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

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

I wonder if referendum fatigue might play a factor.

I can imagine many a voter fed up with referendums and the potential change.

Possibly true of last time's No voters. Unlikely in the case of Yes voters. The next referendum if held is likely to have a short lead up.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

kabayiri wrote: »

I wonder if referendum fatigue might play a factor.

I can imagine many a voter fed up with referendums and the potential change.

You may well have a point.

It does make you wonder ......... and indeed feel some sympathy for the Spanish who - it appears - may be facing a third General Election in one year.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/e8e46b26-744e-11e6-b60a-de4532d5ea35.html#axzz4JhKQvhoe

TrickyTree83

@indycrowd - Posters do have a point regarding the single market. It's apparently a red line for the Scottish government, and FoM appears to be a red line for the UK government. So it would appear they are at loggerheads.

The red line stance the UK government is taking has profound implications for Scotland within the EU. The stance the Scottish government is taking regarding the single market doesn't, and probably will never, make sense to me.

How can 11% be more important than 64%?

Someone please explain this to me, since the SNP haven't. It's seems to be just a line they use rather than a policy with any substance behind it.

I fully understand that Scotland voted for the UK to remain in the EU.

But are people over-interpreting the result in Scotland to mean that Scots wanted an independent Scotland to be in the EU?

Because this insistence from the Scottish government that the single market is the be all and end all just doesn't calculate correctly.

Just to go over it again, Scotland voted for the UK to remain in the EU, not for Scotland to be in the EU. So shouldn't the SNP be asking the people of Scotland if they consider the single market more important than the UK market before they take such a stance?

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Most likely a new currency, pegged very short term and transitionally to sterling.

so with 30 years of thought Nicola hasn't made up her mind yet : thanks goodness she isn't in charge of brexit.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

CLAPTON wrote: »

so with 30 years of thought Nicola hasn't made up her mind yet : thanks goodness she isn't in charge of brexit.

I'm just grateful that the pound has not yet again been insisted-upon.
At least we don't have THAT merry-go-round ................ er ........... oops ............. have I maybe started 'em off again?

mrginge

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Which in turn means no tariff-free access to the EU for rUK. As well as a heck of a lot of trouble in NI/Ireland. You're admitting that a Brexit would mean a terrible deal for rUK. Forever too. At least Scotland would still have tarriff free access to a 500 million consumers going forward over the next few decades ( as opposed to the 60 million in rUK ).

Erm, no that is your position. YOU state that the EU will not negotiate.

You hold that view and seem almost pleased that it would result in serious economic consequences for Scotland. Do you hate the UK so much that you want your own country to suffer?

You just don't get it do you, a bad deal hurts all parties. Everybody else is moving towards compromise but you want to promote conflict because you see a short term benefit for independence polls. That's not only very selfish, but incredibly foolish if you care about Scotland's long term prospects.

Most likely a new currency, pegged very short term and transitionally to sterling.

Sounds like a fine idea :eek:

Leanne1812

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

@indycrowd - Posters do have a point regarding the single market. It's apparently a red line for the Scottish government, and FoM appears to be a red line for the UK government. So it would appear they are at loggerheads.

The red line stance the UK government is taking has profound implications for Scotland within the EU. The stance the Scottish government is taking regarding the single market doesn't, and probably will never, make sense to me.

How can 11% be more important than 64%?

Someone please explain this to me, since the SNP haven't. It's seems to be just a line they use rather than a policy with any substance behind it.

I fully understand that Scotland voted for the UK to remain in the EU.

But are people over-interpreting the result in Scotland to mean that Scots wanted an independent Scotland to be in the EU?

Because this insistence from the Scottish government that the single market is the be all and end all just doesn't calculate correctly.

Just to go over it again, Scotland voted for the UK to remain in the EU, not for Scotland to be in the EU. So shouldn't the SNP be asking the people of Scotland if they consider the single market more important than the UK market before they take such a stance?

It's fair to say 11% will never trump 64%. What I'd ask for clarity on is just how much of the 64% would Scotland stand to lose? I don't think you can answer that without pure guesswork. Maybe Scotland is being optimistic assuming the majority will remain. Maybe you are being pessimistic thinking we'd lose most of that 64. Whatever, none of us can state definitively.

It's not just the single market that's important. I think scots are generally more pro immigration. I think we realise we need to grow our population. Can you suggest an easier route outwith the EU? Besides the natives breeding more

You say Scotland voted for the UK to remain. I'd argue the figures speak for themselves. Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain yet are forced to leave. We are existing EU citizens. Will the EU discard 5 million citizens who want to stay with them? I'm not convinced they wil.

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

thirty years and no actual commitment that can be full filled.

so what is the actual plan for which currency they will use and has the 'plan' been agree with the UK government



The brexit plan is to continue to own the BBC in the rUK and charge iscotland copyright under international law.

and why is NIcola still building a plan to justify a new referendum : thirty years and counting and yet she needs more time :

we are truely lucky we don't have the SNP developing brexit.

Sometimes I'm not sure we're having the same converstation.

So for a plan to be credible from the SNP, it needs to be ratified by everyone, and for a plan to be credible from Brexit, it doesn't even need to exist? Good to know there's no double standard going on.

If that's not what you're saying, then I've no idea what you're saying.

In what was, if any, is Brexit proceeding? That we might trigger A50 some time next year?

TrickyTree83

Leanne1812 wrote: »

It's fair to say 11% will never trump 64%. What I'd ask for clarity on is just how much of the 64% would Scotland stand to lose? I don't think you can answer that without pure guesswork. Maybe Scotland is being optimistic assuming the majority will remain. Maybe you are being pessimistic thinking we'd lose most of that 64. Whatever, none of us can state definitively.

I'm not saying that the 64% will disappear.

But lets say that whichever option, 25% of the trade would disappear, just for arguments sake.

That would mean Scotland would lose 2.75% of its overall trade from the proportion with the EU if it remained with the UK.

It would also mean that Scotland would lose 16% of it's overall trade from the proportion with the rUK if Scotland chose to be independent and join the EU.

So you see, very much hinges on the deal the UK gets with the EU as to whether an independent Scotland in the EU will be dramatically hurt by leaving the UK as opposed to leaving the EU and remaining in the UK.

Leanne1812 wrote: »

It's not just the single market that's important. I think scots are generally more pro immigration. I think we realise we need to grow our population. Can you suggest an easier route outwith the EU? Besides the natives breeding more

We can still have immigration tailored to what's required by the economy if we're fully in control of immigration. The numbers could increase in Scotland and decrease in England because we'd be fully in control of whatever goes on. Immigration control on people from nations outside of the EU can be relaxed to increase numbers. Whatever we as a nation decide.

Leanne1812 wrote: »

You say Scotland voted for the UK to remain. I'd argue the figures speak for themselves. Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain yet are forced to leave. We are existing EU citizens. Will the EU discard 5 million citizens who want to stay with them? I'm not convinced they wil.

I absolutely 100% agree that the people of Scotland, as part of the UK, wanted to remain in the EU. However the actual question asked was whether people wanted the UK to remain in or leave the EU.

The context of the question in no way legitimises the view that Scotland wants to remain in the EU at the expense of the Union. That's a totally different question. So the figures only stand up to scrutiny when we analyse them in their proper context.

I'd like to see the SNP ask the question (and be honest about it) - whether people would rather be in the single market which constitutes 11% of your current trade, or remain in the Union of Great Britain & Northern Ireland which constitutes 64% of your trade?

Just a simple question in a survey, not a referendum. See what the response to that is before formulating a policy stance.

Thrugelmir

Herzlos wrote: »

So for a plan to be credible from the SNP, it needs to be ratified by everyone, and for a plan to be credible from Brexit, it doesn't even need to exist? Good to know there's no double standard going on.

There's a vast difference between a total leap of faith with and building an entire department in Whitehall to manage the transition in a smooth fashion.