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

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Sorry got to stop you right there with what appears to me to be just more SNP driven propoganda , to mislead voters into voting for Independence who dislike SNP. We've already witnessed that SNP with just 1 million votes won the majority of Holyrood seats in a proportional representative election which isn't easy. During the 2015 election they practically wiped the board with 1.4 million out of a total electorate of around 4 million.

Are you suggesting all these SNP voters are just going to magically switch to other parties. And if so which other political parties are you talking about. Are you suggesting all these new political parties are going to suddenly appear out of nowhere. And which other parties will have sufficient funds and efficient spin machines to compete against the party who would claim they won Independence, and are the only party with any experience of government.

Albeit it might not matter , because if Sturgeon gets her way to rejoin the EU, in 10 years time as the EU project advances, Scotland will be totally governed by the EU at all levels.

The SNP are a broad church with one overarching collective policy which is independence. After which, is unlikely MP's and MSP's like Mhari Black and Tommy Sheppard on the left, and Alex Neil on the right of the party are going to co-exist well.

The whole point of independence isn't the SNP. It's the other way round.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

Politicians are amongst the most self centred of us.

Tory politicians are amongst the most self centred of politicians.

May's entire term in office will be defined by the success of the Brexit process.

I'm not sure any recent UK PM has faced such a big challenge.

Why would she risk this to be derailed for 8.5% of the population?

I'm all for Scottish independence if the majority want it, but I don't want it to hinder Brexit. There is plenty of time and political space after Brexit to resolve Scottish independence.

There's very little point from a Scottish perspective in letting the UK negotiate Scotland's exports ( fish, agriculture, oil etc etc ) during a Brexit to it's conclusion.. only for the rUK have to go through the whole lot again if Scotland votes to leave the UK shortly after Brexit and rejoin the EU.

Best to get it all done at the same time.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Risking 64% of Scottish trade and the associated jobs is the best option because...

Unless the UK aren't trading at all with the EU anymore then the trade will still be there and continue. If Scotland is still in the EU/Single Market then the negotiations will be done already, as a block via the EU.

Risking 11% of Scottish trade and the associated jobs is the worst option because...

Remaining in the EU/Single Market isn't going to risk this.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Unless the UK aren't trading at all with the EU anymore then the trade will still be there and continue. If Scotland is still in the EU/Single Market then the negotiations will be done already, as a block via the EU.

Remaining in the EU/Single Market isn't going to risk this.

Risking the trade, no one said anything about stopping trade completely, in any situation.

The pro-indy brigade cannot use articles from experts claiming they're taking the correct stance because 80,000 jobs will be lost if Scotland loses single market access at the same time as denying the larger amount of jobs that will be lost as a result of independence. If you're going to recognise one, you must recognise the other. It's not an opt in theory, they're one and the same.

Remaining in the EU/Single Market will mean that you will be subject to the EU's trade rules.

Hard brexit & iScotland = risk to all of the 64%

Soft (is there even such a thing?) brexit & iScotland = lesser risk to the 64%

Hard brexit & Scotland in UK = risk to all 11%

Soft brexit & Scotland in UK = lesser risk to 11%

So if any of you are genuinely for Scotland's best interests, soft brexit and remaining in the union is the best option.

Then it would be hard brexit and remaining in the union.

Then it would be soft brexit and becoming independent.

Then it would be hard brexit and becoming independent, this is the worst option of the lot from Scotland's perspective. Hard brexit is the option that's looking most likely, which is why the independence idea is a failed argument because of the situation you're trying to engineer by pushing for a referendum now. You're steering towards:

Hard brexit & iScotland in the EU = risk to all 64%

or

Hard brexit & Scotland in the UK = risk to all 11%

A_Medium_Size_Jock

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Risking the trade, no one said anything about stopping trade completely, in any situation.

The pro-indy brigade cannot use articles from experts claiming they're taking the correct stance because 80,000 jobs will be lost if Scotland loses single market access at the same time as denying the larger amount of jobs that will be lost as a result of independence. If you're going to recognise one, you must recognise the other. It's not an opt in theory, they're one and the same.

Remaining in the EU/Single Market will mean that you will be subject to the EU's trade rules.

Hard brexit & iScotland = risk to all of the 64%

Soft (is there even such a thing?) brexit & iScotland = lesser risk to the 64%

Hard brexit & Scotland in UK = risk to all 11%

Soft brexit & Scotland in UK = lesser risk to 11%

So if any of you are genuinely for Scotland's best interests, soft brexit and remaining in the union is the best option.

Then it would be hard brexit and remaining in the union.

Then it would be soft brexit and becoming independent.

Then it would be hard brexit and becoming independent, this is the worst option of the lot from Scotland's perspective. Hard brexit is the option that's looking most likely, which is why the independence idea is a failed argument because of the situation you're trying to engineer by pushing for a referendum now. You're steering towards:

Hard brexit & iScotland in the EU = risk to all 64%

or

Hard brexit & Scotland in the UK = risk to all 11%

Tricky, you're doing an admirable job of explaining very succinctly.
You're forgetting only one thing:
Logic and reality does not (and never has) applied to the SNP and it's supporters within this thread.

kabayiri

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Tricky, you're doing an admirable job of explaining very succinctly.
You're forgetting only one thing:
Logic and reality does not (and never has) applied to the SNP and it's supporters within this thread.

You should throw in 'tactics' and 'timing' along with logic and reality.

The whole Brexit process is new, both to UK and the EU. There may not even be agreement in approach between the EU member states. Germany may want to focus on trade; Poland on future job opportunities in UK.

There is a lot of work to be done, and I can well understand why the UK government would see a Scottish independence referendum as an unwelcome distraction.

But....we shall see. I'd be interested to see the proposed referendum options on the ballot paper :

- Do you think Scotland should leave the UK and remain in the EU?
- Do you think Scotland should leave both the UK and the EU?
- Do you think Scotland should remain in the UK?
- Do you think there are too many options here?
- Do you know why your head hurts?

TrickyTree83

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Tricky, you're doing an admirable job of explaining very succinctly.
You're forgetting only one thing:
Logic and reality does not (and never has) applied to the SNP and it's supporters within this thread.

The majority of people in Scotland will see figures like these and come to the obvious conclusion that their interests will be best served by remaining in the UK in either a soft or hard brexit situation.

So why on earth bother campaigning for an idea that is completely at odds with the best interests of the average Scot?

The time is wrong. They're pushing this at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons, with no plan and few answers. It's doomed to fail a second time and by having two failed referenda in as little as 3 or 4 years is dooming the movement to obscurity and ridicule for the foreseeable future.

If this is truly a goal and not blind ideologue zealotry then the pragmatic approach would be to wait until the trade balance can be adjusted, deficits eliminated and the stage set for a win. Except the SNP are a socialist group so I could see there being big problems eliminating a deficit.

I think I said previously that soft brexit would be more favourable to an independent Scotland in the EU, yes it would be more favourable than hard brexit with Scotland in the EU. But why not keep the best of both worlds economically for the time being whilst you re-balance the trade and deal with the deficit?

None of the arguments for independence come across with any pragmatism or genuine plan long term for achieving it. It's just feelings and feebly cobbled together arguments regarding political atmosphere, whiskey export duty, GERS (signed off by the Scottish government!!) being wrong, contradictions: anti-nuclear sentiment whilst maintaining nuclear power generation (SNP & Alex Salmond), etc...

Being led round in circles by the SNP doesn't strike me as being helpful or positive for the independence campaign. They're making a hash of it, the mass of people for independence are following it and they can't see the ridiculousness of it. They're at risk of ruining it for all of you and not achieving independence at all.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Risking the trade, no one said anything about stopping trade completely, in any situation.

The pro-indy brigade cannot use articles from experts claiming they're taking the correct stance because 80,000 jobs will be lost if Scotland loses single market access at the same time as denying the larger amount of jobs that will be lost as a result of independence. If you're going to recognise one, you must recognise the other. It's not an opt in theory, they're one and the same.

The point is that there will be jobs lost either way. But one also has to consider the future when staying in a Union that seems to be hell bent on isolating itself off from the world and is going down a very dark path in terms of immigration.

Remaining in the EU/Single Market will mean that you will be subject to the EU's trade rules.

Hard brexit & iScotland = risk to all of the 64%

Soft (is there even such a thing?) brexit & iScotland = lesser risk to the 64%

Hard brexit & Scotland in UK = risk to all 11%

Soft brexit & Scotland in UK = lesser risk to 11%

So if any of you are genuinely for Scotland's best interests, soft brexit and remaining in the union is the best option.

Then it would be hard brexit and remaining in the union.

Then it would be soft brexit and becoming independent.

Then it would be hard brexit and becoming independent, this is the worst option of the lot from Scotland's perspective. Hard brexit is the option that's looking most likely, which is why the independence idea is a failed argument because of the situation you're trying to engineer by pushing for a referendum now. You're steering towards:

Hard brexit & iScotland in the EU = risk to all 64%

or

Hard brexit & Scotland in the UK = risk to all 11%

I can't be bothered paraphrasing this. The same arguments and debates have appeared in many other places but not put together so succinctly so have some straight up Wings.

The argument is basically that as Scotland does far more trade (somewhere roughly in the region of four times as much) with the rest of the UK than it does with the rest of Europe, it would face enormous risk in protecting that trade should it seek to throw in its lot with Europe rather than an isolated Britain, because the EU doesn’t allow member countries to conduct trade deals unilaterally with outside parties.

But that’s a somewhat curious position, because the entire point of the two years that would follow the invoking of Article 50 is to do that deal. Should a second indyref be scheduled for spring 2019 – as we posited just a couple of weeks ago – then it would be a choice between two known situations.

Because if an independent Scotland was going to be staying in the EU, then the trade deal with the rUK would already be in place, because the EU would just have negotiated it for us.

And if – as is now the prevailing wisdom – that deal turned out to be basically “Bend over, Britain, this is going to hurt you a lot more than it hurts us”, then the economic arguments in favour of independence would be the strongest they’re ever likely to be in the lifetime of anyone reading this site.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/waiting-on-the-guns/


The basic logic there is very difficult to deny in the event of a hard Brexit ( even if you hate the website ). What economically hurts a Scotland remaining in the EU, must by extension economically hurt a rUK outwith it in terms of trade. Or we can all play nice instead.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

There is a lot of work to be done, and I can well understand why the UK government would see a Scottish independence referendum as an unwelcome distraction.

The Scottish and N Irish Governments kind of feel the same way about leaving the EU.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The majority of people in Scotland will see figures like these and come to the obvious conclusion that their interests will be best served by remaining in the UK in either a soft or hard brexit situation.

So why on earth bother campaigning for an idea that is completely at odds with the best interests of the average Scot?

The time is wrong. They're pushing this at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons, with no plan and few answers. It's doomed to fail a second time and by having two failed referenda in as little as 3 or 4 years is dooming the movement to obscurity and ridicule for the foreseeable future.

If this is truly a goal and not blind ideologue zealotry then the pragmatic approach would be to wait until the trade balance can be adjusted, deficits eliminated and the stage set for a win. Except the SNP are a socialist group so I could see there being big problems eliminating a deficit.

I think I said previously that soft brexit would be more favourable to an independent Scotland in the EU, yes it would be more favourable than hard brexit with Scotland in the EU. But why not keep the best of both worlds economically for the time being whilst you re-balance the trade and deal with the deficit?

None of the arguments for independence come across with any pragmatism or genuine plan long term for achieving it. It's just feelings and feebly cobbled together arguments regarding political atmosphere, whiskey export duty, GERS (signed off by the Scottish government!!) being wrong, contradictions: anti-nuclear sentiment whilst maintaining nuclear power generation (SNP & Alex Salmond), etc...

Being led round in circles by the SNP doesn't strike me as being helpful or positive for the independence campaign. They're making a hash of it, the mass of people for independence are following it and they can't see the ridiculousness of it. They're at risk of ruining it for all of you and not achieving independence at all.

At the end of the day Tricky, it'll end up as being whatever a majority of Scottish voters wish to do next in the event of Brexit. They can only vote on the options put in front of them. Is only fair that since two recent referendums have seen both votes to stay in the UK and to stay in the EU that the matter is settled one way or the other once it becomes clear fully what Brexit means to us all. Oh and what a Conservative government in power for perhaps the next decade also means.

I think the Scottish Govt are only clarifying what Scots ultimately want (UK or EU ) since at the moment it's all very unclear.