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

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

If she announces too soon then the long knives in the Tory party will be out..

And if she leaves it too late then Indyref2 will become reality.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You're confusing what's needed to win the vote, with what happens afterwards. An independence vote needs to be won by articulating what's possible, pros and cons.

Not by detailing every single nuance of it's negotiating strategies before any referendum has even been called.

Brexit needs fleshed out first about what it means to everyone in their day to day lives. If there is a referendum comes off the back of this, and it's still not certain.. then currency and deficit reduction plans (plural) will be outlined.

why is there any need to delay telling the voters of scotland what currency arrangement there will be after iscotland?

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

If you don't know where the negotiations will end up, as you say, then how can you say we are on track for a Soft or Hard Brexit?

You are in fact acknowledging the possibility of the Brexit deal changing at the 11th hour. After all, this has happened before in EU negotiations with member states.

I'm trying to understand how NS can work the slow Brexit negotiations as a way of justifying an independence referendum before A50 completes.

Have you given up on that now?

Sturgeon will be putting forward the EFTA option for Scotland before the New Year. If that's refused outright as nonsense it will be an indicator of what's to come for the UK.

Also, while there has been great secrecy and a lot of chunter about 'not giving way our negotiating stance' in the UK. Once Article 50 is invoked, is likely that the EU themselves will be providing a running commentary. Keeping things for now quiet and behind closed doors isn't something that's likely to happen once negotiations get underway. It should become pretty obvious very quickly what the UK is aiming for and whether they'll cross any of Sturgeon's 'red lines'. 11th hour notwithstanding the fact that the UK Govt even want to cross these red lines regarding the single market etc would probably be enough for Sturgeon to justify a second referendum.

You surely don't think the EU is going to go into 2 years of completely secret negotiations without making comment do you ? I think the opposite is more likely to happen.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

why is there any need to delay telling the voters of scotland what currency arrangement there will be after iscotland?

Because any option put forward for immediately after independence is likely to be transitional, not permanent. But it won't stop the misleading media frenzy that will accompany any such announcement. Why give them the ammo like last time. Even the currency union last time was only supposed to be transitional. Look at what happened there media wise.

Best to wait a while yet. At least until a referendum or similar is actually confirmed.

.string.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Not to those involved. Civil Servants aren't comedians. They undertake their duties in a professional manner. The joke is listening to people who haven't a clue as they are too wrapped up in their own bubble. When there's a far bigger world outside.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

In the event of a hard Brexit the UK deficit will be also be around 10%.

Can you elaborate please? Which deficit do you mean (it seems we have different meanings here) and what does a hard Brexit mean to you. For example would a deal like Canada has constitute a hard Brexit?

elantan

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Because any option put forward for immediately after independence is likely to be transitional, not permanent. But it won't stop the misleading media frenzy that will accompany any such announcement. Why give them the ammo like last time. Even the currency union last time was only supposed to be transitional. Look at what happened there media wise.

Best to wait a while yet. At least until a referendum or similar is actually confirmed.

but but but what about the £350m a week extra for the nhs were gonna get the side of a bus said so... Isnt it wonderful how its widely accepted that there were no plans for Brexit but if Scotland even thinks about it then everything must be laid out bare for all to see ...

dontcha love the irony :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Because any option put forward for immediately after independence is likely to be transitional, not permanent. But it won't stop the misleading media frenzy that will accompany any such announcement. Why give them the ammo like last time. Even the currency union last time was only supposed to be transitional. Look at what happened there media wise.

Best to wait a while yet. At least until a referendum or similar is actually confirmed.

Pro-indy will have to tell the public what their plans are in advance, it'll be part of the campaign, or you'll be ripped a new one by the media and opposition alike because you've got no answers (like this thread actually).

Your plan will not be good enough, as usual it will be built on ideas that only work with pixie dust (see oil @ $100+ per barrel and the citizens dividend, debt (not deficit) vs assets, Whiskey Export Duty, non-identifiable spending, GERS being wrong, etc...).

The lack of engagement/blatant ignoring of the questions around the deficit, the border effect, the lies in the memes, all goes to show that there's no answers from the pro-independence crowd and that you'll all be hoping to convince people using disinformation. I wouldn't take any solace that you have people like Hamish backing you up either, ask him what his predictions were for the Brexit recession (1.7m homes was it? Something like 8 times more than the 2008 global crisis?). And he's still trying to defend independence using similar forecasts from similar economists that the UK will suffer despite evidence to the contrary as Shakey pointed out not many pages ago. Quite how bad UK performance points to good Scottish performance when Scotland's deficit is twice that of the UK is a lesson in logic clearly I'm yet to learn.

You contradict each other, and yourselves. I don't know how you were convinced independence is the answer to your problems, but however it happened it's now a dogmatic culture.

I guess you're all thinking if you ignore me or put me on ignore I'll go away. Well, neutrals won't have me on ignore when they first come to read all this, so I guess I'll carry on. If I can't change the dogmatic individuals then at least I can inform the undecided/neutral what you're really advocating for.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Because any option put forward for immediately after independence is likely to be transitional, not permanent. But it won't stop the misleading media frenzy that will accompany any such announcement. Why give them the ammo like last time. Even the currency union last time was only supposed to be transitional. Look at what happened there media wise.

Best to wait a while yet. At least until a referendum or similar is actually confirmed.

at least you are honest; that you believe the people of scotland are too stupid to be told the truth
or do you mean they are too smart to vote for the truth and so best not tell them

pathetic.

.string.

mollycat wrote: »

Yeah, yeah, you've established your working class credentials.

You've established your hatred for the tories.

Why this is relevant in this debate is beyond me.

Why on earth a you campaigning for an outcome which will devastate the lives of the poor, the vulnerable and anyone who requires a robust state led level of services.

If we were ever in the nightmare scenario of massive cuts to services, a currency not worth the paper it's printed on, an economy from the dark ages and zero influence in the world, I don't think many people will be interested in "we got rid of the tories"

It seems independence supporters are quite happy for Scots to suffer austerity as a price worth paying for imagined "control".

ps Any chance of answering Clapton's oft asked query regarding which currency we would use?

These are good points you raise and it cuts to the root of SNP thinking. They simply don't care about such things and are prepared to hide the facts and pretend they don't exist. Shakey "ignoring" what you post is a symptom of that; preferring to ignore than debate the facts. Other examples are TT's valiant attempts to discuss real statistics which are completely ignored.

The matter of the currency has its tactical element though. Sturgeon and her devoted acolytes like to pretend that Scotland can simply join seamlessly in the EU. In that case keeping the pound for a very brief period (e en zero)until submerging Scotland's economy in the Euro would presumably be the thinking, but an extended time (8 years?) in limbo outside both the EU and the UK would, I suspect, necessitate a Scottish currency. So the choice of currency depends on what happens vis a vis the EU.

One consequence of that is that Sturgeon cannot state an assumption for either. To claim the first would invite even more ridicule and to choose the second would be to admit they don't believe their own claim of seamless EU membership.

But what do they care, just keep blathering and hiding from awkward points like yours and hope that they have enough gullible voters to get 50% + 1 vote and never mind the divisions within Scotland. Economic problems? Hating the Tories will hide that.

skintmacflint

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Westminster can easily enough prevent a second referendum all Theresa May has to do is announce we'll be staying in the Single Market via applying for the EEA/EFTA route and Indyref2 is off the agenda

If we keep full membership of the single market and freedom of movement then Scotland's red lines haven't been crossed and Sturgeon knows she won't win.

Since the day after the Ind Ref, all we have heard from SNP and Yes supporters is threats of a 2nd Ref. Everything SNP MPs and MSPs have done since 2014 is attempt to create division , bad feeling and distrust between us and our neighbours. The only thing which will stop this, is losing a 2nd referendum.

In 2014, I was pretty unsure about the result. Not this time. Short of some disaster happening like Hilary Clinton's present debacle, they will lose again.

As an aside while Sturgeon is determined to stay tied to the single market and founding principles, Scotland will not have gained Independence. But will have agreed to be consumed as part of a new superstate.

Appreciate that doesn't worry you, and you seem content about being part of a new European superstate. But most of the real SNP/Ind supporters who've wanted Independence since 1970's don't share your view. They're not willing to swap a degree of Westminster control, for total Brussels control.