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

.string.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

... 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.

I agree with the thrust of your argument about the lemming-like attitude of the SNP stance. Actually it is worse than that because the UK is already on the road to Brexit, barring something completely unforeseen so the 11% is already "at risk" and depends on the result, repeat result, of the UK negotiations with the EU resulting in decent conditions for trading with the EU.

There is no way that Scotland would be able to negotiate a different deal than the UK while it is in the UK, Brexit negotiations are in process, and should it, heavens forbid, become separated from the UK it will find itself simultaneously out of the UK and out of the EU at the same time and facing an extended negotiation with the EU for becoming a new member. I say extended because it would first have to prove itself as a viable country with a viable economy and as a credible and reliable partner. That takes tim, a lot of time.

Not unconnected with the lmatter credibility is the small matter of whether any referendum would be legal and accepted by both UK and International law and, of course, the small matter of the SNP winning the referendum itself.

Were I to be in May's shoes I would certainly not agree to any new referendum for several good reasons.

The idea that somehow all this is plain sailing is a conceit based on wishful thinking and a desire to work up a big lie to bamboozle the Scottish voter. Par for the course.

The "plan" of the SNP towards Natland puts not 11% or 64% of Scotland's trade at risk, it puts 75% of its trade at risk.

TrickyTree83

I was trying to concede some points in order to drive home the ultimate stark choice between the varying amounts of trade that will be put at risk.

So assuming they 'remain' in the EU as the nationalists have put across previously.

Assuming there's no currency problems.

Assuming there's plain sailing in selling assets or whatever, even to the extent that the deficit doesn't exist.

Assuming everything they say comes to fruition.

It's STILL a choice between risking 64% of trade with rUK or sticking with the UK and risking the 11% with the EU.

It's so simple, so distilled. The only way to avoid this and have iScotland in the EU and the UK out of the EU would be if there was a free trade deal in place between the UK and the EU, under which circumstance there's no mandate for a referendum.

ruggedtoast

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I was trying to concede some points in order to drive home the ultimate stark choice between the varying amounts of trade that will be put at risk.

So assuming they 'remain' in the EU as the nationalists have put across previously.

Assuming there's no currency problems.

Assuming there's plain sailing in selling assets or whatever, even to the extent that the deficit doesn't exist.

Assuming everything they say comes to fruition.

It's STILL a choice between risking 64% of trade with rUK or sticking with the UK and risking the 11% with the EU.

It's so simple, so distilled. The only way to avoid this and have iScotland in the EU and the UK out of the EU would be if there was a free trade deal in place between the UK and the EU, under which circumstance there's no mandate for a referendum.

Scotland has at least as good a chance in the EU as it does in BREXIT England.

It might take them some time to join but they would be given an interim deal the moment they agreed to adopt the euro.

They would then become the Anglophone gateway to the EU that 52% of Leave voters have just decided to reject for England.

Just to really pi$$ the English off, Merkel may even let them carry on with the pre Brexit opt outs the UK enjoyed.

I don't think Leave voters, who ironically are mostly conservative, have the faintest comprehension of the irrevocable damage they have done to what used be the United Kingdom.

TrickyTree83

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Scotland has at least as good a chance in the EU as it does in BREXIT England.

It might take them some time to join but they would be given an interim deal the moment they agreed to adopt the euro.

They would then become the Anglophone gateway to the EU that 52% of Leave voters have just decided to reject for England.

Just to really pi$$ the English off, Merkel may even let them carry on with the pre Brexit opt outs the UK enjoyed.

I don't think Leave voters, who ironically are mostly conservative, have the faintest comprehension of the irrevocable damage they have done to what used be the United Kingdom.

Just looks like you're trolling now.

Are you going to hold the hands of the people smiling and skipping down to the job centre in Scotland when they've damaged trade with the rUK? What world do you live in... so many fantasies.

ruggedtoast

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Just looks like you're trolling now.

Are you going to hold the hands of the people smiling and skipping down to the job centre in Scotland when they've damaged trade with the rUK? What world do you live in... so many fantasies.

They won't have damaged trade with rUK. They will have exactly the same trade deal with rUK as the rest of the European Union.

One that is substantially in their favour.

TrickyTree83

ruggedtoast wrote: »

They won't have damaged trade with rUK. They will have exactly the same trade deal with rUK as the rest of the European Union.

One that is substantially in their favour.

If there's no single market membership requiring compliance with the 4 freedoms it'll likely trigger a referendum on Scottish independence. I think most are in agreement over that.

If there's no single market membership then the 11% of Scottish trade with the EU is under threat.

If Scotland votes to become independent and then join/remain in the EU as a result of that they will be subject to the same problems in exporting to/importing from that the rest of the EU will be with the rest of the UK which constitutes 64% of their trade.

There will be business in the UK that suffers from losing single market membership, but not many so much so that they need to up sticks and move to Scotland since the UK will be able to open other markets as well as having a large domestic market.

Scotland on the other hand is 5 million people, whom within the EU will be beholden to the EU's trade deals and regulations. This may mean that Scottish business sees it is required to move from Scotland to the rest of the UK in order to continue to service the larger proportion of trade they do (the 64%) at the expense of the domestic trade with 5 million people + the 11% with the EU.

For it not to impact Scotland significantly enough business would need to move from the UK to Scotland to offset those who move the other way plus any impact on the 64%. It would need to be a migratory crisis in the business world to achieve that.

You can see the dilemma I would think?

A_Medium_Size_Jock

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Just to really pi$$ the English off, Merkel may even let them carry on with the pre Brexit opt outs the UK enjoyed.

Oh please; really?
:rotfl:

You do realise that Merkel faces an election next year?
You do also realise (do you?) that Merkel hasn't even said yet that she will stand for election?
You do perhaps realise too that such is Merkels (ahem) "popularity" that - even if she WERE to stand for election - she has VERY little chance of winning and hence of remaining as Chancellor?
(See link below ......... figures and report from Germany.)

Now (as has been said before in this thread) since neither Sturgeon, Merkel or indeed anyone else can actually do anything concrete about any possibilities of Scotland remaining in the EU whilst Scotland remains part of the UK, AND before the UK leaves the EU - would you perhaps try dreaming of other ways to get the independence you so seem to want?

Like .......... a major earthquake along the length of Hadrians Wall perhaps, causing the English side to tip into the ocean and disappear whilst the Scottish side remains untouched?
Or a huge sea monster taking a bite of the UK and leaving only the area north of Carlisle & Newcastle?

Neither of which - let's be honest - is any more daft than the repeatedly stated dreams of Scotland somehow staying in the EU.

http://www.thelocal.de/20160510/major-political-parties-have-never-been-so-unpopular-poll

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

If there's no single market membership requiring compliance with the 4 freedoms it'll likely trigger a referendum on Scottish independence. I think most are in agreement over that.

If there's no single market membership then the 11% of Scottish trade with the EU is under threat.

If Scotland votes to become independent and then join/remain in the EU as a result of that they will be subject to the same problems in exporting to/importing from that the rest of the EU will be with the rest of the UK which constitutes 64% of their trade.

There will be business in the UK that suffers from losing single market membership, but not many so much so that they need to up sticks and move to Scotland since the UK will be able to open other markets as well as having a large domestic market.

Scotland on the other hand is 5 million people, whom within the EU will be beholden to the EU's trade deals and regulations. This may mean that Scottish business sees it is required to move from Scotland to the rest of the UK in order to continue to service the larger proportion of trade they do (the 64%) at the expense of the domestic trade with 5 million people + the 11% with the EU.

For it not to impact Scotland significantly enough business would need to move from the UK to Scotland to offset those who move the other way plus any impact on the 64%. It would need to be a migratory crisis in the business world to achieve that.

You can see the dilemma I would think?

We can all see the economic dilemma. But we can also see that none of it is of Scotland's choosing. Which is also a political dilemma.

You bandy about that 64% as if it's all going to stop completely overnight. Reminds me of the last ref where Scotland would've have been apparently papped out of the EU, no question, within 24 hours of a Yes vote lock, stock and barrel. Complete nonsense of course as we can now see with this Article 50 lark. Just like the hysterics over this 64% of trade stopping completely overnight is.

A little more in the way of realism is required I think.

Shakethedisease

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Oh please; really?
:rotfl:

You do realise that Merkel faces an election next year?
You do also realise (do you?) that Merkel hasn't even said yet that she will stand for election?
You do perhaps realise too that such is Merkels (ahem) "popularity" that - even if she WERE to stand for election - she has VERY little chance of winning and hence of remaining as Chancellor?
(See link below ......... figures and report from Germany.)

Now (as has been said before in this thread) since neither Sturgeon, Merkel or indeed anyone else can actually do anything concrete about any possibilities of Scotland remaining in the EU whilst Scotland remains part of the UK, AND before the UK leaves the EU - would you perhaps try dreaming of other ways to get the independence you so seem to want?

Like .......... a major earthquake along the length of Hadrians Wall perhaps, causing the English side to tip into the ocean and disappear whilst the Scottish side remains untouched?
Or a huge sea monster taking a bite of the UK and leaving only the area north of Carlisle & Newcastle?

Neither of which - let's be honest - is any more daft than the repeatedly stated dreams of Scotland somehow staying in the EU.

http://www.thelocal.de/20160510/major-political-parties-have-never-been-so-unpopular-poll

No one has ruled anything out either regarding Scotland and the EU.

Nothing concrete while Scotland is a part of the UK is good for the SNP and simply strengthens the case considerably for a second referendum. Also further weakens both Scottish Labour and the Lib Dem's nonsensical tortured bleatings that they want Scotland to be both in the UK and the EU. But that Sturgeon should stop doing anything about the latter. Neither have put forward any plans whatsoever for any way Scotland can stay both in the EU and the UK. Rennie hasn't even bothered waiting for the Eu experts reports both he and Dugdale 100% backed a few weeks ago.

Laughable. But they've made their choice now, and both have just become parties in Scotland which appear to support Brexit along with the Tories. Despite 62% of the vote in Scotland against leaving. Way to go.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

We can all see the economic dilemma. But we can also see that none of it is of Scotland's choosing. Which is also a political dilemma.

You bandy about that 64% as if it's all going to stop completely overnight. Reminds me of the last ref where Scotland would've have been apparently papped out of the EU, no question, within 24 hours of a Yes vote lock, stock and barrel. Complete nonsense of course as we can now see with this Article 50 lark. Just like the hysterics over this 64% of trade stopping completely overnight is.

A little more in the way of realism is required I think.

I haven't once said that the 64% will stop overnight.

I outlined the choice quite clearly.

Risk 64% or risk 11%.

For example, breaking it down even more simply.

Imagine if your entire worldly wealth could be summed up into £100.

You have a choice to make, the choice is gambling, with unknown odds, between £64 on one outcome (iScotland) or gambling £11 on another outcome (the UK status quo).

Which poses the most risk without knowing the odds/probability of success?

And which allows you to continue mostly in the manner to which you've become accustomed should you lose?

Edit: Politics aside, in the choice above there is a safe option and a reckless option. Despite our polar opinions I'm confident you know which is which.

Keep in mind that those figures represent huge figures in the Scottish economy.

That means business, which means jobs, which means tax revenue, which means public spending.

The risk is indeed large as I've pointed out quite a few times.

Is the gain of the reserved powers enough to take such a risk? Ignoring deficits, oil subsidy, Barnett, Whiskey export duty (:D), and everything else in the independence argument.

Just on this one singular point regarding the trade arrangements and the associated risk.