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

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I believed what you said before but as for what you now say I don't believe you,

I think it is a "policy of convenience", a tool to be discarded as soon as someone else, preferably the UK, can be blaimed for its failure when seamless EU membership proves not to be possible.

I can't remember ever saying the SNP was ambivalent about the EU. But I can't be bothered trawling through to see if I did, or what context it is. Feel free to remind me.

But I can assure you the SNP are, and have been loud and proud EU advocates for a long time. No one is saying any transition to Scottish EU membership would be seamless, but it's unlikely to mean Scotland leaving then rejoining. The EU themselves probably see that as a ludicrous proposition.

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 avoid "an absurd out and then in process".

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

Is funny string, you were one of the loudest EU remainers on here. It's very weird to see you ranting and railing against Scotland staying in. Something which you hoped England/Wales would vote for too. Don't you hope for Scotland what you passionately voted for yourself ? Staying in the EU ?

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You might like to see things that way. But a majority of Scots do not do you agree ? Scotland voted as UK citizens to remain in the EU. If this does not happen, then it's only fair that Scottish citizens then get to choose which union is more important to them as a nation. Since they can no longer ( perhaps ) have both.

All four nations are supposedly equal partners in the UK. It's becoming increasingly clear that huge population differences for the smaller three nations mean it's extremely difficult to have any sort of defining say on the future of the UK. Either via Westminster, or UK wide referenda.

No-one is saying England and Wales shouldn't leave the EU if that's what they voted for. That's a decision that is to be respected. But on the other hand two nations don't want to leave, and that should be respected too. If there is any way of all four nations getting what they want then bring it on. But if there isn't, then perhaps it's time to reconsider individual nations priorities and aims for the future. Oh and by that I mean the people who vote. Not the what the SNP or the Tories want.

You're too black and white about the 2014 referendum too. There were promises made. Eu membership was one of them on a No vote.

It's not a case of "might like to see it that way", it's the distilled truth. Because it doesn't suit your view you are distorting it to fit your own ends.

The promises made on EU membership were absolutely correct.

A vote for independence was a vote to leave the UK and also EU. Contrary to the pro-EU stance you claim the SNP has.

A vote to remain in the UK was a vote to remain in the UK and all of the treaties it subscribes to. Since then the people of the UK as a whole have voted to leave the EU. By agreeing to stay a member of the UK the Scottish people agreed to be governed in this manner.

No nation within the union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland voted as a nation. None of them. My vote counted the same as your vote in the UK.

Scottish nationalism appears to be incompatible with the truth. Why is it so difficult for you to accept the actual truth of the implications of the 2014 vote and the subsequent 2016 vote on the EU by the people of the UK?

Edit: Perhaps this will make the point more clearly

By agreeing to stay a member of the UK the Scottish people agreed to be governed in this manner.

It doesn't get simpler than that.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

This isn't about England though is it.

This is about Scotland so lets keep on topic.

Is it not true that if you join the EU (and you will have to join, not remain since Scotland will be a new nation) that you will be subject to their trade deals. And if the UK does not get a free trade deal, that Scottish exports to the UK will have problems.

That does mean job losses, loss of tax revenue.

You simply have not considered this or you have a similar view to Hamish which is a blue sky hope that you poach unprecedented amounts of UK business. For that to happen the business has to leave, and has to choose Scotland as its destination of choice over the rest of the EU.

So then there's a deficit, plus loss of trade with your biggest trading partner. Does Nicola have a magic wand from the WB Harry Potter studios that's going to make this all go away?

I don't agree. There are no rules and precedents with Article 50. So you can't say with any conviction what will and won't happen. This is all new territory for everyone. There are many options on the table.

Although Article 50 TEU only prescribes the procedure for a Member State (e.g. the UK) to leave the EU, this provision can also serve to govern the withdrawal of only a part of a state (e.g. England, Wales and Northern-Ireland) and as a legal basis to keep an independent Scotland in the EU in the context of a Brexit – under the condition that there is a political consensus for this among the three parties involved (i.e. the EU, Scotland and the UK minus Scotland).

The negotiations foreseen in Article 50 TEU would then have two main aims: defining the EU’s relationship with the UK (minus Scotland) post-Brexit and adapting the terms of the UK’s EU membership to Scotland (i.e. adjusting them to Scotland’s size). While under international law, Scotland would become a new legal entity, in the EU legal order it could remain being regarded as the Member State that joined in 1973

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/a-brexit-could-make-it-easier-for-scotland-to-join-the-eu-as-an-independent-state/

Scottish nationalism is about doing what in the best interests of Scottish citizens and those who choose to make their home there. At this point in time, that also may mean removing ourselves from the UK and a Govt which isn't representative of most of the people. That will be up to the Scots to decide.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I don't agree. There are no rules and precedents with Article 50. So you can't say with any conviction what will and won't happen. This is all new territory for everyone. There are many options on the table.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/a-brexit-could-make-it-easier-for-scotland-to-join-the-eu-as-an-independent-state/

Scottish nationalism is about doing what in the best interests of Scottish citizens and those who choose to make their home there. At this point in time, that also may mean removing ourselves from the UK and a Govt which isn't representative of most of the people. That will be up to the Scots to decide.

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying at all. Or you're ignoring it.

Scotland voted to be governed by the UK government and threw in their lot with the rest of the people of the UK in 2014.

Correct? Yes/No

So when the UK government calls a referendum on UK EU membership. It only pertains to the UK. Scots agreed for that to be the case in 2014.

Correct? Yes/No

If Scotland has a referendum, becomes independent, remains/re-joins the EU (I can't be bothered to argue this point for the moment), Scotland will have to abide by EU trade deals as do every other EU member state. Therefore if there is no free trade deal between the rest of the UK and the EU, there will be no free trade deal between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

Correct? Yes/No

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying at all. Or you're ignoring it.

Scotland voted to be governed by the UK government and threw in their lot with the rest of the people of the UK in 2014. Correct? Yes/No

Yes. But it was on the basis of the UK being a member of the EU. That's what voters were told. Only a No vote will mean Scotland stays in the EU. Please don't try to rewrite history to suit. EU membership being secure was promised to Scots on the basis of staying in the UK. 24/7 for two or three years as well.

So when the UK government calls a referendum on UK EU membership. It only pertains to the UK. Scots agreed for that to be the case in 2014.

Correct? Yes/No

Yes. But the UK made up of four individual nations. Two of which have the means to remove themselves from it should a majority wish to. Brexit may mean that a majority will wish to do so in the near future. I think you're getting bogged down in really simplistic language to score points. When we all know really that Brexit vote has changed the narratives all round since 2014. Which is why Theresa May made Bute House her first port of call. There now is a very real possibility that Scotland will re run the 2014 vote. This time presenting their arguments as 'the status quo' and sensible option. All the Yes/No's in the world won't change that either. No single market access for Scotland within the UK = second Scottish referendum. End of story there however you wish it otherwise.

If Scotland has a referendum, becomes independent, remains/re-joins the EU (I can't be bothered to argue this point for the moment), Scotland will have to abide by EU trade deals as do every other EU member state. Therefore if there is no free trade deal between the rest of the UK and the EU, there will be no free trade deal between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

Correct? Yes/No

Yes but...

Conversely - how can it be right when the terms of leaving are not known?

I refer you to your own quote. You're as clueless as everyone else on future terms of leaving either the EU or Scotland leaving the UK. And if Scotland stays in the EU it will retain trade deals. It's the Scotland/rUK trade that is the problem according to you. And it's a problem BOTH sides will have. The trade and jobs that depend on it don't just flow North to South.

The Brexit vote a few weeks ago changed the status quo completely. You need to accept that now. In simple terms in 2014 55% of Scots voters wanted to remain in a UK which was in the EU. In 2016 a UK that is out of the EU is a different prospect altogether.

Look I'm pro-indy anway. But even if I wasn't, I'd need to be deaf, dumb and blind not to see that simply carping on 'but 2014 ! but you can't have another referendum'... isn't going to change the fact there will be one anyway if it looks like Scotland is going to be taken out of the EU/Single Market.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

But I can assure you the SNP are, and have been loud and proud EU advocates for a long time. ?

How would you know, you only shifted allegiance to SNP from Lib Dem during the Indy Ref. I've 2 years ago.

SNP central and their new dictate of obedience to central policy now demands allegiance to the EU. However it is very clear from talking to SNP voters and reading social media that many don't agree with it. Not even all SNP office holders if they were allowed to talk about it openly and truthfully.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes. But it was on the basis of the UK being a member of the EU. That's what voters were told. Only a No vote will mean Scotland stays in the EU. Please don't try to rewrite history to suit. EU membership being secure was promised to Scots on the basis of staying in the UK. 24/7 for two or three years as well.








Yes. But the UK made up of four individual nations. Two of which have the means to remove themselves from it should a majority wish to. Brexit may mean that a majority will wish to do so in the near future. I think you're getting bogged down in really simplistic language to score points. When we all know really that Brexit vote has changed the narratives all round since 2014. Which is why Theresa May made Bute House her first port of call. There now is a very real possibility that Scotland will re run the 2014 vote. This time presenting their arguments as 'the status quo' and sensible option. All the Yes/No's in the world won't change that either. No single market access for Scotland within the UK = second Scottish referendum. End of story there however you wish it otherwise.

Yes but...

I refer you to your own quote. You're as clueless as everyone else on future terms of leaving either the EU or Scotland leaving the UK. And if Scotland stays in the EU it will retain trade deals. It's the Scotland/rUK trade that is the problem according to you. And it's a problem BOTH sides will have. The trade and jobs that depend on it don't just flow North to South.

The Brexit vote a few weeks ago changed the status quo completely. You need to accept that now. In simple terms in 2014 55% of Scots voters wanted to remain in a UK which was in the EU. In 2016 a UK that is out of the EU is a different prospect altogether.

Look I'm pro-indy anway. But even if I wasn't, I'd need to be deaf, dumb and blind not to see that simply carping on 'but 2014 ! but you can't have another referendum'... isn't going to change the fact there will be one anyway if it looks like Scotland is going to be taken out of the EU/Single Market.

There is no 'but' to any of those statements.

By voting to stay in the UK, Scottish people elected to be governed by the UK government, the sovereign government of the United Kingdom. They did, it really is that straight forward, there is no "ah yes but only to stay in the EU!", if we'd never have had an EU referendum you'd never been caught saying that would you.

The Better Together twitter posts are correct in saying to protect EU membership voters should vote 'No', as at the time there was no 2015 general election and no Conservative majority.

Voting 'Yes' was the only certainty for dissolving Scottish - EU ties. That's an absolute intractable fact. I'm not talking about looking at it with hindsight. To be fair to the Better Together campaigners that I'm aware of, they campaigned to remain in the EU. So it's not like they're liars is it. They stuck to their message once it was clear a referendum would be held.

By voting to remain in the UK you continued the status quo of all 4 nations to be governed by a sovereign UK government as a collective whole. So when a vote comes up about the direction of the collective whole (the UK) and everyone in it, the vote is one person - one vote, there is no idea of "Wales", "Scotland", "Northern Ireland" or "England". If there was this idea of individual countries in the union when voting in referenda then each country would need to agree, but that is not the case, how many times does it have to be said. Nicola Sturgeon was pleading with Cameron to make it work this way, but again that is not the way the UK is governed and Scots voted to remain in that system in 2014.

They are a series of inter-linked decisions. The EU referendum only happened in Scotland because you voted to remain in the UK. And as such Scotland really should recognise those parameters, some won't, and the rest of the UK will end up pandering to you, again!

Yes I am as clueless as anyone on the terms of the UK leaving the EU. However.... (can't believe we're doing this again)....

Scotland gets referendum >
Scotland votes for independence >
UK and EU ratify article 50 and there is no free trade deal >
Scotland as part of the EU has to abide by EU trade deals >
Free trade between Scotland and the rest of the UK stops >
64% of Scottish trade is now under very serious risk of disappearing almost completely.

It may be a problem both sides have, but you will be voting for this situation and it looks considerably worse for Scotland than it does for the rest of the UK. To reiterate the point, if you want a referendum if the UK doesn't get free trade with the EU then the option that will be presented to you will be to cease trade with the UK on the terms you have now, there is no 'but', there is no concessions. If the EU allowed trading concessions I very much doubt we'd be in this position now since myself and probably many others would have voted to remain if that was the case.

I personally don't think you will get another legally binding referendum. The PM has said as much, probably for the same reasons I've put to you many times. You could hold an advisory, I think, but there's nothing that would compel the UK government to act legally. Just politically or morally.

I can't believe you've attempted to twist very simple Yes/No answers like this.

Those questions really are straight forward, and answered honestly would set the situation out in very clear terms. Around what you're asking for when asking for another referendum, how your fellow Scots probably feel about that, how some people in the rest of the UK feel about that, how the decision could possibly spell disaster for the Scottish economy. Possibly for the rest of the UK too but that is not the question here. That's for another thread.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

How would you know, you only shifted allegiance to SNP from Lib Dem during the Indy Ref. I've 2 years ago.

SNP central and their new dictate of obedience to central policy now demands allegiance to the EU. However it is very clear from talking to SNP voters and reading social media that many don't agree with it. Not even all SNP office holders if they were allowed to talk about it openly and truthfully.

No, I voted Lib Dem in 2010. SNP in 2011. And I can read books and online material covering the SNP's history.

I don't know who you speak to, or who you what you read on social media, but leaving the EU or not isn't just an SNP issue. Sorry. Most voters from all parties and in all areas voted to Remain. You've missed the point I think and need to stop concentrating so much on the SNP when it comes to the EU.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

There is no 'but' to any of those statements.

By voting to stay in the UK, Scottish people elected to be governed by the UK government, the sovereign government of the United Kingdom. They did, it really is that straight forward, there is no "ah yes but only to stay in the EU!", if we'd never have had an EU referendum you'd never been caught saying that would you.

Then they subsequently voted in a party in two General Elections that advocate Scottish independence. Hey, that's politics for you.

I personally thought there would be another referendum called around about 2020, if another Conservative govt took power. I also frequently said that the thought of another referendum off the back of a Brexit vote wasn't something I would like to see. But time is short, and ducks need to be in rows before Article 50 is pressed. That's how it is.

The Better Together twitter posts are correct in saying to protect EU membership voters should vote 'No', as at the time there was no 2015 general election and no Conservative majority.

Voting 'Yes' was the only certainty for dissolving Scottish - EU ties. That's an absolute intractable fact. I'm not talking about looking at it with hindsight. To be fair to the Better Together campaigners that I'm aware of, they campaigned to remain in the EU. So it's not like they're liars is it. They stuck to their message once it was clear a referendum would be held.

I and 45% of Scots voters at the time didn't agree with that. I've been over it many times here in the run up to the 2014 vote and since. No one has any way of knowing what 'would' have happened re the EU.

By voting to remain in the UK you continued the status quo of all 4 nations to be governed by a sovereign UK government as a collective whole.

Not in perpetuity though. And not at any or all costs to Scottish interests.

So when a vote comes up about the direction of the collective whole (the UK) and everyone in it, the vote is one person - one vote, there is no idea of "Wales", "Scotland", "Northern Ireland" or "England". If there was this idea of individual countries in the union when voting in referenda then each country would need to agree, but that is not the case, how many times does it have to be said. Nicola Sturgeon was pleading with Cameron to make it work this way, but again that is not the way the UK is governed and Scots voted to remain in that system in 2014.

It will shortly. Brexit arguments were a bit crap to be honest. Based mainly on hyping up immigration fears and a bus with 350 billion emblazoned on it. That's why Theresa May is having some bother now with the Free movement she requires for trading deals, because it really was all about immigration is some areas of England and Wales. The thought of being taken out of the EU on the basis of big red bus and Nigel Farage's nonsense isn't something a lot of Scots want to recognise nor accept. It might have helped if the debate had been along better and less hysterical Daily Mail/Express type headlines, but it wasn't.

They are a series of inter-linked decisions. The EU referendum only happened in Scotland because you voted to remain in the UK. And as such Scotland really should recognise those parameters, some won't, and the rest of the UK will end up pandering to you, again!

Not really. We'll just leave and no pandering required.

Yes I am as clueless as anyone on the terms of the UK leaving the EU. However.... (can't believe we're doing this again)....

Scotland gets referendum >
Scotland votes for independence >
UK and EU ratify article 50 and there is no free trade deal >
Scotland as part of the EU has to abide by EU trade deals >
Free trade between Scotland and the rest of the UK stops >
64% of Scottish trade is now under very serious risk of disappearing almost completely.

It may be a problem both sides have, but you will be voting for this situation and it looks considerably worse for Scotland than it does for the rest of the UK. To reiterate the point, if you want a referendum if the UK doesn't get free trade with the EU then the option that will be presented to you will be to cease trade with the UK on the terms you have now, there is no 'but', there is no concessions. If the EU allowed trading concessions I very much doubt we'd be in this position now since myself and probably many others would have voted to remain if that was the case.

That doesn't actually negate the point that Scots are more than likely to go for it anyway. After all, England and Wales did faced with the same dilemma. One of the consequences of Brexit is that 'scary' votes, suddenly don't seem so unthinkable anymore.

I personally don't think you will get another legally binding referendum. The PM has said as much, probably for the same reasons I've put to you many times. You could hold an advisory, I think, but there's nothing that would compel the UK government to act legally. Just politically or morally.

You're in a union, not a dicatorship. If an advisory referendum is held, then we'll just have to see what happens if it's a Yes vote. But it will happen if Scotland looks like being taken wholesale out of the EU, and I suspect reality will bite for you then.

I can't believe you've attempted to twist very simple Yes/No answers like this.

Those questions really are straight forward, and answered honestly would set the situation out in very clear terms. Around what you're asking for when asking for another referendum, how your fellow Scots probably feel about that, how some people in the rest of the UK feel about that, how the decision could possibly spell disaster for the Scottish economy. Possibly for the rest of the UK too but that is not the question here. That's for another thread.

The questions were too simplistic as I said, and with all due respect, you're woefully underinformed on the current state of Scottish politics. You still think the SNP are 1930's nazi's ( was your post removed or edited ? ).

Generali

Scotland had its chance to vote for independence. Brexit makes no difference to anything.

When Scotland voted to remain in the Union she voted to live with the democratic decisions of the Union, Brexit included.