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

A_Medium_Size_Jock

zagubov wrote: »

As shakey points out, I don't know whether EFTA wants to take in a country five times its own size (they've been hanging around the last half dozen SNP conferences, but you can see how Scotland would be a good fit size-wise).

I think EFTA would be a very good place for the UK to be, full stop. They're all in Schengen but there's no need to be. We could be in the EEA but there's no pressure to be. And we'd be able to attend EEA conferences and meetings as observers like the Swiss. The Norwegians pay as much as us for EEA membership but it's proportionally less compared to their income.

This would reduce current pressure for an indyref, especially if the powers currently used by the EU were returned directly to Scotland and the other home nations. Interesting.

I noted the previous link re: Norway's stated reluctance to allow the UK membership of EFTA.
As founding members, could the UK really be prevented from joining - lapsed members or not?

Shakethedisease

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

It has nothing to do with "fighting his corner" but EVERYTHING to do with your inaccuracies,obfuscation and innuendo.
As in your "back up your own points with some evidence occasionally" comment above; nearly all my posts contain not only quotations but also links in support of my so-called "random soundbites" - which (as you say) people here can read.
They are there to see.
Which is some justification for my opinion.

As do mine. Glad we've got that sorted. Moving on...

Shakethedisease

zagubov wrote: »

As shakey points out, I don't know whether EFTA wants to take in a country five times its own size (they've been hanging around the last half dozen SNP conferences, but you can see how Scotland would be a good fit size-wise).

I think EFTA would be a very good place for the UK to be, full stop. They're all in Schengen but there's no need to be. We could be in the EEA but there's no pressure to be. And we'd be able to attend EEA conferences and meetings as observers like the Swiss. The Norwegians pay as much as us for EEA membership but it's proportionally less compared to their income.

This would reduce current pressure for an indyref, especially if the powers currently used by the EU were returned directly to Scotland and the other home nations. Interesting.

Politically acceptable though in the current rather fraught climate regarding FOM and 'paying into the pot' ?.. I guess that would be the question.

.string.

zagubov wrote: »

As shakey points out, I don't know whether EFTA wants to take in a country five times its own size (they've been hanging around the last half dozen SNP conferences, but you can see how Scotland would be a good fit size-wise).

I think EFTA would be a very good place for the UK to be, full stop. They're all in Schengen but there's no need to be. We could be in the EEA but there's no pressure to be. And we'd be able to attend EEA conferences and meetings as observers like the Swiss. The Norwegians pay as much as us for EEA membership but it's proportionally less compared to their income.

This would reduce current pressure for an indyref, especially if the powers currently used by the EU were returned directly to Scotland and the other home nations. Interesting.

Thanks for the reply: yes I agree there could be issues regarding joining Etta but exploratory discussion could be had. Obviously no conclusion could be reached until actual Brexit, as per EU rules.

As I mentioned, the discussions would serve 2 purposes, first in the intrinsic value of joining Efta and secondly the impact that such a parallel option would have on the actual Brexit negotiations. As I understand it the UK contribution provides, net, about 9 10% ** of the EU budget and the EU will be interested to still get some of that after Brexit. The UK would not be so keen of course but might contribute something providing that the immigration issue is resolved in some way.

Actually the existence of other Plans, C, D etc is likely to serve as negotiation pressure, including a Hard Brexit and I do wonder if Davies' recent remarks were akin to what football Managers do before an important game.

In theory UK participation in efta complicates the Status quo, but I would have thought the outcome, which would markedly increase the combined efta attractiveness gor trading partners, could be more favorable trading conditions than exist now.

To be honest I don't know, but its worth exploring.

** I think it's probably a bit higher, so I've changed the figure to 10%. I can't be bothered to research more on this phone thing I'm using since a pizza calls me down in the mighty metropolis of Santa Ponsa and I'm hungry.

Cheers

New_World_Man

So if UK or Independent Scotland are out of the eu, is there a down side for the eu? A lot of the debate says the eu will play hardball with us, making it sound as if there is no upside for the rest of the eu in reaching a compromise.

elantan

I think the EU will play hardball and good luck to them ... I would if I were them as well

CLAPTON

elantan wrote: »

I think the EU will play hardball and good luck to them ... I would if I were them as well

that would make the people of the EU poorer: however your stanz on Iscotland is consistent with that
make people poorer for a political elitist reason.

TrickyTree83

New_World_Man wrote: »

I can see that "having a seat at the table" and a veto would be powerful tools in shaping the future. However I can't see what the Eu gets in return, although I imagine our lust for German cars may be an attraction for Germany.

When I read articles and follow discussions they tend to be based on the theory of independence (which I agree with) but as a taxpayer I, perhaps selfishly, want to know what it means in cold hard cash.

Now there is nothing wrong in paying more to get a better country but any challenges about costs appear to get swatted away and are never addressed in any meaningful way.

An independent Scotland would undoubtedly be poorer than it is now within the UK. Even when the UK leaves the EU.

There is no circumstance, situation, or model in which Scotland would be 'better off' in economic terms by being in the EU and out of the UK.

There will be those on here who will disagree with what I've said but will be unable to tell you why Scotland will - and I use the word 'will' on purpose - be better off outside of the UK and in the EU. It's my belief that they are unable to tell us that Scotland will be better off because there is no reason that suggests an independent Scotland will be.

The only situation I can foresee where Scotland would be better off outside of the UK, is if oil reached eye-watering costs per barrel. But then everyone's petro-economy is scuppered so eventually everyone would lose, including Scotland. Unless of course the world moves away from petro-chemical industry and logistics and finds new ways to make tyres, fertiliser (see food), beauty products, plastics, transportation, energy (pretty important bit this is). But then... if the world moved away from petro-chemicals, there's less demand, which brings the price down. So perhaps there is no scenario where Scotland would be better off outside of the UK after all...

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Is absolutely fine by me that you personally think so. People here can read and take away from my posts what they will regarding the actual issues we're debating on a debate forum though.

There was no application made to the EU from Sturgeon. All polling is flawed at the present time. Most Yes voters from 2014 will vote Yes again. Most EU nationals will change from No to Yes, and a fair few Labour voters in light of this new Conservative govt looking like being around for a while will also be reconsidering should a second referendum occur.

My cards are all on the table. Feel free to disagree with any of the points I've raised, I'd welcome it. But it would be good if you could back up your own points with some evidence occasionally rather than just throwing random soundbites about ignoring facts around a lot.

Everyone can see what string posted ( and edited ). He clearly referred to an application being made. However, now we're getting into petty posting semantics instead of debating anything of note. String and I are old friends on these boards. I don't really think he needs you to fight his corner. He's perfectly capable of doing so on his own and I'm well aware of the fact.

Good, then you'll appreciate me telling you you once again that you have it wrong;
My words do not say she had applied, but that she got her come-uppance on an application to join the EU, which is what she was talking about. Had I wanted to refer to a real application I would, if of course, have said it was refused. But they certainly put the kaibosh on Sturgeons wish to apply for EU Membership.

I don't know what you mean by "and edited" are you implying that I changed the text after your comment?

No, as has been said its just an invented slight to avoid facing the rejection of Sturgeon's fast-track EU membership. A deflection from facts.

On your claim that Verhofstadt's appointment somehow trumps the statements made by his political masters, that's pure bumkum. The EU team of so-called hardliners simply mirrors our own team of Brexit fanatics. I look to political leaders in the EU and Ma on the UK side to moderate intransigence at the negotiation table.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

An independent Scotland would undoubtedly be poorer than it is now within the UK. Even when the UK leaves the EU.

There is no circumstance, situation, or model in which Scotland would be 'better off' in economic terms by being in the EU and out of the UK.

There will be those on here who will disagree with what I've said but will be unable to tell you why Scotland will - and I use the word 'will' on purpose - be better off outside of the UK and in the EU. It's my belief that they are unable to tell us that Scotland will be better off because there is no reason that suggests an independent Scotland will be.

The only situation I can foresee where Scotland would be better off outside of the UK, is if oil reached eye-watering costs per barrel. But then everyone's petro-economy is scuppered so eventually everyone would lose, including Scotland. Unless of course the world moves away from petro-chemical industry and logistics and finds new ways to make tyres, fertiliser (see food), beauty products, plastics, transportation, energy (pretty important bit this is). But then... if the world moved away from petro-chemicals, there's less demand, which brings the price down. So perhaps there is no scenario where Scotland would be better off outside of the UK after all...

Sadly your statement would appear to be quite correct.

The days of great earnings from oil are gone, perhaps forever.
Nations more reliant upon oil than Scotland have all been suffering; even the once-extremely-wealthy Saudis are experiencing difficulties.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/08/31/482507/Saudi-Arabia-cash-crunch-bonds-budget
There are also effects upon Russia, Venezuela and others.

No-one has yet suggested how an independent Scotland - whether in OR out of the EU - would achieve financial parity between GDP and expenditure.
Because the sad fact is that - without significant changes - the current level of expenditure is simply too high.
I have no desire to rekindle the "great deficit debate" BUT Scotland's finances do need to be more balanced than is currently the case.
Sensible ideas of how this can be done, anyone?