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

sss555s

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Quick enough to make noise about Brexit. You can't have it both ways. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

You obviously didn't read the post or understand my point.

Shakethedisease

Hugo Rikfind has upset historywoman today..

Brexit ruins my case for the Union

I can feel my views on Scottish independence changing. Not enough to write a column about it, perhaps, but enough to sneak in a mention down here. Scotland voted to stay in the EU, and England didn’t, and this somehow changes everything. People who argue that Scotland also voted to stay in the UK, and so should lump it, miss that point, probably on purpose. Every aspect of Scotland’s settlement with the wider UK, from devolution to the Barnett formula, accepts that the effect of straightforward majority UK rule needs to be mitigated for the Union to survive. Brexit is a deviation from this.
Independence still seems like a bad idea. Economically, I’m pretty sure, it would be an even madder act of folly than it would have been last time. Still, the unionist case I made last time, and believed in, was emotional and cultural more than it was financial, and I’m honestly not sure I could make it again. ‘Bought and sold for English gold,’ sneered the Nats back in 2014. Next time, they’ll be right.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/should-we-all-have-the-right-not-to-bake-a-cake/

TrickyTree83

sss555s wrote: »

I've no idea what document you posted and when. All I can see is you just disagreeing which means nothing to a potential voter considering you're only looking out for what's best for England.

Nope.

You just don't read, like I keep saying. You just keep proving me right again and again. You went ominously quiet after I showed you what the 64% really means. Not your example of 64% of a village of 100 or 11% of 500m - that's not what it is. Did you read that part?

I'm bored of the pivoting and deflection now, if you're wrong and you've not read the documentation provided I'm just going to tell you you're wrong and leave it up to you to find it.

I'm not looking out for what's best for England at all. Keep pitching - I'll keep smacking them out of the park. I've asked time and time again why vote for independence if the economics don't make sense. I either get silence or a pivot or deflection to something about Scottish Labour.

Shakethedisease

While John Curtice and Henry McLeish upset every unionist who reads the Herald.

Independent Scotland could remain in EU after Brexit, leading expert says

AN independent Scotland could remain in the EU after Brexit by taking over the UK’s place as a member state, one of the country’s leading political scientists has said. Professor John Curtice, of Strathclyde University, said Scotland could swap places with Britain in the EU if there was a vote for independence in a second referendum.
He said it was “difficult to deny” that the EU would have the “option” of handing Scotland the UK’s seat in the EU after Brexit under those circumstances.



Curtice also suggested that Nicola Sturgeon might be tempted to run a Yes campaign “predicated on that assessment” of Scotland staying in the EU.
Last night, a Scottish Government source welcomed the remarks, which come ahead of an announcement Sturgeon is due to make in the coming weeks on how to keep Scotland in the EU and the single market.
Former Labour First Minister Henry McLeish said the idea of Scotland taking on the UK’s terms of EU membership was a “positive” suggestion and should form part of Sturgeon’s strategy for protecting Scotland’s place in the EU...

..Curtice said: “Clearly it would depend how the EU decided to interpret that. There would be a choice facing the EU. It could decide to treat Scotland, which is already part of the EU, as the successor state. “The point the Foreign Office paper argued was that an independent Scotland would not inherit EU membership as that membership was the UK’s. But if the rest of the UK wants to get out of the EU, a decision could be made in regard to Scotland being the continuing state.”
A key plank of the case against independence in the run-up to the referendum in 2014 was that the only way to ensure Scotland retained its place in the EU was to vote No, due to the UK’s ongoing membership since 1973.
However, Curtice suggested that this could now mean an independent Scotland taking over these terms of EU membership from the UK after Brexit.
He said: “From an external observer’s judgement having read the Foreign Office paper it seems difficult to deny that possibility...I’m not saying it’s an option the EU would definitely take. These are all tough questions for the EU and if I were the Scottish Government I’d try to run a referendum predicated on that assessment.”

Curtice also said that allowing an independent Scotland to remain in the EU could mean there were benefits for Brussels.
He said: “Clearly the UK decision to leave is a significant blow to the EU. But it could be that hanging on to something from the UK would be better than nothing, from their point of view.
“It could be open to the EU to make a decision to regard Scotland as the continuing state. It could say that Scotland is now the successor state.”

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14831876.__39_Independent_Scotland_could_remain_in_the_EU_after_Brexit_as_successor_state_to_UK__39_/

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Hugo Rikfind has upset historywoman today..

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/should-we-all-have-the-right-not-to-bake-a-cake/

Are you just going to gloss over this part?

Independence still seems like a bad idea. Economically, I’m pretty sure, it would be an even madder act of folly than it would have been last time.

beecher2

Was just about to post Hugo Rifkind's article, interesting stuff. Chris Deerin's attitude had changed too. Always interesting hearing from no voters who aren't so sure after Brexit, more interesting that some of the patronising stuff from posters who haven't stepped foot in Scotland.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Are you just going to gloss over this part?

Yes. There's been no official independence docs released as yet about possible ways of dealing with deficits or currency. Nor will there be until a ref is called.

His point is that the economics are all that's left. And he did upset Jill/historywoman.

Thrugelmir

elantan wrote: »

So instead of answering the question cause you know Scotland's NHS is in a better nick

Many parts of the system cannot cope with the population explosion. Cheap point scoring is easy when you don't consider all the facts. Mind you life expectancy is far lower in parts of Scotland. So there aren't the same issues with an ageing population to contend with.

TrickyTree83

beecher2 wrote: »

Was just about to post Hugo Rifkind's article, interesting stuff. Chris Deerin's attitude had changed too. Always interesting hearing from no voters who aren't so sure after Brexit, more interesting that some of the patronising stuff from posters who haven't stepped foot in Scotland.

Will you gloss over this too?

Independence still seems like a bad idea. Economically, I’m pretty sure, it would be an even madder act of folly than it would have been last time.

If you're going to post it as some way of saying "look, look, these people agree with us!". Are you not also going to defend what they say?

These articles just bang on about culture, or politics, or some other whimsical idea of what being Scottish now means in an era of SNP division, off the back of an EU referendum where the SNP went out of their way to say that people should vote to Remain if they want Independence. As if voting Remain with independence in mind, plus those who genuinely wanted to remain in the EU makes some contrived majority for independence?! Duplicitous. And the liberal journos and media will happily skip along to that tune because they're out of their beloved EU and want to have a moan.

When you/they look at the nitty gritty and not some macro-emotional response to Brexit, independence doesn't make sense. And will not make sense over the coming years. I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

Facts do not care about your feelings.

And they never will.

beecher2

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes. There's been no official independence docs released as yet about possible ways of dealing with deficits or currency. Nor will there be until a ref is called.

His point is that the economics are all that's left. And he did upset Jill/historywoman.

Ewan McGregor's upset her too by saying he supported independence the day after Brexit. Now, he doesn't have a vote and would maybe change his mind but it does show that Brexit has changed things for some people. Both Hugo Rifkind and Kenny Farquharson make the point that the emotional argument is important, something which is completely ignored by Tricky et al, who has just defaulted to 'you're wrong' which is quite hilarious.