.

I am certainly not lying or naive about the impact of Scottish Independence.
I've articulated before I believe there will be a short to medium term negative impact on living standard but fully believe that the long term we would be able to be in a far better position.

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I accept, you did not author the report, but you do accept its an extreme and are perpetuating the extreme in these forums.



Why does she believe no deal is better?
I can understand holding a strong position, but she must believe this strong stance point is poker play to negotiate a better hand.



Its interesting to consider, only 120,000 Scottish jobs are at risk from Brexit as a result of the proportional trade (£12.3B) with the EU as opposed to the trade with the rUK (£50B), but absolutely no consideration is being made to the impact on the loss of UK jobs as a result of losing the £240B trade with the EU.

A simple extrapolation would suggest that there is a potential 2.4 million risk of jobs to the UK from loss of trade with the EU



I am certainly not lying or naive about the impact of Scottish Independence.
I've articulated before I believe there will be a short to medium term negative impact on living standard but fully believe that the long term we would be able to be in a far better position.

The reason the impact on the UK doesn't matter in this discussion in my opinion is that it's happening, for better or worse the UK is leaving the EU, so considering the impact on the rest of the UK is irrelevant in terms of considering which way Scotland should choose to go. The loss of jobs in the rest of the UK will impact Scotland less than the loss of larger numbers of jobs in Scotland.

There are no short, medium or long term benefits to independence. Say you can quantify the current standard of living in Scotland as the number 100, you're asking to reduce that (short term), then work your way back up to that number (medium term) and then surpass it (long term). In the meantime the UK will be looking to increase that number also, so you'll continually be playing catch up after putting yourselves in a position you didn't need to. For example if your long term goal was to reach 101 because it's higher than current living standards, by the time you reach that after independence the UK will have moved on farther than 101 anyway, it would need to be an economic miracle for Scotland to surpass the rest of the UK in living standards after handicapping yourselves from the start of independence.

As I said before, the above can only conceivably work if your starting position is relatively similar to what it is now, i.e. a good deal between the EU and the UK. In that situation the arguments for independence take a turn for the worse because you're already experiencing a good standard of living, lots of jobs and security as part of the UK.

I wouldn't possibly want to guess at what TM's plans are, whether it's a poker face or if she's genuinely serious.

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The reason the impact on the UK doesn't matter in this discussion in my opinion is that it's happening, for better or worse the UK is leaving the EU, so considering the impact on the rest of the UK is irrelevant in terms of considering which way Scotland should choose to go. The loss of jobs in the rest of the UK will impact Scotland less than the loss of larger numbers of jobs in Scotland.

This is where we differ.
I do think it is relevant.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

There are no short, medium or long term benefits to independence. Say you can quantify the current standard of living in Scotland as the number 100, you're asking to reduce that (short term), then work your way back up to that number (medium term) and then surpass it (long term). In the meantime the UK will be looking to increase that number also, so you'll continually be playing catch up after putting yourselves in a position you didn't need to. For example if your long term goal was to reach 101 because it's higher than current living standards, by the time you reach that after independence the UK will have moved on farther than 101 anyway, it would need to be an economic miracle for Scotland to surpass the rest of the UK in living standards after handicapping yourselves from the start of independence.

All hypothetical BS in my opinion
I'm sure both you and I could point to regression currently for Scotland within the UK.
What I believe is that we will be better placed to take a different approach and benefit Scotland.

Our policy requirements are vastly different from those in Westminster and as such, we need to be able to take a different approach

kabayiri

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.... ?

That's how it works. It's just numbers and the same 'size is might' rules apply in the EU.

This is why Germany has such influence and Romania much less.

You have some choices then.

- You can grow your population significantly through immigration, but recent figures suggest you are failing miserably on that front. You certainly have the land.

- You can change the SNP into a UK-wide party. Some people down here think the SNP sound attractive. You would be using the existing rules to further your own cause.

If you think Scotland alone is going to dictate UK policy on Brexit, or that Gibraltar is going to set foreign policy for the whole of the UK, you are barking up the wrong tree.