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

Moto2

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Is this anything to do with the topic ? Or just another yawn inducing prod at a fellow poster on the thread ?

Well it's something to do with some of the 'facts' regarding several topics posted by some posters.

i.e. they fail the test so are incorrect

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Sure it's debatable. But in my opinion hard brexit - indy ref 2. From everything she's done and said so far.

The actual event happened a full 6 months ago.

Events happen all the time. Which change and influence the direction of travel. Speculating on the outcome of negotiations which haven't even started yet is totally pointless. One needs to deal with today's challenges. Not waste time on what might happen. That's if the EU itself come come to an agreement. Brexit is brexit. Hard or soft. It will evolve over an extended period of time.

Shakethedisease

Moto2 wrote: »

Well it's something to do with some of the 'facts' regarding several topics posted by some posters.

i.e. they fail the test so are incorrect

Meh, if you say so, whatever, Moving on #obsessedwithshakeysposts..

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

... and I maintain you might not even know just how hard or soft this Brexit is until deadlines force both parties into resolving all the sticky issues towards the end of A50.

Suppose the discussions on single market access (to choose a topic) hinge on other things like freedom of movement, then all that will happen is to make the discussions even more entangled and complicated.

Could freedom of movement be refined or even redefined?

If Sturgeon argues that the Brexit is looking 'hard' and UK gov put the blame at EU intransigence, what then?

I could even see May avoiding any reference to hard or soft, claiming it to be a facile outlook to complex negotiations.

*Well, I maintain that as soon as Article 50 is invoked the EU will leak info like a sieve and will have no qualms about making public what's going on. Every media outlet in Europe no doubt too.

I also don't believe they'll move on FOM/Single market access. Not right now. Maybe a a few years in the future when rUK has already left ( won't that be a slap in the face ). But no, I don't believe they'll move on it during UK negotiations, there's too much at stake in terms of EU unity. Shifting the goalposts for a country that is leaving anyway ? What's the point ?

Regarding Sturgeon. If it even looks vaguely like being a Hard Brexit she'll put the referendum to Holyrood. The referendum itself should it happen though won't be fought entirely on that basis. Far from it, it's just the catalyst. Independence is Sturgeon's goal after all, not the Single market ( though she'll be wanting that too ).

* all my own opinon for those that cant tell the difference.

cogito

If the Scots had voted for independence, they would have left the EU. Now they are complaining about Brexit taking them out of the EU and want another referendum which, if the result was a vote for independence, would take them out of the EU.

You couldn't make it up.

Moby

Independence in all but name by the back door?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/27/scotland-gain-significant-powers-brexit-claims-david-mundell

TrickyTree83

Moby wrote: »

Independence in all but name by the back door?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/27/scotland-gain-significant-powers-brexit-claims-david-mundell

According to Shake these powers are being repatriated to Westminster.

Then again, this is from an official UK government spokesperson on the subject, so perhaps this could be taken as evidence that Shakey was wrong, totally wrong, on the topic of repatriation of powers to Westminster.

In a separate interview with the Sunday Times, Mundell stressed that no powers would be “re-reserved” to the UK government.

“We need to work out how the UK will work best after powers are repatriated to the United Kingdom, and which powers will be repatriated to Scotland. Whatever the circumstances, no powers will be re-reserved to Westminster.”

Some vindication perhaps? I may see that rarest of commodities, an admission from an indy supporter that they were wrong and I was right!

But I'm not counting any chickens.

mayonnaise

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Some vindication perhaps? I may see that rarest of commodities, an admission from an indy supporter that they were wrong and I was right!

You were right Tricky.

No idea what you were right about, but if it makes you less insecure and will avoid further hysterics in this thread , I'm glad to oblige.

Moto2

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Some vindication perhaps? I may see that rarest of commodities, an admission from an indy supporter that they were wrong and I was right!

Not a chance

They'll just post page after page (they don't do concision) of something quite irrelevant and bizarre

- almost like the Two Ronnies sketch, where they answered the previous question -

in order to get you to give up in frustration and steer the narrative back where they want.

TrickyTree83

mayonnaise wrote: »

You were right Tricky.

No idea what you were right about, but if it makes you less insecure and will avoid further hysterics in this thread , I'm glad to oblige.

If it takes hysterics to crack the real post-truth that goes on in this world then consider it my modus operandi, it worked for the left for decades without any facts.

It's hardly indicative of insecurity to be completely and utterly bewildered by those who refuse to change their opinion based on evidence. The opposite is usually the case, that insecurity leads to a need to conform with certain beliefs, groups, ideologies due to the need to feel a part of something leading to irrationality during confrontation. That's a philosophical argument though, happy to have it somewhere else if you wish.