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

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

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.
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.

No. This part is the same fundamental error you made earlier.

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.

This is what I mean, these guys on WoS exist in an echo chamber of agreement.

Lets pick this statement apart so you can see what I mean:

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”

A rather colourful way of saying that we'll have hard brexit with probably what, WTO terms?

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.

This section appears to suggest that iScotland in the EU, risking the 64% of trade with the rUK will be in a BETTER position! A better one. It's twisted logic and completely incorrect.

If the UK gets a bad deal from the EU, that is the situation in which the argument for independence is at ITS WORST. Because you will be stuck between risking 11% by sticking in the union, or risking 64% by sticking with the EU.

The statement on WoS is utterly incorrect. But you haven't questioned it at all and quoted it as a defence. You've then gone on to say

The basic logic there is very difficult to deny

The basic logic there? They can't even get basic logic correct!!!!

What economically hurts a Scotland remaining in the EU, must by extension economically hurt a rUK outwith it in terms of trade.

That's twisted logic too. That somehow something that's bad for the UK is de-facto good for an independent Scotland?

The best situation for an independent Scotland would have been free trade with the rUK and the EU. That situation was possible in 2014, and it's passed. That's now no longer possible unless the UK gets a great deal from the EU, in which case - why leave since you'll have the same situation as if we were in the EU in the first place, the Holyrood mandate of material change now comes into question.

What would hurt Scotland economically by being in the EU is a bad deal between the rUK and the EU. A hard brexit, as I've outlined many times previously.

So actually by extension remaining in the Union will not hurt Scotland as much. If Scotland's exposure to the EU is 11% of their exports then Scotland is in a better position to ride hard brexit within the UK than England is.

Independence in this situation does not make sense.

That WoS quote appears to suggest - as if by magic, in a world where unicorns fart gold - that risking 64% of your trade will be good. That safeguarding the 11% with the EU single market is the backstop to the entire Scottish economy (Hamish appears to agree with this stance). That the 64% will magically be transposed from the UK to the EU and everything will be fine.

It's rubbish, utter rubbish, did anyone ever peer review that article/comment/vomit?

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

Yes but you're missing the point that the argument, your independence argument is fatally flawed.

I'm saying if you really - as a movement - wanted to achieve it then you would plan accordingly and not rush into indy2 as you are doing now. You're now hamstrung by having to remain/join the EU as that's the pretext for having indy2 in the first place. You have deficits and you have a massive trade imbalance with the union you want to leave, massive.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

So why did a third of Scots not bother to turn out and vote on possibly the biggest issue the UK has put to the people in decades?

That's not a clear expression of "what Scots ultimately want".

If they had all turned out and voted passionately in favour of the EU, then we wouldn't be having this discussion!

Like the lottery, you gotta be in it to win it!

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

No. This part is the same fundamental error you made earlier.
This is what I mean, these guys on WoS exist in an echo chamber of agreement.

Lets pick this statement apart so you can see what I mean:

A rather colourful way of saying that we'll have hard brexit with probably what, WTO terms?

This section appears to suggest that iScotland in the EU, risking the 64% of trade with the rUK will be in a BETTER position! A better one. It's twisted logic and completely incorrect.

If the UK gets a bad deal from the EU, that is the situation in which the argument for independence is at ITS WORST. Because you will be stuck between risking 11% by sticking in the union, or risking 64% by sticking with the EU.

The statement on WoS is utterly incorrect. But you haven't questioned it at all and quoted it as a defence. You've then gone on to say

The basic logic there? They can't even get basic logic correct!!!!

That's twisted logic too. That somehow something that's bad for the UK is de-facto good for an independent Scotland?

The best situation for an independent Scotland would have been free trade with the rUK and the EU. That situation was possible in 2014, and it's passed. That's now no longer possible unless the UK gets a great deal from the EU, in which case - why leave since you'll have the same situation as if we were in the EU in the first place, the Holyrood mandate of material change now comes into question.

What would hurt Scotland economically by being in the EU is a bad deal between the rUK and the EU. A hard brexit, as I've outlined many times previously.

So actually by extension remaining in the Union will not hurt Scotland as much. If Scotland's exposure to the EU is 11% of their exports then Scotland is in a better position to ride hard brexit within the UK than England is.

Independence in this situation does not make sense.

That WoS quote appears to suggest - as if by magic, in a world where unicorns fart gold - that risking 64% of your trade will be good. That safeguarding the 11% with the EU single market is the backstop to the entire Scottish economy (Hamish appears to agree with this stance). That the 64% will magically be transposed from the UK to the EU and everything will be fine.

It's rubbish, utter rubbish, did anyone ever peer review that article/comment/vomit?

His basic logic is correct. Nothing is transposed but a bad trade deal between an iScotland in the EU, and rUK. Means a bad trade deal between rUK and the EU. Everyone is 'risking trade' with Brexit whatever the eventual outcome. Lets put it this way if Scotland follows UK out of the EU and the UK can't get a good deal that's going to be pretty bad for jobs also. Risky strategy either way from a Scottish perspective especially for a country which voted 62% to remain.

But trade isn't going to stop. We've been through all this before. Another referendum in Scotland is unlikely until everyone see's where negotiations are likely to be heading so there will be no danger of rushing into it. If it does happen though, it will 100% guaranteed take place before the UK exits.

That's just the way it is. Best to ask Scots voters what they actually want really given they're both seemingly pro-EU AND pro-UK. Politics matters as well as the economics.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

So why did a third of Scots not bother to turn out and vote on possibly the biggest issue the UK has put to the people in decades?

That's not a clear expression of "what Scots ultimately want".

If they had all turned out and voted passionately in favour of the EU, then we wouldn't be having this discussion!

Like the lottery, you gotta be in it to win it!

Possibly because all political parties in Scotland were all out and proud for a Remain vote. There was very little of the Leave/Remain passions evident up here as every single party was saying the same thing. Indeed Sturgeon and Davidson both appeared on national TV.. again also saying the same thing.

It was pretty much taken as read up here that there would be a remain vote ( well, that was true pretty much everywhere ).. but certainly up here, Remain looked almost certain to win by a large amount Scotland wide. Leaver voters and commentary was very thin on the ground during the campaign.

Possibly also a really bad idea to hold it quite so soon after Scottish elections. No party had the money left to leaflet, knock doors and GOTV after spending months doing so for their own party in elections. Sturgeon did warn of this but was ignored.

The majority was clear enough. Pro UK in 2014, Pro EU in 2016. Time to choose.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

But trade isn't going to stop. We've been through all this before. Another referendum in Scotland is unlikely until everyone see's where negotiations are likely to be heading so there will be no danger of rushing into it. If it does happen though, it will 100% guaranteed take place before the UK exits.

No.
An unauthorised referendum will only be held if the polls show 60% for independence.

Many thoughful scots will be concerned how an unauthorised refendum will be viewed worldwide : scotland has a lot to lose in international good will as few countries will support action that is no supported by international law.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

His basic logic is correct.

It really isn't.

Nothing is transposed but a bad trade deal between an iScotland in the EU, and rUK. Means a bad trade deal between rUK and the EU. Everyone is 'risking trade' with Brexit whatever the eventual outcome. Lets put it this way if Scotland follows UK out of the EU and the UK can't get a good deal that's going to be pretty bad for jobs also. Risky strategy either way from a Scottish perspective especially for a country which voted 62% to remain.

But trade isn't going to stop.

Yes, trade won't stop completely. Some businesses will move, some will go out of business all together, some will thrive.

(I honestly don't know why this isn't getting through...)

The Reverend seems to think that by the time independence comes along, you'll know the terms of trade between the EU and the UK. Probably, yes.

If those terms are bad terms. Meaning trade between the UK and the EU suffers, an independent Scotland in the EU would be putting the 64% of trade with the UK at risk, putting itself in an situation in which trade between the UK and the EU states suffers.

Do you get that? Because the Reverend doesn't.

If Scotland wanted to protect the bulk of it's external trade then the obvious option is to remain in the UK, there is no other logical alternative in a hard brexit scenario which protects the bulk of your external trade.

His logic is flawed and no one on there is calling him out on such things because everyone skim reads and nods in agreement. It's just the nature of the beast. But it ultimately does a disservice to your movement.

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...

It was pretty much taken as read up here that there would be a remain vote ( well, that was true pretty much everywhere ).. but certainly up here, Remain looked almost certain to win by a large amount Scotland wide. Leaver voters and commentary was very thin on the ground during the campaign.
...

Well we all knew that it would be a close run thing down here.

We can all guess why people chose not to vote, but they can not then claim they care about the result.

Maybe you confuse SNP enthusiasm for the EU with the average Scot's enthusiasm...

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

It really isn't.

Yes, trade won't stop completely. Some businesses will move, some will go out of business all together, some will thrive.

(I honestly don't know why this isn't getting through...)

The Reverend seems to think that by the time independence comes along, you'll know the terms of trade between the EU and the UK. Probably, yes.

Yes, before any future referendum Scots would be better knowing which direction Brexit negotiations are going. The single market and immigration policies being priorities.

If those terms are bad terms. Meaning trade between the UK and the EU suffers, an independent Scotland in the EU would be putting the 64% of trade with the UK at risk, putting itself in an situation in which trade between the UK and the EU states suffers.

Do you get that? Because the Reverend doesn't.

Brexit means trade between Scotland and the EU suffers. And independent Scotland in the EU means trade between rUK- Scotland suffers. We've all got that.

If Scotland wanted to protect the bulk of it's external trade then the obvious option is to remain in the UK, there is no other logical alternative in a hard brexit scenario which protects the bulk of your external trade.

If rUK goes down the pan in a hard Brexit scenario which doesn't only affect trade but the £, inflation, jobs, businesses, EU nationals leaving en masse.. trade with Scotland will suffer anyway with less consumers etc etc.

That 64% fig is from 2 years ago. No one is going to be hinging independence on vague and short term trade figures from two years ago, which might bear little relation to what happens after a Brexit is concluded. One also has to ask if Scotland is reaching anywhere near it's full potential in accessing EU markets at the present time.

Data on Scottish exports have to be treated with some care, but the Scottish Government statisticians make an effort to make these as accurate as possible.

Figure 3 shows the value and destination of Scottish exports between 2002 and 2014. The possible destinations are the rest of the UK (rUK), the rest of the EU and the rest of the world. It is immediately clear that rUK is the major market for Scottish exports and that it has grown significantly over the period.

Exports to the rest of the world started from a much lower base, but have almost doubled between 2002 and 2014. In contrast to the growing value of exports both to rUK and to the rest of the world, exports from Scotland to the EU have stagnated. This pattern of weakening exports to Europe and rapidly growing exports to the rest of the world has also occurred for the UK as a whole.

It is striking that even though Scotland is part of the EU single market, the US is Scotland’s top international export destination. The weakness of exports to the EU may reflect the overall weakness of the European economy, the strength of the pound and competition from other markets. Even though foreign direct investment in Scotland is reasonably buoyant, it does not seem that such investment is being used to make Scotland a platform for accessing EU markets in the same way that, for example, occurs in Ireland.

http://www.europeanfutures.ed.ac.uk/article-3347

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

Well we all knew that it would be a close run thing down here.

We can all guess why people chose not to vote, but they can not then claim they care about the result.

Maybe you confuse SNP enthusiasm for the EU with the average Scot's enthusiasm...

You're only guessing though. For a lot of people we were all shuddering at the thought of Johnson as PM, far right Conservative governments removing things like Human Rights laws/Workers directives and and a Brexit that took us out of the Single Market. 'Left at the mercy of' if you will. X in the Remain box.

What a relief all round it seemed when Theresa May became PM. Until last week that is... :shocked: