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

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

More of a say than we do know.As we do now.Not as much as rUK does. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/world/europe/britain-brexit-eu.html

And is the source of the article.

The Centre for European Reform is an independent think-tank devoted to making the EU work better, and strengthening its role in the world. We are pro-European but not uncritical.

What a surprise (not).

Wonder who provides the funding? Accenture , Boeing Company , Citigroup , Goldman Sachs , Deutsche Bank AG, Time Warner Europe, Lockheed, Morgan Stanley, Telecom Italia, Merrill Lynch Holdings Ltd, United Parcel Services.

Money talks.

elantan

AnotherJoe wrote: »

So does Venezuela.

I and many like me trust the Scottish government more than we trust either the WM government or the Venezuelian governments

CLAPTON

elantan wrote: »

I and many like me trust the Scottish government more than we trust either the WM government or the Venezuelian governments

yes of course because they are predominately scottish

zagubov

CLAPTON wrote: »

yes of course because they are predominately scottish

In the sense they and their families are there, and both know and face the consequences of their decisions.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

What?

You won't have more of a say than you do now.

You'll be a small voice in the EU parliament.

You think.

Scotland 'snubbed' in EU fishing talks

Richard Lochhead argued that he should have been allowed to stand in for UK Environment Secretary Liz Truss, who is unable to attend the meeting.
But the UK government has instead drafted in Lord de Mauley.
Two-thirds of the UK's fishing industry is based in Scotland.
Monday's talks in the Belgian capital are to focus on quotas for deep sea stocks, which disproportionately affect Scottish trawlers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29987193

And yes you do abide by EU trade deals now, so does the UK.

You were trying to make an issue of this, not me.

But if we get the full fat brexit from May and you get a referendum BECAUSE of that, then the dynamics of the vote change. That's indisputable.

If there's a second referendum it will be because Brexit is the last straw in a very long line of broken promises and vow's since 2014 including HMRC jobs, Clyde Shipbuilding and renewable investments. We've even got Gordon Brown making speeches now saying the Smith Commission should be ripped up and started from scratch with a view to full federalisation.

You're then faced with the stark choice I've put before you in recent posts.

Keep 11% of trade with the EU intact.

Or

Keep 64% of trade with the rUK intact.

You won't be able to protect both.

The rUK won't suffer as much as iScotland in the EU where tariffs are in force. Telling yourself that as a justification for voting Yes is particularly dangerous.

I voted Yes in 2014 regardless. However, people like you on here when oil prices were at their highest were telling people like me that Scotland would be a complete basketcase economy without rUK to 'prop it up'. The dogma never changes. Now you're trying to convince me that having my EU citizenship taken away and, and I quote 'hold on, I've always said the UK will take a hit with full fat Brexit' that Scotland should sit back and take the hit with you, just because a completely unknown % of trade might suffer. Even though we voted otherwise ?

I'm not entirely sure it's the most convincing argument for the Union to be had. In fact, it's a terrible one.. C'mon Scotland, join us as we take the hit, because you'll take a hit if you don't. In fact you'll take a hit either way whooooo. But stick with us for added Conservative Governments itching to cut Barnett too ! You know it makes sense.

It doesn't actually. This Brexit leave vote was always going to end up as a choice between remaining in the UK or remaining as we are in the EU if at all possible. It's a hit economically either way for Scotland, please try and take that in. Unfortunately, the Tories usually exacerbate things in terms of looking after what's best for Scotland very badly and often as as afterthought. Since the Tories long ago gave up on Scottish votes for General elections. Long memories here which are particularly unpalatable to many older Scots of past Conservative governments.

Genuine question, but why does it matter anyway to you that Scotland might vote to leave the UK ? Apart from the GDP loss and balance of trade that is - at the same time as a Brexit is hitting hard. Is it because you need Scotland to hold your hand as you jump ?

Shakethedisease

Thrugelmir wrote: »

And is the source of the article.

What a surprise (not).

Wonder who provides the funding? Accenture , Boeing Company , Citigroup , Goldman Sachs , Deutsche Bank AG, Time Warner Europe, Lockheed, Morgan Stanley, Telecom Italia, Merrill Lynch Holdings Ltd, United Parcel Services.

Money talks.

It's still true though. Two months after the vote the UK IS still in a muddle.

AnotherJoe

elantan wrote: »

I and many like me trust the Scottish government more than we trust either the WM government or the Venezuelian governments

Doesn't really matter what you trust.

Your argument in your post was solely that because you controlled all the levers, everything would be good, indeed better. (Almost?) self evidently that's a non sequitur as is shown by Venzuela or perhaps more realistically by Greece if you want an analogue for Scotland in EU.

Now had you said "The SNP is run by brilliant economists and therefore when they control all the levers things can only get better " that's a different argument. But it's not the one you made.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You think.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29987193

You were trying to make an issue of this, not me.

If there's a second referendum it will be because Brexit is the last straw in a very long line of broken promises and vow's since 2014 including HMRC jobs, Clyde Shipbuilding and renewable investments. We've even got Gordon Brown making speeches now saying the Smith Commission should be ripped up and started from scratch with a view to full federalisation.

I voted Yes in 2014 regardless. However, people like you on here when oil prices were at their highest were telling people like me that Scotland would be a complete basketcase economy without rUK to 'prop it up'. The dogma never changes. Now you're trying to convince me that having my EU citizenship taken away and, and I quote 'hold on, I've always said the UK will take a hit with full fat Brexit' that Scotland should sit back and take the hit with you, just because a completely unknown % of trade might suffer. Even though we voted otherwise ?

I'm not entirely sure it's the most convincing argument for the Union to be had. In fact, it's a terrible one.. C'mon Scotland, join us as we take the hit, because you'll take a hit if you don't. In fact you'll take a hit either way whooooo. But stick with us for added Conservative Governments itching to cut Barnett too ! You know it makes sense.

It doesn't actually. This Brexit leave vote was always going to end up as a choice between remaining in the UK or remaining as we are in the EU if at all possible. It's a hit economically either way for Scotland, please try and take that in. Unfortunately, the Tories usually exacerbate things in terms of looking after what's best for Scotland very badly and often as as afterthought. Since the Tories long ago gave up on Scottish votes for General elections. Long memories here which are particularly unpalatable to many older Scots of past Conservative governments.

Genuine question, but why does it matter anyway to you that Scotland might vote to leave the UK ? Apart from the GDP loss and balance of trade that is - at the same time as a Brexit is hitting hard. Is it because you need Scotland to hold your hand as you jump ?

You're twisting what I'm saying into some bizarre begging scenario. It's absolutely not.

I think you lot are complete nutters if you vote 'Yes' in a referendum that comes about due to there not being single market membership for the UK. You'll risk 64% and all the jobs, prosperity and tax that comes with that, also on the back of an apparent deficit.

There's no arguments against it so now you're all getting tetchy with me. It's a fantastic argument against independence because it's quite plain as day for everyone to see, risking 64% of trade is worse than risking 11%.

You appear to acknowledge that there will be a hit either way, if you choose to risk 11% or 64%. And yet continue to side with risking 64%, when risking 11% would be the sensible approach out of the two options available. There's no conspiracy, there's no underhanded agenda. It is what it is.

I don't need Scotland to hold my hand as we jump. Others might feel that way. As I said the other day after reading the anti-English vitriol the other day I certainly care much less. For me it's got nothing to do with any of the rUK or needing partners during brexit or anything like that.

It's quite simply what is the better choice. Risk 11% or risk 64%. And all the implications associated with both, so jobs, business, tax, politics. When it's put like this it seems a no brainer no matter what happened historically that might be unpalatable or what might happen in the future. Scotland is simply just too intertwined with the rUK to leave without causing untold damage even compared to Brexit for the UK, as a small economy has much less chance of riding that storm and coming out the other side in decent shape.

Just be honest with yourself and everyone for a second and tell me which option is better, risk 11% with the EU or risk 64% with rUK? No other question is being asked, so a simple indication of either the 11% or 64% is required.

elantan

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Doesn't really matter what you trust.

Your argument in your post was solely that because you controlled all the levers, everything would be good, indeed better. (Almost?) self evidently that's a non sequitur as is shown by Venzuela or perhaps more realistically by Greece if you want an analogue for Scotland in EU.

Now had you said "The SNP is run by brilliant economists and therefore when they control all the levers things can only get better " that's a different argument. But it's not the one you made.

Where did I ever say soley ? Trying to put words in my mouth don't think so

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

In the sense they and their families are there, and both know and face the consequences of their decisions.

and your point is that they are NOT part of the UK and so do not know or face the consequences of their decisions.