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

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Great article, first time I've read it and the gentleman appears to be saying what we on here have been saying, ad-infinitum it seems sometimes.

It would be lovely if we could just agree to look objectively at evidence for a change and actually ascertain if it would be a good idea or a bad idea to risk that Yes vote. Sadly they're not interested, this thread has just become a tool where they attempt to discredit rather than prove, to mislead rather than inform.

If anyone on that side can tell my why it's better to risk 20% of the Scottish workforce for the sake of 5%, in the wider context (just for ISTL) of a possible UK risk to 8% I'd love to hear the rationale.

Kevin Hague ? Objective ? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:And lets not pretend that you, string and Shaka don't know exactly how objective he is when it comes to the SNP.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Kevin Hague ? Objective ? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:And lets not pretend that you, string and Shaka don't know exactly how objective he is when it comes to the SNP.

If the shoe fits he's being objective. Evidence based reasoning says - the shoe fits.

You just see him as an enemy and anti-SNP because he's anti-SNP, this is because the guy has clearly taken a look at the facts and figures and is actually bold enough to say that it doesn't work.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The trade 'problem' on threads and discussions like these is that its always presented as an either/or future scenario. Or else fails to take into account Brexit consequences. Or both.

But it's not an either/or future scenario.. Scotland could trade with both the EU and the UK. There's absolutely no reason why not unless you can think of one ?

Also, Brexit consequences 100% have to be taken into account, again unless there's any reason you can think of why not ?

Actually I agree with your first paragraph except that other consequences are also not taken into account. One binary comment begets another.

Your second paragraph is an example:

No parody intended here because I think it true.

The Nat representation of economic life after Brexit is that the UK has reached a really bad deal after a hard Brexit while Scotland is happily located in the Single Market through some means.

Yet, it is claimed that the trade with the UK will not be materially affected.

However the consequence of the assumed economic situation is that trade barriers would severely curtail the UK's access to the Single Market.

So the net result is that Scotland <<> UK trade would be damaged in that scenario.

So that's the reason "why not", based on the current Nat wisdom on post Brexit.

On the third para --- I agree that Brexit consequences have to be taken 100% into account, as do Independence consequences. Therein lies the essence on the dispute on the timing of the SNP proposed Referendum.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

So the Scots are being told by the SNP to vote for independence because of a "hard Tory Brexit", so I assume the worst case scenario in their eyes.

Yet when we talk of worst case scenarios for Scottish independence, they will possibly have circa 25% unemployment.

Even under the most dire Brexit forecast the unemployment rate would never even get near that figure, it would be around 15% should everyone at risk lose their jobs.

So either they must concede that Brexit could be equally as good as it could be bad, or else they are unable to say the same about independence. At which point the argument for independence because of the "hard Tory Brexit" falls down around their ears. So what are the calls for another referendum really all about?

The same as it was in 2014. Nothing to do with the SNP manifesto or the EU referendum result, they're smoke screens. There's no answers, there are no plans, there is no evidence. Just a faith, a demonstrably misplaced faith.

But we all need to know what the Brexit plans are first, before we can make any plans for Scottish independence. And in any case, if we get into hung parliament territory all bets are off. Corbyn is the only hope left for Scotland staying in the single market and thus stopping a referendum.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

But we all need to know what the Brexit plans are first, before we can make any plans for Scottish independence. And in any case, if we get into hung parliament territory all bets are off. Corbyn is the only hope left for Scotland staying in the single market and thus stopping a referendum.

And yet.. you're a Yes supporter without knowing these all important details.

Any ardent advocates of independence on this thread have already made up their mind they would vote Yes in any future referendum, regardless of these details and regardless of the consequences which have been outlined numerous times.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Actually I agree with your first paragraph except that other consequences are also not taken into account. One binary comment begets another.

Your second paragraph is an example:

No parody intended here because I think it true.

The Nat representation of economic life after Brexit is that the UK has reached a really bad deal after a hard Brexit while Scotland is happily located in the Single Market through some means.

Yet, it is claimed that the trade with the UK will not be materially affected.

No one is saying there won't be any material effects, just that any trade damage with both the EU and the UK can be mitigated to an extent. Scotland doesn't have to choose one over the other.

However the consequence of the assumed economic situation is that trade barriers would severely curtail the UK's access to the Single Market.

So the net result is that Scotland <<> UK trade would be damaged in that scenario.

So that's the reason "why not", based on the current Nat wisdom on post Brexit.

Scotland/UK/EU trade is going to be damaged now whatever happens. EFTA or similar as a possible transitional measure would allow Scotland to trade with both with the least damage possible. For again, we all know there going to be damage whatever happens.

On the third para --- I agree that Brexit consequences have to be taken 100% into account, as do Independence consequences. Therein lies the essence on the dispute on the timing of the SNP proposed Referendum.

No govt can bind the hands of the govt coming after. If Sturgeon allows May free reign to say No and accepting that, then she's allowing and setting a precedence every single govt coming after May or whoever in 2022 to say No. Something the SNP will never allow to happen.

The timing will be that which causes the least disruption to Scotland's full access to the Single Market. This is in Scotland's best interests according to the Scottish Parliament. I accept the timing might not be in rUK's best interests, but Sturgeon doesn't stand any MP's anywhere BUT Scotland so isn't answerable. Constituents in Scotland expect the Scottish First Minister to always act in Scotland's best interests, and rightly so.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

And yet.. you're a Yes supporter without knowing these all important details.

Any ardent advocates of independence on this thread have already made up their mind they would vote Yes in any future referendum, regardless of these details and regardless of the consequences which have been outlined numerous times.

But I voted for independence for mainly political reasons ? The economic risks for me would come somewhere between the ultimate doom and gloom of BetterTogether 2014, and the SNP's 2013 White Paper. Some good, some bad. But politically I am 100% convinced that a Scottish Govt..and by that I mean of any party, and since PR elected usually minority which HAS to work with other parties.. is always best placed to run Scottish affairs.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

But I voted for independence for mainly political reasons ? The economic risks for me would come somewhere between the ultimate doom and gloom of BetterTogether 2014, and the SNP's 2013 White Paper. Some good, some bad. But politically I am 100% convinced that a Scottish Govt..and by that I mean of any party, and since PR elected usually minority which HAS to work with other parties.. is always best placed to run Scottish affairs.

The 500,000 whose jobs are at risk, the fishermen as well as those who just support the union will continually disagree with you. They would probably say that the British Government is best placed to run British affairs. And therein lies the rub, you are at your core a nationalist pure and simple. Nothing anyone says on here will therefore be good enough for you no matter it's veracity.

Shaka_Zulu

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Moans about cybernats and named person's ( soon to be law )

I very much doubt it.

Shaka_Zulu

More intimidation from the Nats

https://twitter.com/AgentP22/status/867872739360636928



And they will ask after the election:- "What went wrong, we were doing so well in the polls".

Well let me put that right the large majority of Scots might tell you to your face what you want to hear but the certainly be telling a different story in the ballot box!

Well under 40% will vote SNP in the GE.

The civilised quiet people of Scotland have had enough.