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

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You're wandering into the realms of semantics. You said the entire EU vote in Scotland is tainted somehow almost entirely due to the SNP. But fail to mention all the other parties in Scotland also advocating a Remain vote, and indeed Ruth Davidson was on national tv doing just that in extremely string terms.

Your argument only stands up if you can conclusively prove that SNP voters were really hoping for a Leave vote but voted otherwise. Bearing in mind of course, that up until about 1am on 24th June when the Newcastle/Sunderland results came in, everyone thought a Remain vote would win anyway. Even you I'd assume.

Semantics?

How about clarity, how about not hyperbole?

How about looking at the evidence?

If pro-indy pro-leave voters are telling newspapers they were asked to vote to remain to get another shot at independence, are they lying? Is it some kind of tinfoil hat conspiracy?

You tell me what it is, because to me it is what it is and implies the remain result cannot be 100% trusted to be 100% votes to remain in the EU. It is therefore tainted, to what degree I don't know.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

At least one of those articles is well out of date. I'm sure discussions are taking place, but productive discussions are another matter entirely. They're all waiting on Article 50.

Don't start rowing backwards now.

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

The plan is largely "We're going to get shafted mercilessly by Brexit and an unchecked Tory party with no competition. We'll get less shafted going it alone and trying to get back into the EU".

Plus I'm not talking about just moving financial services (which is apparently a major fall-back plan for a lot of financial institutes), we also don't know if England will get a new financial passport, as there's no incentive for the EU to generate one when France & Germany can use it to encourage the financial services to come to them.
Should we get a hard Brexit with no financial passporting, the EU financial traders will be given some destination choices; Dublin, Edinburgh, Paris, Berlin. Edinburgh becomes the easiest for them through pure geography & culture.

We can do pretty much everything England can do, with less overhead to the EU in the even of a hard Brexit. I can see lots of English companies moving staff North of the border to get back into the EU.

The point about the passporting was kind of why I was referring you to look at the ESMA ruling on 19th July 2016.

If you guys are not going to read these things and an indy vote comes to pass you're going to base your decision on falsehoods.

robin61

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That would do nicely.

Well in that case we would need a properly manned border if the UK ended up sharing a border with another country that was part of Shengen. I am sure Greece is over the moon with its membership of the Eurozone. Good luck with that one.

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The point about the passporting was kind of why I was referring you to look at the ESMA ruling on 19th July 2016.

I did. I didn't see anything that says a post-Brexit UK would get on. They'd still need to go through all the hoops that the other countries like Canada started already.

Why do you assume passporting for London is a forgone conclusion?

robin61

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Fixed that for you. You're in danger of accusing folks like Hamish of being SNP'ers. And that would never do.

Well 64% of voters in my part of the UK voted to leave. We expect our wishes to be respected. We were on the winning side after all.

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The point about the passporting was kind of why I was referring you to look at the ESMA ruling on 19th July 2016.

I did. I didn't see anything that says a post-Brexit UK would get on. They'd still need to go through all the hoops that the other countries like Canada started already.

Why do you assume passporting for London is a forgone conclusion?

Denying London access to a market to which you're allowing Singapore, Hong Kong, etc... without having trade deals in place with those countries/regions wouldn't stand up to a legal challenge. That's why it was a boon for the UK financial industry in the event of 'no deal' between the UK and the EU after article 50.

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

If pro-indy pro-leave voters are telling newspapers they were asked to vote to remain to get another shot at independence, are they lying? Is it some kind of tinfoil hat conspiracy?

I've never heard of that, beyond warnings not to try and strategically vote out.

Are there more of these pro-indy pro-leave voters that have been mentioned in papers than, say, pro-leave voters who admit that they didn't either (a) understand the question or (b) expect to win?

If you're claiming bad votes on the Remain side, you need to factor in the bad votes on the Leave side. Which is likely to have skewed the numbers further? Bear in mind that after the polls closed, the top google searches in the UK were "What is the EU?" and "What happens if we leave the EU?".

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Don't start rowing backwards now.

Nothing he said is contradictory.

UK is not going to be getting any serious negotiations until Art 50 is triggered and there's a plan, because there's not going to be enough information to make any serious decisions until then.

We have to break away and then try and do deals with what pitiful bargaining power we still have.

robin61

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Gave you the evidence for the SNP campaigning in the EU referendum trying to persuade pro-indy voters who wanted to leave the EU to vote to remain in the EU.

Scroll back through if you missed it. It's there, in the media and even on the SNP's own website.

See robin - they just ignore it.

Sodding la-la-land.

Yes it is like talking to a brick wall. Bottom line is that the Separatists are not the only ones who are entitled to their selfish point of view. Mine is that another Indy ref will not be a good thing for the rest of the UK and that two in the years is taking the proverbial. So we should not agree to one. After all they only represent say 3 or 4% of the UK.

We wanted 41 years for another EU ref they only want to wait two. See the difference ?