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

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes.

Good. So now you finally acknowledge that Scotland cannot remain in the single market.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...It's that or nothing. If it's nothing Scotland goes to the ballot box, and very quickly.

Nothing may well be the outcome.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...

I quoted the relevant piece in my post.

No you quoted;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/08/brexit-december-pie-sky-eu-no-deal-50-percent-britain-europe#comments

Go back and check your post # 12317. That #comments bit makes a difference you know. Come on, admit it, you made a mistake.:)

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
Didn't you read it ? Davies doesn't have time to make a deal. It was the article I was linking to, not the comments. I have no idea how I managed that. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/08/brexit-december-pie-sky-eu-no-deal-50-percent-britain-europe

It's someone's opinion piece. It's not fact.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

..

No Scottish Government means an election if the other parties can't form a government just like in Westminster. What's the alternative ? So a perfectly legal election and very quickly organised election ( Holyrood elections are completely devolved ) will take place. The SNP and Greens will both stand on an independence ticket and keeping Single Market access. Ken McIntosh can only decide what is legal or not. A Scottish general election most certainly is, we've had lots of them since devolution.

I'm simply pointing out to you what the legislation says. And it says that HRH "may" agree to the request. Perhaps HRH will take 'advice from her ministers' and say no. I think the alternative would be to appoint a commissioner. Who knows? Perhaps it will all end up in the Supreme Court.

P.S. ' Keeping Single Market access' isn't possible. You've just admitted it above.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

..
If Brexit has gone badly wrong by then. It'll be an 'opportune' moment.

Depends. Elections don't always produce the desired result. Who knows what the Scottish electorate will make of it all.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

..
Where from ?

The Scottish government.

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/08/7201

Shakethedisease wrote: »

.
Not this old flannel again about oil and deficits. And the OBR after recent forecasts ? :rotfl:

Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) is a National Statistics publication. It's issued by the Scottish government, which is currently run, I believe by the SNP.

If the SNP is responsible for publishing old, sorry new flannel, how can they be trusted to actually do something important like run an actual state?:)

Of course, the real reason that you dismiss these statistics as 'flannel' is that you don't want to deal with reality. You have no answers to the question of how a HIS would deal with this deficit. You don't want to spell out to Scottish voters that independence will mean the loss of the annual subsidy and tax rises of, what 5 billion odd, because you think they might say no,

I think that Scottish voters deserve to know the truth. I believe they deserve better than your prehistoric flannel.:)

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

..That's just not facing inconvenient facts...

Pot, Kettle, Black.

I almost can't believe you posted that.:)

Arklight

Proud and doughty Scots can sense that their time is near. May's government of Tory conmen totters in England while Brexit stretches the seams between nations beyond breaking point.

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

Good. So now you finally acknowledge that Scotland cannot remain in the single market.

Not as part of the UK no.

Nothing may well be the outcome.

Having a vote and the choice offered is THE important thing. The result is up to the electorate but the choice must be there given the disparity between two referendum votes within three years ( No and Remain). Scotland cannot have both so will need to decide it's priority in a third one.

No you quoted;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/08/brexit-december-pie-sky-eu-no-deal-50-percent-britain-europe#comments

Go back and check your post # 12317. That #comments bit makes a difference you know. Come on, admit it, you made a mistake.:)

Antrobus. I know I made a mistake. However the relevant portion of the article was quoted in the post I made. I have no idea why the comments thing came up and I said so. But Davies doesn't really have a lot of time to get things sorted now. EFTA/EEA is probably on the cards for the next few years ( labelled as 'transition' ).

I'm simply pointing out to you what the legislation says. And it says that HRH "may" agree to the request. Perhaps HRH will take 'advice from her ministers' and say no. I think the alternative would be to appoint a commissioner. Who knows? Perhaps it will all end up in the Supreme Court.

I don't think so. The Holyrood election process is completely devolved, including the franchise ( Hello EU nationals ! You can vote in this ref. Best vote Yes this time )

P.S. ' Keeping Single Market access' isn't possible. You've just admitted it above.

Any Single Market access at all, remaining or even the remotest possibility will be offered on a plate with big cherries on top. Because the alternative is losing EU trade and being stuck with Liam Fox begging for trade deals.

Depends. Elections don't always produce the desired result. Who knows what the Scottish electorate will make of it all.

Getting to vote and make a choice is the important thing.

The Scottish government.

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/08/7201

Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) is a National Statistics publication. It's issued by the Scottish government, which is currently run, I believe by the SNP.

If the SNP is responsible for publishing old, sorry new flannel, how can they be trusted to actually do something important like run an actual state?:)

Of course, the real reason that you dismiss these statistics as 'flannel' is that you don't want to deal with reality. You have no answers to the question of how a HIS would deal with this deficit. You don't want to spell out to Scottish voters that independence will mean the loss of the annual subsidy and tax rises of, what 5 billion odd, because you think they might say no,

I think that Scottish voters deserve to know the truth. I believe they deserve better than your prehistoric flannel.:)

You have no clue about GERS and who runs it. So am not going any further for now other than to say it's not something which will persuade voters in either direction anymore when faced with the screaming howling Brexit black hole vortex at the other side in comparison.

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Not as part of the UK no. ..

Finally. Progress.:)

Shakethedisease wrote: »

..Getting to vote and make a choice is the important thing. ...

Scotland voted and made a choice in 2014. Respect that choice.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

..
You have no clue about GERS and who runs it. So am not going any further for now other than to say it's not something which will persuade voters in either direction anymore when faced with the screaming howling Brexit black hole vortex at the other side in comparison.

I know quite a bit about GERS. And a lot more than you do.:)


GERS is a National Statistics publication, which means that it is produced independently of Scottish Ministers and has been assessed by the UK Statistics Authority as being produced in line with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics. This means the statistics have been found to meet user needs, to be methodologically sound, explained well and produced free of political interference.

Official statistics are produced in accordance with professional standards – more information on the standards of official statistics in Scotland can be accessed at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/About

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/08/7201

The fact that you don't like what it says, and refuse to even discuss the state of Scotland's likely post-independence fiscal issues, doesn't change anything.

I think that Scotland's voters should know that independence comes at a price, and that they should make an informed choice.

LABMAN

I voted to stay in the UK and voted to leave the EU. Respect my wishes and the vote results. There is absolutely no need for another vote on either issue.

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

Finally. Progress.:)

Scotland being independent in EFTA/EU ? Have you somehow missed my last couple of 1000 posts ?

Scotland voted and made a choice in 2014. Respect that choice.

Scotland is still part of the UK. The choice has been respected.

I know quite a bit about GERS. And a lot more than you do.:)


GERS is a National Statistics publication, which means that it is produced independently of Scottish Ministers and has been assessed by the UK Statistics Authority as being produced in line with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics. This means the statistics have been found to meet user needs, to be methodologically sound, explained well and produced free of political interference.

Official statistics are produced in accordance with professional standards – more information on the standards of official statistics in Scotland can be accessed at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/About

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/08/7201

The fact that you don't like what it says, and refuse to even discuss the state of Scotland's likely post-independence fiscal issues, doesn't change anything.

I think that Scotland's voters should know that independence comes at a price, and that they should make an informed choice.

Yawn. You're right, I don't really care what it says. It's a set of somewhat flawed yearly UK regional accounts not a full economic system. And in the face of Brexit hardly seems very relevant anymore.

Even GERS guru Kevin Hague has been forced in recent months into having to move the debate along by quite some margin. Now having to appeal to the emotional and moral ( * wipes tears away ) case for the UK.

But we recognised that this was at least in part because the white heat of a referendum campaign isn’t the time to start making what are often subtle, emotional and nuanced arguments

http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/these-islands.html

You also appear to have missed my 100's of posts debating GERS already with posters like Tricky and in the past Hamish/Generali etc etc. I don't really wish to revisit these again. There is now a crucial difference economically and only two real questions in the economic debate.

1) Will Scotland be economically better off in the future remaining part of the UK after the UK leaves the EU.

2) Or would Scotland be economically better off going independent and staying in the Single Market, trading with both the EU and the rUK.

Kevin Hague and friends job is now to convince Scots of the former. ( no 1 ) And it's something they know they are going to have very serious trouble doing. They have no idea where to start. Consequently, like yourself are trying to ignore the Brexit elephant in the room as if it's somehow not relevant while still banging on about outdated and tired old GERS figures. In actual fact Scotland being much worse off in the the wake of Brexit despite GERS figures is the central argument currently (see 2 above ) for independence.

You'll need to up your game a bit am afraid.

cogito

Shakethedisease wrote: »

1) Will Scotland be economically better off in the future remaining part of the UK after the UK leaves the EU.

2) Or would Scotland be economically better off going independent and staying in the Single Market, trading with both the EU and the rUK.

Kevin Hague and friends job is now to convince Scots of the former. ( no 1 ) And it's something they know they are going to have very serious trouble doing. They have no idea where to start. Consequently, like yourself are trying to ignore the Brexit elephant in the room as if it's somehow not relevant while still banging on about outdated and tired old GERS figures. In actual fact Scotland being much worse off in the the wake of Brexit despite GERS figures is the central argument currently (see 2 above ) for independence.

You'll need to up your game a bit am afraid.

So please explain to us how an independent Scotland will be better off when it has to balance its books, has no central bank and no Barnett money.

Arklight

Scotland can set up it's own bank if it wants. It can issue its own currency and peg it to the euro.

It wouldn't need to do this anyway as the EU would step in as lender of first resort.

It's England that would have to worry.

cogito

Arklight wrote: »

Scotland can set up it's own bank if it wants. It can issue its own currency and peg it to the euro.

It wouldn't need to do this anyway as the EU would step in as lender of first resort.

It's England that would have to worry.

Of course it can set up its own central bank. It would be under an obligation to do so as part of its accession process to the EU. It would have to borrow money but who is going to lend to a country without assurance that it will get it back and what rate of interest would it have to pay? Scotland would first have to show that it can run a manageable budget deficit in the region of 3% to comply with EU rules but it currently has a deficit of around three times that. How would it reduce its deficit without massive austerity? And why would the EU step in as lender of last resort (I assume that's what you meant to write) to a non member state? That's pretty much the job of the IMF anyway.

Don't feel obliged to answer. These questions have been put to shakey many times on this thread and she has ducked answering every time.