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

Herzlos

Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »

Indyref1 already asked that question and got an unambiguous answer - something that the Nats seem determined to ignore.

Then England changed the situation and dragged us out of the EU despite the Unionists insisting remaining was the only way to stay in the EU.

And what deal was spelled out in what White Paper?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25102073
Here's the paper itself: https://www2.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00439021.pdf


It's is 670 pages long so in a whole different world from "Leave means Leave".

mollycat wrote: »

Why is every legitimate point made about the validity, legality and mandate for a 2nd referendum countered with this "aah but what about the Tories/ Brexit etc, ect"?

Because it seems a lot of the people pushing hardest for Brexit are those most against Scottish independence even though the arguments are largely the same. I'm just trying to highlight the hypocrisy/cognitive dissonance that comes from arguing that the UK needs to leave the EU to regain control despite the economic damage, but that Scotland shouldn't leave the UK and regain control because of the economic damage.

As a Remainer I dislike Brexit, but i can't fathom the logic in promoting an alternative (Independence) that will harm our prosperity much more than a hard brexit.

I honestly can't see how Scottish Independence would hurt us as much as a hard Brexit. A hard Brexit may even boost our economy as English companies move North to get back into the EU. I am, of course, assuming that we're not going to go isolationist and will rejoin the EU whilst trying to get a good trading relationship with rUK. We'd be screwed if we went full North Korea without/out rUK

People wont vote away their own and their children's futures over some spurious belief that WM doesn't respect us (manufactured grudge), we need to make our own decisions (we already do, unlike other areas of the UK that don't necessarily vote for the government of the day), or we can rejoin the EU (we cant, not without rampant austerity).

Yet they've done exactly that with Brexit. Except it's already been within their governments power to fix the problems.

If you truly feel "dominated" by WM/England (your words), how would you feel living in a political system that didn't subsidise Scotland to the detriment of the rUK .

I don't believe Scotland actually needs subsidized, as much as it needs control over it's own laws and industries. However, I'm happy to be a bit poorer off to be part of a fairer society with proper autonomy.


If people are allowed to vote for huge economic damage to get rid of Brussels, why can't we do the same to get rid of Westminster?

Life in that iScotland would be grim and in that scenario there would be legitimate grievance, against those that led the vulnerable and gullible down that path.

I don't believe so.

Moe_The_Bartender

Herzlos wrote: »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25102073
Here's the paper itself: https://www2.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00439021.pdf


It's is 670 pages long so in a whole different world from "Leave means Leave".

Excuse me but you said it was a deal. A deal requires an agreement between two or more parties. The link you have posted is nothing more than a shopping list, most of which was debunked before the referendum.

Herzlos

Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »

Excuse me but you said it was a deal. A deal requires an agreement between two or more parties. The link you have posted is nothing more than a shopping list, most of which was debunked before the referendum.

True, we can't have a deal until it's negotiated and that's not going to happen until we agree to leave, but that's a pretty comprehensive (if out of date) starting point.


At least we've got some idea what we want.

mollycat

@Herzlos

I disagree with most of your last post.

Just because folks are offended by what they see as hypocrisy over Brexit, why does that mean Independence is a good thing?

If Brexit= bad thing that can't be stopped, why compound it with a further bad thing to compound the economic disaster? It's the political equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The lesson from Brexit should mean no more constitutional leaps into the unknown; can you imagine the years and years of discord, negotiation and rancour following any future YES vote? Like Brexit people not really liking the unknown once it's in the full glare of scutiny. Is the status quo so unbearable that it cannot be tolerated when the only option is a huge leap into danger?

I often wonder what the truly downtrodden people of the world think when people in a rich nation like ours talk about being "colonised and oppressed", (not you words Herloz, but a like minded poster).

Disagree entirely about a post indy boost to Scottish economy; much more likely the brains,talent and money flow the other way. I firmly believe an Independent Scotland will be bankrupt in about 10 years; I know you disagree, and from MPOV I hope my belief is never tested.

Intrigued by the "fairer society" comment. Also previous comment that Scotland is "different politically". I suspect if I asked you to elaborate you might say that scottish people are somehow more concerned about social cohesion, the vulnerable and that as a "race" we are somehow intrisically different from people who live further south.

If so say this is illogical and 100% not true.....people in all parts of the UK and the world hold decent human values and characteristics and the Jacob Rees Mogg's, Boris Johnston's and Nigel Farages are as alien and removed from the lives of people in Liverpool, Newcastle and Cardiff as they are from the people of Dundee and Glasgow. Some constituencies in England have never returned a Tory MP.

If this is not what you meant by "politically different" or a "fairer society", apologies. I am happy to hear what you do mean.

I don't oppose Independence because I vote Tory, (I don't), or because I am 100% in love with the UK as a union of nations, and I don't oppose it because I am less Scottish than you or the other pro indy posters here.

I oppose it because I can clearly see our young and old, ill and vulnerable screaming blue murder only a few years into an Independent scotland because there is no money to pay for the services to keep them safe, warm and well.

IF we become Independent, I hope all those who led their fellow countrymen into a perilous fiscal future have the courage to stand up and look their fellow Scot's in the face and say "I voted YES"

I want no part of it, and I'll do as much as I can to stop it.

elantan

Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »

England would be fine. There are plenty of your fellow Scots on here who seem to have a more realistic view of what Independence would entail.

oh I certainly would never suggest otherwise, I know England will be fine it will do well I'm sure if it . but that's not what I asked I asked you to name then ... can u do that or is it not something youve never had to think of before ? in Scotland it's something we have thought if, its something we do think of and keep an eye on, therein may lie a difference,who knows

Moe_The_Bartender

Herzlos wrote: »

True, we can't have a deal until it's negotiated and that's not going to happen until we agree to leave, but that's a pretty comprehensive (if out of date) starting point.


At least we've got some idea what we want.

One thing that you might want but never get is the BoE acting as a lender of last resort. That is the biggest single thing and one thing that rUK would never agree to. If Scotland wants independence, it will have to have it without the rest of the UK agreeing to underwrite the Nats socialist project.

zagubov

Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »

By all means let the Scots have another once in a generation referendum. Then when they’ve negotiated a withdrawal agreement, should there not be a People’s Vote on the deal?

How about a People's Vote on the result of the stay agreement?

Didn't quite turn out to be all that was promised!

Tromking

Another hapless Nat on the Andrew Neil Show struggling to put any form of coherence to the SNP’s plans for the Scottish economy post Indy.
How are these Jokers taken seriously by so many Scots?

Malthusian

Tromking wrote: »

Another hapless Nat on the Andrew Neil Show struggling to put any form of coherence to the SNP’s plans for the Scottish economy post Indy.

That's the Remain "What's the plan?" shtick with a tam o' shanter on it, the same one which miserably failed to convince the UK as a whole to vote for the uncertainty of ever closer union.

Economies are unpredictable, and while the SNP might like indyScotland to be a one-party state, the vast majority of Nats will admit it's not going to happen, so in no variation of Scotxit are the SNP in full control of the economy.

It will also depend a great deal on what kind of withdrawal agreement is negotiated with London, which the SNP are also not in full control over, as there are two parties to an international agreement. Again something Remain keep forgetting when they demand that Leave tell them exactly what trade treaties we are going to sign with every other country in the world, forgetting that every other country gets a say in such things. The same applies to every other country in the world that indyScotland might trade with.

Anyone who demands the SNP tell them exactly what is going to happen to the Scottish economy after independence is an idiot, and making themselves look like an idiot. They are committing the exact same error that helped Remainers lose the 2016 referendum. It is not a choice between uncertainty and certainty, it is a choice between two different uncertainties. If you pretend that you know exactly what is going to happen to the economy then you are offering the populace a choice between uncertainty they have some control over, or uncertainty managed by delusional idiots with Canute syndrome.

Herzlos

Exactly. We don't have any idea what's going to happen with the whole UK, since the current government can't tell us anything and don't seem to have a plan.
What we do know, though is that we're going to get badly shafted (10-15% economic damage) and will have precisely zero say in the matter. So we're choosing between an unknown led by people who've shown to be incompetent and hostile towards us, or an unknown that we can control.


It's like getting a lift home from a drunk driver. It may be uncomfortable to get out and walk in the rain but it's still the most predictable approach.