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

.string.

Actually I quite like the idea, exposed by Shakey a page or so back that a referendum vote for seperation should only be deemed valid if there was a vote of 55% of the electorate.

Now why do didn't I think of that? Actually I did of course, but I'm more a 60/40 man myself.

The rationale? Why to enable Scotland, if it does choose separation, does so as a demonstrably united nation.


There is also a case for England (maybe logically rUK?) to vote as well in a separate referendum. As required by the act of Union, the two Parliaments would follow the instruction from their own referendum and separation would only result if both Parliaments voted for it.

One can be sure that should both England and Scotland were to have referendums and England voted to separate Scotland from the Union but Scotland did not, then the SNP would be screaming that their referendum should block the dissolution of the Union. So it makes sense for the will of the people should be respected for both Scotland and England/rUK.

Before we get bleatings from the SNP here, I just remind them that the EU referendum was a UK referendum in which we all voted, so it is not comparable.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Err the same fiscal powers Westminster has ?

Trade with both. The bigger market on preferential rates which rUK might no longer enjoy. Perhaps join EFTA/EEA instead of it comes to it. Plus the potential to expand future trade within the EU. Staying with the UK for fear of tariffs seems a bit short termist and a backwards step in my own opinion regarding trade.

I think it was economics that won the day in 2014. For 45% of those who voted, I think honestly most of them/us voted Yes on mainly political grounds. Brexit has turned that on it's head but there's always a mix of the two in play.

Many feel that Scotland is a bit of an afterthought in UK politics and economics. That's ok, because of course it's only a small part of the UK.

However, a lot of policies don't always fit very well with Scotland's needs ( immigration for one, there was SO much talk of an aging population in the last referendum ). And during the last General Election the way Scotland's possible representatives were treated was an absolute disgrace imo. Any political party or Ed Miliband etc even looking at them the wrong way was howled at in the press. Lots of it spilled over to plain anti-Scottishness. Nowadays anything the SNP put to Westminster is generally voted down by both Labour and the Conservatives. One really has to ask what the point is of them being there representing their Scottish constituents sometimes.

It will happen again of course in the 2020 GE if Scotland is still in the UK.

When I asked about the fiscal powers, I was asking for particular examples to be honest. It's far to easy to take the scatter-gun approach and hope something sticks. If you've genuinely thought this through (as I said to ssss555s) you should have quite clear reasons for voting the way you did/want to with regards to the fiscal controls you believe Scotland requires.

With regards to the EU trade, I too would like to see a deal which maximises our involvement in the single market. However if more of the electorate believe that immigration affects them more and would be happy to sacrifice single market membership to cease the freedom of movement then I have to accept that. The problem Scottish independence has under the current circumstances - and I've outlined this a few times now - is the stance the UK government takes directly affects how sustainable an independent Scotland in the EU will be in the short to medium term. If the deal between the UK and the EU goes really badly and we end up on WTO terms, iScotland is in for a Greek style ride on the austerity train. Not only will the £1,200 per head disappear, but also trade, jobs and revenue with it. At that point I expect a Scottish government would be praying for high oil prices as that's the only way a high wage economy of 5m with a probably deficit circa 9% of GDP would be able to stagnate let alone grow.

In 2014 the argument was easier to make. The UK was in the EU, Scotlands membership of the EU was not guaranteed, but was as likely as it currently is and Scotland could have joined the EEA/EFTA if not the EU in those circumstances. Now your largest trading partner, and possibly the country in control of your currency will be outside of the EU - with you possibly in the EU. The argument is very different. The economic case for Scotland seceding is not strengthened by Brexit because the EU is simply not as important to Scotland as the rest of the UK, that is a mathematical fact and anyone saying otherwise is being incredibly disingenuous.

Scotland being a political afterthought in the UK, that's kind of hard to argue to someone who lives in middle England. I see no benefits of cross-rail, I see no benefits of Heathrow expansion. We don't see as much regional development funding as say Wales, Cornwall or indeed Scotland. In fact on the GVA figures, where I live in the world we're behind you. But it's my understanding that we're all one country. And that if I felt my life would be better by moving to Scotland - I can. If I felt that it would be better by moving to London - I can. But I'm happy where I am despite the region in which I live being comparatively poorer than Scotland.

It's naive to think that the very institution the SNP appear to hate, deride and want to secede from should welcome them with open arms. That being said they are given time to speak, their arguments are heard and they are involved in parliamentary committees. They are not excluded from any process or from any vote. If there is animosity towards the SNP in Westminster, I wouldn't be surprised given what they stand for. But you guys voted them in, should we be conciliatory towards UKIP voters because they only got 1 MP? I don't think so, they shouldn't be welcomed with open arms either, they too are divisive.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Take Hamish as an example then.

He, like Angus Robertson and Nicola Sturgeon, appear to think that the EU single market is the be all and end all for Scotland, and that coming out of the single market (11% of your trade) merits removing yourself from the UK (64% of your trade) in order to protect and enhance trade with the EU (again, 11%).

It's also removing the over representation Scotland currently enjoys within Westminster, to now play on an equal playing field with the rest of the EU. No longer will you have a say in what 66m people say, you will only represent 5m and what they say in a union nearly 100 times your size.

More of a say than now. Double in fact. And as you know even little countries are treated equally when it comes to vetos etc.

No longer would you enjoy increased funding (incl. provision for North Sea oil revenue) through Barnett. No longer would you enjoy the use of the Great British Pound, the capital flows, the investment and the fiscal levers with which to steer the UK economy. You will peg to Sterling, you will join the Euro, or you will create your own. I'm sure you're well aware that none of those options are particularly attractive, even with Sterling having fallen 20% in value. You will lose revenue that you currently spend, whilst also acknowledging that you spend more than you generate right now. How is that sustainable when you lose the extra £1,200 per head?

There's a lot of uncertainty about no doubt about that.

You speak about these people railing against Brexit and Conservative government. And yet don't take into account the 1m people in Scotland who voted to leave the EU, and those who may not have voted but who also feel as though their communities have suffered through EU policy. As Hamish rightly pointed out, a large proportion of the UK's fishing waters are around Scotland. How many Scottish communities have suffered as a result? With Brexit promising to return these rights, jobs, trade and revenue and independent Scotland in the EU will immediately return them to Brussels.

For every hysterical liberal there will be people whose lives will be improved by repatriation of power from Brussels to Westminster and Holyrood. What of their voting intentions?

Alongside this I seem to recall reading about a large proportion of SNP voters who voted to leave the EU, against the wishes of the SNP who wanted a remain vote in case the rest of the UK voted to leave (so they could get their 2nd indy ref). These SNP voters must be terribly disillusioned with SNP politics now. Not only did these voters want an independent Scotland, but they wanted it to be independent of everyone and everything. Not subservient to the EU. What of these voters?

What of the 48% that voted against Brexit ? Should you disregard the majority in favour of those who voted Remain ? Of course not. And the end of the day, and slice it and second guess it all you like 62% of Scottish voters in the EU referendum voted to remain. Sturgeon cannot discount that.

I think it's far from clear that the political momentum is with the SNP, it's also quite possible that we have indeed reached 'peak SNP' purely because they have now strayed from their original mantra and will now agree to be a satellite of a different, more bureaucratic union than the one they currently inhabit.

Not really, the latest Ipsos Mori poll today has the SNP with 55/56 seats still.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

This puzzles me.

Why do you relish the thought of your major trading partner entering recession just as Scotland goes independent?

This is particularly relevant if you intend to continue using the same currency for a while at least, and certainly if you don't really have control on that currency.

Surely you want a timing and transition plan to independence which gives you the strongest chance of success? That is likely to involve good trading with rUK yes?

In a similar vein with Brexit, I am hoping that pragmatism wins out and the EU is able to enjoy healthy trade with UK and vice versa. The EU has enough issues other than Brexit to deal with.

That's why Sturgeon wants a soft Brexit as I've already said. But if Scotland leaving causes rUK to go into recession just by leaving.. then it rather means that the scrounging Jocks only afloat by virtue of English largesse and generosity argument bites the dust hard doesn't it.

Currency is an unknown right now, apart from the fact it won't be the Euro.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Actually I quite like the idea, exposed by Shakey a page or so back that a referendum vote for seperation should only be deemed valid if there was a vote of 55% of the electorate.

Now why do didn't I think of that? Actually I did of course, but I'm more a 60/40 man myself.

The rationale? Why to enable Scotland, if it does choose separation, does so as a demonstrably united nation.


There is also a case for England (maybe logically rUK?) to vote as well in a separate referendum. As required by the act of Union, the two Parliaments would follow the instruction from their own referendum and separation would only result if both Parliaments voted for it.

One can be sure that should both England and Scotland were to have referendums and England voted to separate Scotland from the Union but Scotland did not, then the SNP would be screaming that their referendum should block the dissolution of the Union. So it makes sense for the will of the people should be respected for both Scotland and England/rUK.

Before we get bleatings from the SNP here, I just remind them that the EU referendum was a UK referendum in which we all voted, so it is not comparable.

Scotland leaving the UK is a matter for Scots residents. England or any of the other nations have no say constitutionally in a vote. Scotland can voluntarily leave the Union. I'm afraid that doesn't actually mean England and Wales can vote to kick them out.

As for the 55% thing. Not only do the Tories want to take us back to the 1950's it seems you want to take us all back for a replay of 1979. It won't happen.

mollycat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

**Scrolls past**;)

^^^^ The epitome of arrogance.

Default position of the SNP up here in Scotland; arrogance, aggression and dismissal of those who call out their propaganda.

Even posters who don't live up here have got your measure!

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

More of a say than now. Double in fact. And as you know even little countries are treated equally when it comes to vetos etc.

You would have far less representation in the European parliament than you do now. Far less than you currently enjoy as a proportion of the UK population, how did you arrive at double?

Shakethedisease wrote: »

What of the 48% that voted against Brexit ? Should you disregard the majority in favour of those who voted Remain ? Of course not. And the end of the day, and slice it and second guess it all you like 62% of Scottish voters in the EU referendum voted to remain. Sturgeon cannot discount that.

I was referring to 'the will of the people' in Scotland regarding independence, the SNP have conflated independence with EU membership which will go against the wishes of some SNP support, and go with the wishes of those who want to remain in the EU and will sacrifice the UK in order to do that. The door swings both ways.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

That's why Sturgeon wants a soft Brexit as I've already said. But if Scotland leaving causes rUK to go into recession just by leaving.. then it rather means that the scrounging Jocks only afloat by virtue of English largesse and generosity argument bites the dust hard doesn't it.

Currency is an unknown right now, apart from the fact it won't be the Euro.

What is the SNP definition of the elements of a soft Brexit

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

That's why Sturgeon wants a soft Brexit as I've already said. But if Scotland leaving causes rUK to go into recession just by leaving.. then it rather means that the scrounging Jocks only afloat by virtue of English largesse and generosity argument bites the dust hard doesn't it.

Currency is an unknown right now, apart from the fact it won't be the Euro.

Well not really, we need each other.

If you believe the UK will suffer enormously the ramifications for Scotland will be untold.

And why is the Euro off the table? The EU could well insist on it, you're not in a position to say no if the single market is so important to Scotland.

.string.

I was not certain of the voting rights in the EU so simply declared it earlier to be according to population. Well it is, but with an additional entitlement for small countries. So congratulations, Shakey, it seems your voting rights are up from 1.2% to probably 2,%.

For information on that see

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union

As for veto --- well in theory but not really in practice for smaller countries.