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

TrickyTree83

beecher2 wrote: »

I'm not sure how many neutrals there are really - 10% don't knows in that YouGov poll, 3% saying they wouldn't vote. I think election/politics fatigue is quite significant in Scotland - we have had a lot of votes, and a lot of political discussion for what seems like an eternity. A bit of relative peace after the madness of 2016 sounds quite appealing but I do think constitutional affairs will loom over politics regardless.

The raw data

(http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ditypa75v5/TimesScotlandResults_161129_W.pdf)

appears to be suggesting that there is a swing, a small but consistent one across all questions, away from further referenda, remaining in the EU, Scottish independence, engaging with the 'National Conversation' and the SNP in general.

Caveats should be that, it's one poll, it's a poll(!), and we're all well aware of what they've been like in recent history.

If it is correct it's not good news for the SNP, not terrible, but does indicate the mood shifting away from independence being the answer to all Scottish ills resonating with the people of Scotland. Will this signal a change of tack from Nicola and the SNP?

beecher2

kabayiri wrote: »

Don't you think that some people sit close to the Indy Yes/No line?

That was certainly the case in my household over Brexit. In the end we were 50/50 which pretty much reflects my area in fact.

It wouldn't take much big news to push us one way or the other.

Oh, and I can't see any relative peace coming anytime soon

There are some big issues still unresolved, all we have had so far is a bit of can kicking.

Yes there probably are, and I suppose they talk about it less too. You only tend to hear the entrenched view (not that Scottish independence comes up in conversation that much). So much has to be sorted out regarding Brexit and where we go from there.

kabayiri

beecher2 wrote: »

Yes there probably are, and I suppose they talk about it less too. You only tend to hear the entrenched view (not that Scottish independence comes up in conversation that much). So much has to be sorted out regarding Brexit and where we go from there.

Bundling pro-Scottish independence with a very pro-EU stance does seem to be a risky strategy to me.

You will find people who are anti both Unions, for example. It might come down to a value judgement then...just who do you dislike more.

I suspect pollsters really struggle with these complex questions wrapped up in binary options. As a political leader you could think you have it "in the bag" and find it all gone to dust in a few key days/weeks.

(I did email Hillary Clinton this last para of advice, but she might not get it ... I don't know the address of her personal email server )

A_Medium_Size_Jock

kabayiri wrote: »

Bundling pro-Scottish independence with a very pro-EU stance does seem to be a risky strategy to me.

You will find people who are anti both Unions, for example. It might come down to a value judgement then...just who do you dislike more.

I suspect pollsters really struggle with these complex questions wrapped up in binary options. As a political leader you could think you have it "in the bag" and find it all gone to dust in a few key days/weeks.

(I did email Hillary Clinton this last para of advice, but she might not get it ... I don't know the address of her personal email server )

Quite so, I know many like myself who (given the right circumstances) are pro independence yet not pro EU.

One interesting thought (besides current EU problems ahead) regarding Brexit, following beecher2 saying "So much has to be sorted out regarding Brexit and where we go from there.":
Many seem to think of it as some kind of lengthy bargaining debate.
It need not be.
It is TBH only the stance of the EU that is making it so, for the wording is very clear in that - once Article 50 is put forward - the UK cannot decide upon any outcome.
According to the wording surrounding an exit, all decisions will be made by the other 27 member states.
There is no good reason why the UK should not implement Article 50 and simply provide a list of desires.
Two years down the line if the EU have not agreed, we say "goodbye" and return to WTO trading rules.
If the EU impose conditions then the UK can: 1/ retaliate in kind if that is what is needed, and 2/ sue the EU for breach of contract, because the wording clearly states that the EU must not show detrimental conditions are applied to neighbours.

So really, why need it be so lengthy and so accrimonious as senior EU politicos are trying to make it appear?

Moto2

kabayiri wrote: »

(I did email Hillary Clinton this last para of advice, but she might not get it ... I don't know the address of her personal email server )

hrod17@clintonemail.com or hdr22@clintonemail.com

TrickyTree83

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Quite so, I know many like myself who (given the right circumstances) are pro independence yet not pro EU.

One interesting thought (besides current EU problems ahead) regarding Brexit, following beecher2 saying "So much has to be sorted out regarding Brexit and where we go from there.":
Many seem to think of it as some kind of lengthy bargaining debate.
It need not be.
It is TBH only the stance of the EU that is making it so, for the wording is very clear in that - once Article 50 is put forward - the UK cannot decide upon any outcome.
According to the wording surrounding an exit, all decisions will be made by the other 27 member states.
There is no good reason why the UK should not implement Article 50 and simply provide a list of desires.
Two years down the line if the EU have not agreed, we say "goodbye" and return to WTO trading rules.
If the EU impose conditions then the UK can: 1/ retaliate in kind if that is what is needed, and 2/ sue the EU for breach of contract, because the wording clearly states that the EU must not show detrimental conditions are applied to neighbours.

So really, why need it be so lengthy and so accrimonious as senior EU politicos are trying to make it appear?

Fear of legitmising "the will of the people".

One successful referendum means that maybe the Dutch, French, Austrians, Swedes and Italians can do it too. If the EU ceases to exist in its current form these people in the EU institutions have no job and no power. Of course you will fight to protect that, whatever the price. Less jobs and less power is better than no jobs and no power.

Problem being that the heads of state of the 27 members may disagree entirely and want a good relationship. We'll see if these two groups of people are on the same page or not during negotiations.

kabayiri

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

...
So really, why need it be so lengthy and so accrimonious as senior EU politicos are trying to make it appear?

They struggled even to get little old Wallonia to trade Euro cheese for Canadian maple syrup.

Getting them to decide on a collective viewpoint towards the UK might be a bit of a struggle.

(Except Eire....they will be sat at the back of the room wondering if they are to be sacrificed at the EU altar for the greater good)

My negotiation strategy for UK in Brexit talks is to subcontract the PR work to RT ! Those guys can spin anything

kabayiri

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Fear of legitmising "the will of the people".

One successful referendum means that maybe the Dutch, French, Austrians, Swedes and Italians can do it too. If the EU ceases to exist in its current form these people in the EU institutions have no job and no power. Of course you will fight to protect that, whatever the price. Less jobs and less power is better than no jobs and no power.
...

I've seen this argument.

It's rubbish. What club has stopped you leaving just because your mates might?

It's supposed to be a beneficial club, not a prison.

TrickyTree83

kabayiri wrote: »

I've seen this argument.

It's rubbish. What club has stopped you leaving just because your mates might?

It's supposed to be a beneficial club, not a prison.

There's a recent interview with Junker where he basically says as much.

http://www.euronews.com/2016/11/26/global-conversation-exclusive-interview-with-european-commission-president-jean

Given the noise coming from different political and industrial bodies in the EU 27 regarding wanting a good deal, and the EU institutions saying they "do not want an amicable divorce" (Junker quote), Hollande talking tough, Merkel flip-flopping between talking tough and then pragmatically I see problems between what the EU wants, what the EU 27 want, and what the UK wants. I suspect what the UK wants will align more closely with what the EU 27 want. That will be where I'd see the pragmatic deal being made. My concern for the negotiation comes from the EU institutions who are under direct threat from an amicable divorce. Of course it will embolden anti-EU movements.

kabayiri

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

There's a recent interview with Junker where he basically says as much.

http://www.euronews.com/2016/11/26/global-conversation-exclusive-interview-with-european-commission-president-jean

Given the noise coming from different political and industrial bodies in the EU 27 regarding wanting a good deal, and the EU institutions saying they "do not want an amicable divorce" (Junker quote), Hollande talking tough, Merkel flip-flopping between talking tough and then pragmatically I see problems between what the EU wants, what the EU 27 want, and what the UK wants. I suspect what the UK wants will align more closely with what the EU 27 want. That will be where I'd see the pragmatic deal being made. My concern for the negotiation comes from the EU institutions who are under direct threat from an amicable divorce. Of course it will embolden anti-EU movements.

Isn't it about this time that Shakey comes and tells us off for cr4pping on her thread?

Throw in a few random tweets from a journo whose sister used to date the cousin of Nicola Sturgeon's hairdresser....that should sort things :rotfl: