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

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Quite so.
I'm sure most of us feel the same regarding any impact upon personal finances.

My opinion only re: "seat at the table" & "veto" is that - if you look at EU historically - it is not always so clear cut.
Those in power within the EU do seem to "pick and choose"; there are many examples where the veto etc. have been roundly ignored or "worked around".

.string.

zagubov wrote: »

It would also give the SNP ammunition for their "Holyrood's the parliament for Scotland but Westminster's the parliament against Scotland" argument.

I would imagine that the reverse scenario is more likely, the SNP being hell bent on "handing control to the EU", to re-phrase a Brexit slogan.

Anyway, now I have your attention; you have mentioned EFTA as an alternative economic grouping to the EU.

I also think it is an option for Brexit, but in a somewhat Machiavellian way.

The UK has history with EFTA of course, being a founder member way back (1958? I forget, ... doesn't matter). So considering it would be sensible. If the UK were to rejoin it, possible attracting others outside the EU, it would represent a bigger market than the UK alone (100 million, say) and could present an opportunity to work through a better deal than the UK would otherwise have got and in the process improve the situation of existing EFTA members.

I think it would be good to have exploratory talks with EFTA along those lines.

Machiavellian? Yes, in this way. Such a grouping may prove to be attractive to other countries presently in the EU and we could see one or two other Fexits or Hexits or Pexits or whatever. On balance I think that unlikely but in a negotiation one needs pressure points, virtual or real, and should the EU lot in Brussels get hostile such a scenario could make them more compliant.

.string.

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Quite so.
I'm sure most of us feel the same regarding any impact upon personal finances.

My opinion only re: "seat at the table" & "veto" is that - if you look at EU historically - it is not always so clear cut.
Those in power within the EU do seem to "pick and choose"; there are many examples where the veto etc. have been roundly ignored or "worked around".

Yes I think that's right; it could also be said that countries are bought off,; a more PC way of saying that would be to use the term "horse trading" where a large country or group would give favours in some other area. The bigger the country the larger the supply of Horse S*** there is to lavish about.

My jokey words above should not imply that I always against that type of thing. It's a working way of keeping decisions coming and all parties happy. It's when arms get twisted that it can become nasty.

Shakethedisease

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Since the SNP themselves cannot yet answer that or indeed give even an honest indication, this thread will probably be of no use in helping your decision.

Those pro-iScotland (in this thread at least) appear to vehemently espouse the party line whatever happens, and when that doesn't work they will begin (as .string has said a few posts back) "reverting to the old trick of deflecting from the issue, inventing something which was not said and running away from the facts. "
If THAT fails attempts will be made at coercion; look through the past dozen or so pages for examples.

When those 'facts' include wildly inaccurate statements such as Scotland has already put in an application to the EU and had it refused already, then they should be challenged whenever and where ever they appear.

Interestingly, despite a number of posts in this thread no one has asked whether I am pro- or anti- independence for Scotland.
It has been assumed that my anti-EU stance indicates the latter.
And therein lies a (or rather, another) major problem for the SNP.
One that has not (AFAIK) been discussed within this thread.
Many Scots may indeed want independence BUT either NOT with the SNP; NOT within the EU; or NOT with EITHER of those two options.

No one has disputed any of the above either with you. However, it's more than likely that most of those who voted for independence two years ago will do so again. Eu nationals will vote Yes instead of No, and a fair proportion of former Labour No voters who will concentrate their musings on the Conservative party rather than the EU question. None of the above are a particular problem for the SNP. Die hard No voters will always vote No, that much is understood.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I would imagine that the reverse scenario is more likely, the SNP being hell bent on "handing control to the EU", to re-phrase a Brexit slogan.

Anyway, now I have your attention; you have mentioned EFTA as an alternative economic grouping to the EU.

I also think it is an option for Brexit, but in a somewhat Machiavellian way.

The UK has history with EFTA of course, being a founder member way back (1958? I forget, ... doesn't matter). So considering it would be sensible. If the UK were to rejoin it, possible attracting others outside the EU, it would represent a bigger market than the UK alone (100 million, say) and could present an opportunity to work through a better deal than the UK would otherwise have got and in the process improve the situation of existing EFTA members.

I think it would be good to have exploratory talks with EFTA along those lines.

Machiavellian? Yes, in this way. Such a grouping may prove to be attractive to other countries presently in the EU and we could see one or two other Fexits or Hexits or Pexits or whatever. On balance I think that unlikely but in a negotiation one needs pressure points, virtual or real, and should the EU lot in Brussels get hostile such a scenario could make them more compliant.

Norway isn't sure. They think the UK might be too big for EFTA. Scotland would be ok though.

Norway’s European affairs minister, Elisabeth Vik Aspaker, reflecting a growing debate in the country following the Brexit vote in the UK, told the Aftenposten newspaper: “It’s not certain that it would be a good idea to let a big country into this organisation. It would shift the balance, which is not necessarily in Norway’s interests.” She also confirmed that the UK could only join if there were unanimous agreement, thereby providing Norway with a veto. Aspaker said she did not know the UK’s plans.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/09/norway-may-block-uk-return-to-european-free-trade-association

.string.

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Since the SNP themselves cannot yet answer that or indeed give even an honest indication, this thread will probably be of no use in helping your decision.

Those pro-iScotland (in this thread at least) appear to vehemently espouse the party line whatever happens, and when that doesn't work they will begin (as .string has said a few posts back) "reverting to the old trick of deflecting from the issue, inventing something which was not said and running away from the facts. "
If THAT fails attempts will be made at coercion; look through the past dozen or so pages for examples.

Interestingly, despite a number of posts in this thread no one has asked whether I am pro- or anti- independence for Scotland.
It has been assumed that my anti-EU stance indicates the latter.
And therein lies a (or rather, another) major problem for the SNP.
One that has not (AFAIK) been discussed within this thread.
Many Scots may indeed want independence BUT either NOT with the SNP; NOT within the EU; or NOT with EITHER of those two options.

I wish you well in your search for information which will assist you in making your decision.

It's not for me to comment stridently, let alone attempt to understand, Scottish voting patterns, but it does seem that the large SNP vote has been counter productive for Scotland. The behaviour of the SNPs in Westminster has been designed at the outset to create division, to even provoke a backlash which can be labelled as anti-Scottish and used to further the obsession with separation.

In doing so they've shown themselves to be untrustworthy and unpleasant and lacking in honesty They demand things which are impossible to agree with and whinge when they don't get their way. A chief whinge is that Scotland is being ignored. Well they certainly are, now; but were another party, or group of Scottish parties, to achieve the same number potential to enter political alliances more could have achieved in the area of devolution and the speed of it. It really is a case of "anyone but the SNP". The devolution settlement is a case in point where it was rubbished within 24 hours from it being signed off.

But I think that, in the larger picture, the worse aspect of their behaviour are the lies that are told to the Scottish People, such as the actual financial situation, the actualities of EU Membership and it's use purely as a policy of convenience to further their obsession, in general the complete substitution of spin for fact.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Norway isn't sure. They think the UK might be too big for EFTA. Scotland would be ok though.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/09/norway-may-block-uk-return-to-european-free-trade-association

So well worth discussing the possibility, not least to cover future relationships.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

When those 'facts' include wildly inaccurate statements such as Scotland has already put in an application to the EU and had it refused already, then they should be challenged whenever and where ever ...

Thats just another paranoic deflective spin.

I presume you are referring to this remark I made

As far as I can discern, Anderson wrote his article before he was aware that Sturgeon got her come-uppance on June 30th on an application to join the EU.

That does not say that Sturgeon was making an actual application - she can't because she did not have the competence (EU meaning of the word) to do it. She was talking with the EU people on the subject of making an application for Scotland to join the EU. She got her come-uppance though. That's what the quotes from the Spanish, the French and the EU officials were about.

Another point made there was that Anderson had probably not known about the result of her meeting, thus throwing doubt on the value of his article.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Shakethedisease wrote: »

When those 'facts' include wildly inaccurate statements such as Scotland has already put in an application to the EU and had it refused already, then they should be challenged whenever and where ever they appear. *1 - see below

No one has disputed any of the above either with you. However, it's more than likely that most of those who voted for independence two years ago will do so again. Eu nationals will vote Yes instead of No, and a fair proportion of former Labour No voters who will concentrate their musings on the Conservative party rather than the EU question. None of the above are a particular problem for the SNP. Die hard No voters will always vote No, that much is understood.*2 - see below

Yet again we see you run away from facts and dodge the issues.
Let's see if you can salvage your credibility by answering the following - WITHOUT obfuscation or deception.

*1 - Enlighten us as to where in this thread the "inaccurate statements such as Scotland has already put in an application to the EU" is?
We can all see "Sturgeon got her come-uppance on June 30th on an application to join the EU" (#2861) - which is NOT what you are saying has been said. At best, you appear to be attempting to misinterpret what has been said; more-so given the link in that post which very clearly explains what this statement refers to.

*2 - Meaningless waffle tbh. As has been seen in the UK's EU referendum, second-guessing the general public's intentions is not easy.
In fact it does rather appear that Scot's don't (yet?) even want another vote, with 50% stating they did not want a second referendum.
A YouGov poll Aug29-3 asking about voting intent in an independence referendum; Yes = 46%, No = 54%
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/09/01/davidson-now-more-popular-sturgeon-scotland/

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Thats just another paranoic deflective spin.

I presume you are referring to this remark I made


That does not say that Sturgeon was making an actual application - she can't because she did not have the competence (EU meaning of the word) to do it. She was talking with the EU people on the subject of making an application for Scotland to join the EU. She got her come-uppance though. That's what the quotes from the Spanish, the French and the EU officials were about.

Another point made there was that Anderson had probably not known about the result of her meeting, thus throwing doubt on the value of his article.

Have you forgotten about Guy Verhofstadt already ? A few days ago ? His stance would seem to counter your own regarding any comeuppance and he's one of the three chief EU negotiators. Also as covered many times here, Scotland would be looking to Remain. Not re-apply.