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

Shakethedisease

beecher2 wrote: »

I'd add that it isn't about Nationalist vs unionist either and certainly isn't Scotland vs England as a few ill informed people on here seem to think. I really wish the Labour party would get on board and see the potential for protecting workers' rights and human rights, and promoting equality in an independent Scotland.

I think Scottish Labour's 'Brexit Plan' - basically 'oh well, that's us out of the EU, Scottish remain voters should just accept it but let's all just stop and ask ourselves what the SNP is actually going to do about it in terms of compensating businesses and any other sector affected eh !? ' -: has gone down like a bucket of cold sick. But as the weegingerdug blog site points out, interestingly, it was presented by Kezia Dugdale and Jackie Ballie, not with deputy Alex Rowley.

There are strong rumours abound that Kezia is about to face a leadership battle of her own and that some in the Scottish Labour party, including Rowley have had enough of this union at any cost whatsoever narrative. Evidenced further with folks like Eric Joyce u-turning so publically. There seem to be a fair few Corbyn supporters within Scottish Labour too and Kezia's comments won't have gone down so well there either I should imagine.

Just a short while ago the deputy leader had said that he thought that it was perfectly justified of the SNP to hold another independence referendum given the circumstances. He also said a couple of days ago that he wanted the party in Scotland to unite behind Jeremy Corbyn, and released a statement to that effect on the same day that Kezia called on Jezza to quit.

https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2016/07/27/labours-suicide-pact/

As for

At present, the tenet of post-independence referendum debate is characterised by an ‘SNP vs Not SNP’ frame of mind. For 60% to be exceeded, however, far more effort needs to be put into the ‘Independence vs Brexit’ debate

The rumours I'm seeing about Scottish Labour are being defined as an 'EU before the UK' faction. I guess some of Scottish Labour are very nearly there in terms of seeing things as straight choice between Brexit and Independence.

We'll see. Is still so unclear what a Brexit actually means as yet.

The Prime Minister is certainly not enjoying a honeymoon with the hardline Brexiteers on the Tory backbenches. They are already crying foul after EU officials floated the idea of the UK winning a temporary, seven-year “emergency brake” on EU migration and keeping its single market access.

About 30 Tory Europhobes could make life very difficult for May, given that her Commons majority is just 12. (Then there are the ministers she sacked and the backbenchers she overlooked to promote allies and newbies.) Ardent Eurosceptics suspect that May and Hammond want “Brexit-lite”, and so are demanding a “hard Brexit”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-eu-referendum-theresa-may-prime-minister-liam-fox-disagreement-trouble-cabinet-split-a7158596.html

The Conservatives got things together remarkably quickly after the vote. One wonders if they've only just prolonged the real splits a la John Major.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I
The Conservatives got things together remarkably quickly after the vote. One wonders if they've only just prolonged the real splits a la John Major.

The problem Theresa May has is neatly summarised by looking at the Brexit/Remain support among the Conservative MP's.

Roughly 185 are pro-Remain and 128 are pro-Brexit.

Of the 128 that are pro-Brexit some number of them are hard-core Brexit-Max supporters, and some would settle for a Brexit-Lite, but given the large amount of pressure coming from the constituency parties in parts of England lets take a guess that roughly 100 would need something closer to Brexit-Max than Brexit-Light to get on board.

Of the 185 that are pro-Remain many represent areas that would be economically devastated by a Brexit-Max outcome - and many more come from backgrounds in the City where they know full well the impact - so they're simply not going to agree to it no matter how much grief the whips give them.

But some of them would of course cave given enough pressure - lets say charitably up to 80 or so...

This leaves her with a problem either way.

If she goes full-Brexit she needs at least 100 other party MP's to support her.

If she goes Brexit-Light she also needs at least 100 other party MP's to support her.

If she kicks it into the long grass she's got at least 100 MP's in her own party that would agitate against her leadership.

Who'd be a PM eh?

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

UK labour productivity has increased by just 16% in the last 16 years.

You seem to be suggesting it's probable that Scottish productivity will increase by 40% in just 23 years - whereas any objective analysis would conclude it's not even remotely plausible.

The reality is Scotland needs mass immigration - of a level far beyond what we have achieved so far - and we need it urgently.

As that pensions deficit, and increase in the dependency ratio, is not some future problem.

It's already begun to happen and it'll only get worse with every year that passes.

Also immigration doesn't "smash" our standard of living.

It vastly enhances our standard of living.

A bigger society and economy provides far more opportunity for our young, it provides far more opportunity for our businesses and employees, and it provides far more cultural enrichment to our society.

I'm all for Scotland adopting Schengen border free travel and becoming fully integrated into Europe, including the Euro, as only then will we truly unleash the power of the Single Market.

so over the last 16 years you achieve 1% productivity increase per year : this being during the period of the financial melt down and worst economic conditions for many years.
You genuinely think that an increase of 2% per year isn't achievable in Scotland.
Maybe scotland should actually reconsider the way it spend its money and use it to improve industry and business rather than its socialist subsidy of unproductive activities. Maybe build some more roads rather than subsidise the children of your richest citizens.
Best not to say you want the Euro or a few millions of ISIL fighters too loudly : you may be accused of scare mongering.
Interesting to note you have 3 supporters: two don't actually live in scotland and the other would burn scotland to the ground if it would help get rid of the English.

anyway best of luck : at least if you succeed, scotland won't have a majority of english hating scots anymore.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

so over the last 16 years you achieve 1% productivity increase per year : this being during the period of the financial melt down and worst economic conditions for many years.
You genuinely think that an increase of 2% per year isn't achievable in Scotland.

Not against the even worse (for the UK) backdrop of Brexit compounded by economic headwinds for the Scottish economy of what appear to be long term lower oil prices.

2% is completely out of the question - and we'd be lucky to get 1%.

And lets not forget that keeping the required productivity growth as low as 2% needs the same level of pre-Brexit immigration we had.

Without that immigration the gap gets far worse very quickly.

Maybe scotland should actually reconsider the way it spend its money and use it to improve industry and business rather than its socialist subsidy of unproductive activities. Maybe build some more roads rather than subsidise the children of your richest citizens.

Well England has only managed to achieve 1% over the last 16 years.

So unless you're levelling those same accusations against the conservative led govt in power for almost half of that time your 'point' is pointless.

Best not to say you want the Euro or a few millions of ISIL fighters too loudly : you may be accused of scare mongering.

A "few millions of ISIL fighters" eh?

And you have the audacity to use the term scare mongering. :rotfl:

I can think of a better word that fits.

Handy hint - it starts with an X...

beecher2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

If she goes full-Brexit she needs at least 100 other MP's to support her. If she goes Brexit-Light she also needs at least 100 MP's to support her. If she kicks it into the long grass she's got at least 100 MP's in her own party that would agitate against her leadership.

Who'd be a PM eh?

I suppose even those MPs who were Remainers will be looking at the referendum results for their constituency and some will be wondering if the UKIP challenge will be too great next time if they go with Brexit light.

The biggest problem is that we don't know what kind of Brexit the majority of leavers want. Will they accept free movement or paying to access the single market?

TrickyTree83

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Not against the even worse (for the UK) backdrop of Brexit compounded by economic headwinds for the Scottish economy of what appear to be long term lower oil prices.

2% is completely out of the question - and we'd be lucky to get 1%.

And lets not forget that keeping the required productivity growth as low as 2% needs the same level of pre-Brexit immigration we had.

Without that immigration the gap gets far worse very quickly.




Well England has only managed to achieve 1% over the last 16 years.

So unless you're levelling those same accusations against the conservative led govt in power for almost half of that time your 'point' is pointless.



A "few millions of ISIL fighters" eh?

And you have the audacity to use the term scare mongering. :rotfl:

I can think of a better word that fits.

Handy hint - it starts with an X...

Do you think the families and friends of those dead in Paris, Nice, Brussels, etc.. feel they are being xenophobic?

Edit: Lets expand that to Kabul, Istanbul, Baghdad, how can they be xenophobic against people of the same nation, ethnicity and culture who follow radical extreme islam? Temperance required with the X word.

Whilst I've admitted I would prefer free movement, that would not be at the expense of border checks and settlement checks.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

beecher2 wrote: »

The biggest problem is that we don't know what kind of Brexit the majority of leavers want. Will they accept free movement or paying to access the single market?

Clearly some will.

And given how tight the vote, and that the 48% who voted to remain certainly would, only a handful of 'leavers' need to support staying in the single market and accepting free movement (perhaps with some concessions) to tip across into a clear majority of the electorate supporting such a move.

Parliament is no different.

Her majority is small - and there are far more Tory MP's than her majority who won't vote to leave the single market - but her problem is the same thing applies about staying in.

So either way she'll need support from Labour/others to get this passed.

The Conservatives remain deeply divided on this issue - that's not going away any time soon.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Do you think the families and friends of those dead in Paris, Nice, Brussels, etc.. feel they are being xenophobic?.

I have no idea what all of those families think and neither do you.

So emotive speculation on that topic is pointless.

Do you think Clapton claiming that Scotland joining Schengen means we want or would get "a few million ISIL fighters" is or is not an accurate statement?

And if it's not an accurate statement - what possible reason is there for making it other than xenophobia and outright prejudice?

TrickyTree83

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I have no idea what all of those families think and neither do you.

So emotive speculation on that topic is pointless.

Do you think Clapton claiming that Scotland joining Schengen means we want or would get "a few million ISIL fighters" is or is not an accurate statement?

And if it's not an accurate statement - what possible reason is there for making it other than xenophobia and outright prejudice?

You're right, no one really knows what they think. However trying to put myself in their position I would reasonably expect to feel that there would be a need for stronger border checks and settlement checks rather than the current Schengen situation to reduce the risk of further attacks in the future.

I don't think Clapton is correct about millions of ISIL fighters flowing into Scotland, but there is a heightened risk by joining Schengen. What I'm trying to point out is that this risk shouldn't be cast aside by just claiming those trying to point it out are xenophobic. My wife is Ukrainian, my father-in-law Russian, we have many friends from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Bulgaria, etc... because of the circles we move in. It would appear I would be the antithesis of xenophobic, but I recognise the risk in completely open borders.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I have no idea what all of those families think and neither do you.

So emotive speculation on that topic is pointless.

Do you think Clapton claiming that Scotland joining Schengen means we want or would get "a few million ISIL fighters" is or is not an accurate statement?

And if it's not an accurate statement - what possible reason is there for making it other than xenophobia and outright prejudice?

The very concept of an 'independent scotland' is xenophobic : why ever would a non xenophobe object to being part of the UK?

YOU have repeatedly said you wanted MASSIVE immigration into scotland : far in excess of current levels.
By saying you want to join schengen you are asking for semi-free movement of peoples from all over the world that manage to get to the EU. This basically means people from war torn parts of the middle east and east africa: they will bring their religious differences and different cultures to scotland :

If you succeed, then the SNP may no longer have the appeal to the majority of the citizens: just think of an extra million voters who don't have a 900 year old chip on their shoulder and won't support either scottish or english teams.