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

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The 'snipes' only appear to occur because of the irrationality of the SNP and their supporters dogma.

I was recently reading on facebook that independence supporters do not believe that the recent ruling (if upheld) would apply to a Scottish advisory referendum. They really do make it up as they go along. In fact no so long back you were also saying an advisory referendum is all that is required, we bickered for quite some time about it. I recall conceding as it's not my main argument/point, which is that regardless of whether you can or cannot, it remains the stupid choice.

An advisory referendum IS all that is required. Since the EU was was advisory also as 99% of referendums are and have been in the UK thus far. Are you trying to hold Scotland to a different standard than that which you hold Westminster in that regard ?

If an advisory referendum were to be held and a Yes vote delivered, then of course Westminster must vote to enact this at some point. No one is saying otherwise.

I am truly sorry that you and some others here don't like your own views and opinions challenged, and challenged repeatedly in some cases. But after all this IS a debate forum. If it's an echo chamber you are after then this is probably the wrong forum for you and I say that as someone that enjoys engaging with you and others here.

mollycat

Apologies to other posters but #4843 needs to be called out, challenged and highlighted as a deliberate tactic to discredit opposition view.

Post #4838; a comment by yourself expressing an opinion on myself and Hintza.

That's where any sniping began....for you to sanctimoniously then lecture me on the following page is absolutely ridiculous.

I'll let the thread return to it's usual format of .string/TT et all manfully puting sensible points; others responding with multiple posts/links attempting to manipulate the vulnerable.

Sorry you don't like it; just saying what i see.

Shakethedisease

mollycat wrote: »

Apologies to other posters but #4843 needs to be called out, challenged and highlighted as a deliberate tactic to discredit opposition view.

Post #4838; a comment by yourself expressing an opinion on myself and Hintza.

That's where any sniping began....for you to sanctimoniously then lecture me on the following page is absolutely ridiculous.

I'll let the thread return to it's usual format of .string/TT et all manfully puting sensible points; others responding with multiple posts/links attempting to manipulate the vulnerable.

Sorry you don't like it; just saying what i see.

Manfully. :D:D I like that ! But since you obviously have the grand total of nothing to say on current events other than the usual there's nothing really to debate with you on. So I'll leave our chat here 'womanfully'.

mollycat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Manfully. :D:D I like that ! But since you obviously have the grand total of nothing to say on current events other than the usual there's nothing really to debate with you on. So I'll leave our chat here 'womanfully'.

I've lots to say on current events; but guess what...there's more going on in the world than half a dozen people bleating about what a rough deal they think Scotland gets

Thanks for letting me post on your thread; hope your bosses over at SNP HQ aren't giving you too much hassle on how it's all going :rotfl::rotfl:

Bye for now!

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

An advisory referendum IS all that is required. Since the EU was was advisory also as 99% of referendums are and have been in the UK thus far. Are you trying to hold Scotland to a different standard than that which you hold Westminster in that regard ?

If an advisory referendum were to be held and a Yes vote delivered, then of course Westminster must vote to enact this at some point. No one is saying otherwise.

I am truly sorry that you and some others here don't like your own views and opinions challenged, and challenged repeatedly in some cases. But after all this IS a debate forum. If it's an echo chamber you are after then this is probably the wrong forum for you and I say that as someone that enjoys engaging with you and others here.

I'm not trying to hold Scotland to a different standard.

If it's possible to vote leaving the EU down in the House of Commons it's therefore also reasonable to say that an advisory independence referendum can also be voted down. I'm just following the logic of the legal process and pointing out that some independence supporters think the rules do not apply to them and their cause. Clearly they are wrong.

I don't think my views and opinions are being challenged on this thread. Perhaps in others as they're focusing more on ideological position and values, whereas here I've tried mostly to stick to the economic argument as I'm sure you're well aware. I do get sucked into debating the political aspects and being an outsider looking in I have a different perspective than that of yourself. As I said before it doesn't make my perspective any less valid than yours, just different.

I'm not looking for an echo chamber on this particular topic, but I passionately want the UK to remain as one, so I looked into the arguments for independence and found that the economic argument is one based on reasonably accurate numerical facts that demonstrates there is a clear and obvious risk to being independent and in the EU as opposed to remaining in the UK and trading with the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK.

I've presented the economic argument many times and never really felt that there have been answers. It's something that to date independence posters on here have failed to address, Wings Over Scotland has failed to address and the SNP have failed to address. So if the economic argument for remaining in the UK is a solid one, even in the event of WTO trade terms after leaving the EU, why is this point not being conceded? A simple acknowledgement that the argument for independence is not an economically positive one and that voters in a 2nd independence referendum who are concerned about their jobs, taxation, public services or money in general should vote to remain in the UK.

kabayiri

Anyway....do we have a date yet for the next Scottish independence referendum?

How about the one Hamish offered? Too soon you think?

Do you think more Scots would turn out than for the unappealing EU referendum? Maybe you are getting bored...

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

Anyway....do we have a date yet for the next Scottish independence referendum?

All eyes are on the weather vane. As was the case with Mary Poppins. The right wind direction is very infrequent indeed.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I'm not trying to hold Scotland to a different standard.

If it's possible to vote leaving the EU down in the House of Commons it's therefore also reasonable to say that an advisory independence referendum can also be voted down. I'm just following the logic of the legal process and pointing out that some independence supporters think the rules do not apply to them and their cause. Clearly they are wrong.

It's a debatable issue. Since what you're saying is in essence that the EU could in theory vote to stop the UK leaving the EU even after a referendum where the UK has voted to leave the Union. Can you imagine ?

Westminster voting to stop Scotland leaving the UK after a Yes vote would be exactly the same. Yet the thought of the EU being able to vote to stop the UK leaving is unthinkable isn't it ? Scotland shouldn't be held to a different standard than Westminster itself is. But it's regularly touted in here that Westminster will refuse to 'let' Scotland leave should such a result occur.

I don't think my views and opinions are being challenged on this thread. Perhaps in others as they're focusing more on ideological position and values, whereas here I've tried mostly to stick to the economic argument as I'm sure you're well aware. I do get sucked into debating the political aspects and being an outsider looking in I have a different perspective than that of yourself. As I said before it doesn't make my perspective any less valid than yours, just different.

I'm not looking for an echo chamber on this particular topic, but I passionately want the UK to remain as one, so I looked into the arguments for independence and found that the economic argument is one based on reasonably accurate numerical facts that demonstrates there is a clear and obvious risk to being independent and in the EU as opposed to remaining in the UK and trading with the EU on the same terms as the rest of the UK.

You do not know the figures involved since no one knows what the UK-EU deal will end up as.

I've presented the economic argument many times and never really felt that there have been answers. It's something that to date independence posters on here have failed to address, Wings Over Scotland has failed to address and the SNP have failed to address. So if the economic argument for remaining in the UK is a solid one, even in the event of WTO trade terms after leaving the EU, why is this point not being conceded? A simple acknowledgement that the argument for independence is not an economically positive one and that voters in a 2nd independence referendum who are concerned about their jobs, taxation, public services or money in general should vote to remain in the UK.

But staying in a UK out of the EU might also be less than palatable in terms of economics. Politically it certainly seems to be the case, economically there's less and less between the two as time goes on.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It's a debatable issue. Since what you're saying is in essence that the EU could in theory vote to stop the UK leaving the EU even after a referendum where the UK has voted to leave the Union. Can you imagine ?

Westminster voting to stop Scotland leaving the UK after a Yes vote would be exactly the same. Yet the thought of the EU being able to vote to stop the UK leaving is unthinkable isn't it ? Scotland shouldn't be held to a different standard than Westminster itself is. But it's regularly touted in here that Westminster will refuse to 'let' Scotland leave should such a result occur.

You do not know the figures involved since no one knows what the UK-EU deal will end up as.

But staying in a UK out of the EU might also be less than palatable in terms of economics. Politically it certainly seems to be the case, economically there's less and less between the two as time goes on.

I wasn't looking to equate Scotland voting to leave the UK with the UK voting to leave the EU since that's not what I said.

I was saying that an advisory referendum in the UK appears to have to be ratified by the sovereign parliament. Everyone here knows that the EU has articles in the Lisbon treaty which provide for exiting the EU, there is no such legislation in the UK.

So lets put that comparison to one side please.

If the EU referendum, which was advisory, can be voted down in Westminster it also logically follows that a Scottish advisory referendum can be voted down in Westminster based on the same statute if the high court ruling is upheld. To me that appears to be a dead end, whilst I would expect that MP's will reflect the will of the people with regards to advisory referenda it's entirely possible that they will not.

You're correct that I don't know the figures of a deal between the UK and the EU, no one will since it's a future possibility. So in comparing Scotland in the UK or the EU we should assume a position, either favourable terms or awful terms.

--- for beecher2: repetition alert ---

Taking the latest figures from the Scottish government as up to date:

On awful terms Scotland risks 64% of its external trade by leaving the integrated market of the UK for the EU single market.

Scotland would risk 11% of its trade external trade by remaining in the UK integrated market and leaving the EU single market.

If the deal is on favourable terms, then Scotland would need to risk neither bloc of external trade. This is a more favourable independence position, but is at odds with Nicola's stated position of single market membership triggering a referendum. Then there's questions around why would you sacrifice Barnett, which at least for now is guaranteed money, introduce the "border effect" and cause problems with which currency will be used if you have the best of both worlds?

Politically there will always be a problem for Scotland in the UK whilst the SNP are voted into power. They are forever in opposition in Westminster. That is something Scots have done to themselves, and now you're blaming Westminster for a self-inflicted wound. It's not surprising that you continue to feel disenfranchised at Westminster having made the problem worse than it was when Scotland was a Labour stronghold.

kabayiri

Thrugelmir wrote: »

All eyes are on the weather vane. As was the case with Mary Poppins. The right wind direction is very infrequent indeed.

Arguably, choosing a date is an inherent bias favouring one side or the other, because of the underlying economic and social conditions.

This is why I am in favour of the national lottery bonus ball being used to determine the month/year of each future referendum.

Could that weather vane double as an impromptu wind turbine do you think? I'm not sure we should play into the SNP strengths, namely "renewables, renewables, renewables".