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

Tromking

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Scotland would of course have an £8bn a year fiscal black hole to fill - but with thousands of companies, and hundreds of thousands of their employees, flooding across the border to remain in the single market - that hole would be filled quickly enough.

More fanciful conjecture on your part.
A more likely scenario is a drift the other way as Scots based British companies protect their business with their biggest customer, namely the English. Scotland abandoning the new outward looking UK 'Tiger' in order to remain in the econmically moribund EU would be absolute folly. I don't enough Scots would be that stupid.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You're attempting to mind read an entire electorate and failing badly. Sturgeon laid her cards on the table as far as an EU vote was concerned as soon as she became leader in 2014. Everyone knew what they were voting for. Which is more than can be said for many other contributors to the EU debate in the run up to the vote.

Sadly not. Not mind reading, and not the entire electorate either.

I'm in fact right on the money and it does call into question the validity of the Remain vote, it just doesn't play ball with the narrative people want to paint about it all.

It's been reported here south of the border, not much but I have seen it in the Telegraph. Where a hardcore SNP supporter was torn inside because, as a fisherman, he believes that Scotland should leave the EU. On the other hand he's also a die-hard independence warrior, he was from Lossiemouth. Sturgeon was pleading with him and others like him to vote to remain 2 days before the referendum because it'll be the only chance to vote for independence. In the end he voted to leave the EU against his SNP supporting beliefs as he felt the EU was worse in the end.

If you want I'll find you the link.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

May said that Brexit meant Brexit... Sturgeon said Remain means Remain. There is no intention whatsoever to leave the EU and then re-apply.

You will not be staying in anything if you become independent. All negotiations will need to be started from scratch, EU, NATO, WTO, etc...

The EU has said that the UK is the member state, and they are quite right. I've previously outlined why 'Reverse Greenland' cannot take place, particularly from an EU perspective.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Scotland doesn't have any debt. Westminster has already acknowledged this. Any debt share Scotland agrees to take on with independence will depend on negotiations. Legally and technically Scotland leaving the UK would have no debt. Morally of course is a different story, there's no denying that.

Legally and technically Scotland will have to negotiate it's way out of the Union, and that will entail taking a share of the national debt.

The rUK will not be carrying that can for you, I can assure you.

zagubov

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You will not be staying in anything if you become independent. All negotiations will need to be started from scratch, EU, NATO, WTO, etc...

I think you've joined this argument a bit late- we debunked these myths donkeys years ago.

In a nutshell: Joining these organisations will be a walk in the park, assuming the very big ask that they'd vote to give themselves more work in making Scotland reapply in the first place, rather than giving themselves an easy life. Let's look at some of the organisations Scotland may want to be in.

Council of Europe: right, that includes every single European country (including micronations), except the Vatican, Kosovo, Belarus, and Khazakhstan, and as the latter two have the death penalty, they can't join. Kosovo is already recognised by the 2/3 of CoE members it needs in order to join, and plans to apply. That looks pretty inclusive and comprehensive.

The OSCE includes practically every single European country (including the ones omitted from the CoE except for Kosovo), plus the US and Canada and lots of central Asian countries such as Mongolia. It's trying to include as much of the Northern Hemisphere as possible and doing a good job of it.

The WTO includes most communist dictatorships and non-countries such as Hong Kong, which makes it look pretty inclusive. Needs a 2/3 majority for acceptance. Almost all of Europe is in it except two micronations (Monaco and San Marino).

The OECD includes all northern European nations except a few of the former communist bloc members. So it looks a bit picky. Still if Scotland wasn't in it'd be the only gap in that part of its map.

The Commonwealth. On independence there will be hundreds of thousands of commonwealth citizens resident in Scotland. The have at least five special rights denied to other foreign nationals (e.g the right to stand for office, vote like a local, etc.). They'd lose these rights I suppose if the commonwealth was somebody else's organisation so my betting is they'd want their citizens rights and privileges protected by getting Scotland in toot sweet.

The EU? Don't get me started!

NATO? A cyclops with an eyepatch can see they don't want another Ireland or Sweden making its northern defences look like a hillbilly's smile. They'll be gagging for Scotland to join.

!!!!!! they tried hard enough to get communist Yugoslavia to join during the cold war and they let in every fascist dictator that flashed a gold tooth at them.

As regards the UN, Switzerland only just joined in the 21st century; didn't hold them back at all.

So, work to be done but it hardly looks insuperable. Time for the politicians to roll up their sleeves, take an invigorating swig of Irn Bru and show the electorate the energy they've voted for.

TrickyTree83

zagubov wrote: »

I think you've joined this argument a bit late- we debunked these myths donkeys years ago.

In a nutshell: Joining these organisations will be a walk in the park, assuming the very big ask that they'd vote to give themselves more work in making Scotland reapply in the first place, rather than giving themselves an easy life. Let's look at some of the organisations Scotland may want to be in.

Council of Europe: right, that includes every single European country (including micronations), except the Vatican, Kosovo, Belarus, and Khazakhstan, and as the latter two have the death penalty, they can't join. Kosovo is already recognised by the 2/3 of CoE members it needs in order to join, and plans to apply. That looks pretty inclusive and comprehensive.

The OSCE includes practically every single European country (including the ones omitted from the CoE except for Kosovo), plus the US and Canada and lots of central Asian countries such as Mongolia. It's trying to include as much of the Northern Hemisphere as possible and doing a good job of it.

The WTO includes most communist dictatorships and non-countries such as Hong Kong, which makes it look pretty inclusive. Needs a 2/3 majority for acceptance. Almost all of Europe is in it except two micronations (Monaco and San Marino).

The OECD includes all northern European nations except a few of the former communist bloc members. So it looks a bit picky. Still if Scotland wasn't in it'd be the only gap in that part of its map.

The Commonwealth. On independence there will be hundreds of thousands of commonwealth citizens resident in Scotland. The have at least five special rights denied to other foreign nationals (e.g the right to stand for office, vote like a local, etc.). They'd lose these rights I suppose if the commonwealth was somebody else's organisation so my betting is they'd want their citizens rights and privileges protected by getting Scotland in toot sweet.

The EU? Don't get me started!

NATO? A cyclops with an eyepatch can see they don't want another Ireland or Sweden making its northern defences look like a hillbilly's smile. They'll be gagging for Scotland to join.

!!!!!! they tried hard enough to get communist Yugoslavia to join during the cold war and they let in every fascist dictator that flashed a gold tooth at them.

As regards the UN, Switzerland only just joined in the 21st century; didn't hold them back at all.

So, work to be done but it hardly looks insuperable. Time for the politicians to roll up their sleeves, take an invigorating swig of Irn Bru and show the electorate the energy they've voted for.

I think you've jumped the gun.

Where did I say it would be difficult?

Quite clearly Scottish legislation is largely in line with the requirements of many of these organisations. So whilst it might be "a walk in the park", you will need to re-apply though. Which goes to my point about there won't be any inheritance of UK deals because you are not the UK. Therefore you cannot simply inherit the deals, treaties, concessions and responsibilities of the UK.

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That is correct to a point.

An iScotland leaving the UK, and outwith the EU, that repudiated it's share of the debt would very much struggle to survive without a central bank and formal currency union.

However an iScotland that remains in the EU, that (with some short term budget cuts to get to the 3% deficit target) could choose to join the Euro and fall under the ECB remit as a backstop, well that is altogether a different story.

Scotland in those circumstances has a materially stronger negotiating hand with the UK - as the debt/currency negotiating position now swings much more towards Scotland than previously was the case.

rUK would be crucified by the markets if losing Scotland resulted in an instant 10% increase in the already dangerously high debt to GDP ratio - and that would demolish any ability of the UK Treasury to spend their way out of the looming DIY recession.

The UK govt's Brexit plans would be in tatters...

Scotland would of course have an £8bn a year fiscal black hole to fill - but with thousands of companies, and hundreds of thousands of their employees, flooding across the border to remain in the single market - that hole would be filled quickly enough.

Nevertheless, whatever they hypotheticals the starting point for an iScotland is always going to be no debt. The negotiations come next. I am in no way suggesting that iScotland wouldn't be taking on a share.

We've been over this a few times re fiscal black holes, but there are a lot of unknowns too. Lots of question marks popping up when people dig a little deeper. What are these 'unknown regions' for instance ? Why aren't these export stats from rigs in the North Sea allocated to Scotland ?

Mabye you could shed some light. Perhaps indicate if in a hypothetical iScotland, there would be 'unknown regions' generating 37.3 billion. It seems a very strange way of reporting things in an official context to me.

http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0046/00469028.pdf

kabayiri

I'm still reeling from the fact that Hamish loves the union that is the EU more than the Westminster Union.

I await the next property thread where he renounces home ownership in favour of social renting for all...

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I think you've jumped the gun.

Where did I say it would be difficult?

Quite clearly Scottish legislation is largely in line with the requirements of many of these organisations. So whilst it might be "a walk in the park", you will need to re-apply though. Which goes to my point about there won't be any inheritance of UK deals because you are not the UK. Therefore you cannot simply inherit the deals, treaties, concessions and responsibilities of the UK.

Re-apply.. Hmmm... I wouldn't be so sure of that really re the EU.

Discussions on transitional arrangements for an independent Scotland to remain in the European Union (EU) after the UK leaves have been taking place in Brussels, a former senior adviser to the European Commission (EC) has disclosed.

Dr Kirsty Hughes told MSPs discussions have been taking place about putting Scotland in a "transitional holding pen" after Brexit to to avoid an "absurd out then in process"

She urged MSPs to hold a second independence referendum by summer 2017 at the latest, if it is judged to be in the best interests of Scotland, to allow the EU to start work on these transitional arrangements.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14591378.EU__transitional_holding_pen__talks_for_Scotland_have_been_held__MSPs_told/

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

We've been over this a few times re fiscal black holes, but there are a lot of unknowns too. Lots of question marks popping up when people dig a little deeper. What are these 'unknown regions' for instance ? Why aren't these export stats from rigs in the North Sea allocated to Scotland ?

So just a quick word of advice here Shakey....

You now have an opportunity for either materially more devolution or potentially even full Indy, but, you're not going to get it based on the same old arguments and trying to cast doubt on the Scottish govts own figures.

There is a really significant fiscal black hole to fill.

Whether it's £8bn or £10bn or £6bn isn't really the point.

There is now a brief window of opportunity to poach truly massive levels of trade, investment, jobs and tax revenue away from the rest of the UK to fill it.

If we don't take it then mark my words Dublin, Paris and Frankfurt will.

The way we do so is to remain in the Single Market and adopt a business friendly tax regime, and then spend the next few years being the obvious choice for an English language speaking, business friendly, location that is within the single market and already has virtually identical legal protections and business contract law as the rest of the UK.....

And then watch as all the companies reliant on being within the single market pour North over the border because it's frankly cheaper and easier than relocating to Ireland, France or Germany.

Yes there will be short term pain - big cuts to Scottish government spending for a few years and/or until we have met the Eurozone deficit targets - but it can be done and should be done.

Now, the UK government may well scupper those plans by keeping Britain within the single market, and if so then Indy is off the table as we don't need it, but if they don't then this is really far and away the best bet for Indy or a more federal Indy-light Scotland you will ever get.

So if I were you I'd grab it with both hands, stop denying the sky is blue re the deficit and fiscal black holes, and take whatever cuts/austerity are needed in the short term (and they'll be huge, but your side in the Indy debate always said that wasn't a problem if there are also long term benefits).