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

zagubov

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

I am really struggling to understand this.

Yes, I can see that Scotland may want to be independent.

But then you want to join the EU and lose that independence.

It will not be long before they turn the EU into a superstate. At that point all countries in the EU will cease to exist. They will probably put something into place which means it is impossible for any country to leave after the shock of a country actually democratically voting to leave. Democracy is something that will no longer be allowed.

So you want to be subservient part of a superstate with no control of what happens to your oil/fish/any other natural resource, have to allow anyone from any part of that state in without any background checks, have your banking/interest rate set at the rate appropriate for Germany, have to use the Euro,and anything else the EU can think up.

Have you not noticed the once thriving economies of places like Greece and Italy are really struggling, centralised banking etc really does not suit such diverse economies.

To be honest I think you would be better off staying in the UK, at least you have more and more power being devolved to you and you can decide how you spend a lot your income.

It's quite simple. Scotland agreed to outsource its political decision-making outside its own borders.

On a larger scale the UK had already done the same and despite only a small amount of decision-making being outsourced, England and Wales became nervous and voted to end the outsourcing. They could see trouble brewing, it would seem (you've described potential problems yourself).

A simple majority of Scots are happy to be in the UK and the EU. They clearly don't have the fear of what the future EU may possibly evolve into (in England and Wales' imagination anyway).

After all it was on Westminster's watch that the UK handed over Scotland's fish to the EU. And invested the oil money in no particular fund I can identify. And privatised and sold off assets to all and sundry.

I agree that I've misgivings about the EU myself, and think if Scotland went indy they'd be better off (and much more welcome) in EFTA. In fact if it wasn't for the fact that Norway thinks we're too big and may block us joining, I'd consider EFTA a good choice for the UK as a whole.

baldelectrician

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

I am really struggling to understand this.

Yes, I can see that Scotland may want to be independent.

But then you want to join the EU and lose that independence.
Now we are in the UK and the EU, the UK does not represent Scotlands interests in the EU- only those of the UK (as would be expected)

It will not be long before they turn the EU into a superstate. At that point all countries in the EU will cease to exist. They will probably put something into place which means it is impossible for any country to leave after the shock of a country actually democratically voting to leave. Democracy is something that will no longer be allowed.

So you want to be subservient part of a superstate with no control of what happens to your oil/fish/any other natural resource, have to allow anyone from any part of that state in without any background checks, have your banking/interest rate set at the rate appropriate for Germany, have to use the Euro,and anything else the EU can think up.

Have you not noticed the once thriving economies of places like Greece and Italy are really struggling, centralised banking etc really does not suit such diverse economies.

To be honest I think you would be better off staying in the UK, at least you have more and more power being devolved to you and you can decide how you spend a lot your income.

Ooh! that sounds nice- until we realsie that 'more powers' means;

• Full control of road signs (nearly wet myself with excitement when I found out)
• 25% control of tax
• 15% control of welfare

So as part of the UK (after the super duper max powers come in) we are left begging Westminster for more (immigration control / bedroom tax for example) or bringing control to Scotland

It's really a matter of time
140,000 EU nationals (who mostly voted NO in 2014) will mainly come over to YES

The age demographic is changing - 70% of those older than 65 voted NO whilst 60% of those between 16 and 25 voted yes.
Older NO voters are being replaced by younger YES voters.

In my house my 2 sons (who are voting age) are YES as well as me and the missus.

Its about control- bringing control to Scotland- no matter which party / parties are in power at Holyrood a Scottish Parliament will have Scotland's interests first and foremost

Thrugelmir

But then you want to join the EU and lose that independence.
Now we are in the UK and the EU, the UK does not represent Scotlands interests in the EU- only those of the UK (as would be expected)

What a naive view of the world. If the grass look greener on the side. It's normally because there's more manure.

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

After all it was on Westminster's watch that the UK handed over Scotland's fish to the EU.

are you 100% confident that iscotland won't hand over iscotland's fish to the EU?
has nicola made it a red line issue?
is it a red line issue for you or merely a point scoring one?

zagubov

CLAPTON wrote: »

are you 100% confident that iscotland won't hand over iscotland's fish to the EU?
has nicola made it a red line issue?
is it a red line issue for you or merely a point scoring one?

If I were in Scotland I'm sure I'd have more trust in a bunch of politicians I could vote out, not a distant one in Westminster, who can always be voted in by the other UK nations.

Maybe Nic will hand it over, but if she does, it'll be in return for a concession to Scotland, not anyone else.

But we're all speculating. Maybe the UK's exit deal will be good enough to suppress demand for a new referendum, in which case, it won't materialise. There is much to consider.

Thrugelmir

zagubov wrote: »

But we're all speculating. Maybe the UK's exit deal will be good enough to suppress demand for a new referendum, in which case, it won't materialise. There is much to consider.

The SNP has had held a stated aim of Scottish independence since 1934. Unless the party folds. The dream will be passed from generation to generation.

zagubov

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The SNP has had held a stated aim of Scottish independence since 1934. Unless the party folds. The dream will be passed from generation to generation.

Why should Nic worry? Should she feel bound by Alex's "once in a generation" promise? She's got no reason to rush or to put it off. When the support reaches the right level, she may well still be in office.
Age-wise, she is the next generation.

Hintza

zagubov wrote: »

If I were in Scotland

Why aren't you? Making a living down south an opportunity afforded to you by the Union.

Thrugelmir

zagubov wrote: »

Age-wise, she is the next generation.

I doubt we will see $100 barrels of oil anytime soon. Which makes her the past generation. As in the interim period the SNP will be judged on their management of the Scottish economy on merit. Nothing to suggest there's any great vision or concept as to how tackle the issues. Against a changing global backdrop.

baldelectrician

Hintza wrote: »

Why aren't you? Making a living down south an opportunity afforded to you by the Union.

Or by being part of an EU free movement zone (if Scotland were independent)

There is a free movement area between UK / Isle of Mann / Eire / Jersey / Guernsey

3 of these areas are not in the EU and Eire isnt in the 'Union'- so the opportunity to work in other parts of these isles isnt because all parts are in a 'union' its because there is a free movement area already.