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

.string.

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?

Before my remarks, I'd just like to say to anyone in general that discussing Brexit is not off topic since it has become the SNP's focus for an SNP Referendum.

Anyway, on the points in your post.

That point about there being no detrimental effects is interesting.


Whether a particular EU muttering is acrimonious is a bit debatable - it depends in part on the context of what was said and if the sensitivies around cause an acrimonious interpretation.

But actually I do think Brexit is a lengthy thing to prepare, especially in view of May's reputation for detailed preparation prior to decisions.

The negotiation will involve balancing the hangups of several countries. As is the nature of negotiations, accommodating such things in the context of wider objectives require that their cost be known and this takes time, both the analysis of who might want what, how important it is to us and them and where it lies in the hierarchy of importance. Such things can lead us into areas which might otherwise be considered "minutiae" such as EU funding for an infrastructure project or technological development which may be vital for the "Walloons of Europe" but not the UK.

So I would think that a lot of work is needed to set up a clear database of the wishlist priorities and the costs of doing this or that and also the cost of not doing it. As one example of what might be done is to divide the "issue list" (probably a better name than wish list) into issues which are not negotiable, negotiable, nice to have, nice to have but expendable and don't care. Naturally a sense of what might be on that hierarchy would be very sensitive and are better not aired in public, regardless of what our self important MPs might want. For example there might even be things which we might pretend to be interested in for the sake of misinformation.

One thing to mention in that context is that of continuing budgets for EU line items. It must be a nightmare for the EU not to know whether the UK will or will not be contributing to ongoing projects. To some extent the UK has given up some of that leverage when, under pressure, the government was obliged (forced would be to strong a word) to underwrite some sections of EU support such as academic research.

Nevertheless, writing the 2020 budget for the EU will not be easy with the UK's contribution in doubt, particularly if there were to be a cliff edge in 2 years time. As will the staff needed at the EU be an internal concern for the Commission.

All these things need to be understood and worked into a framework of approach for the negotiation. So I'm not surprised it takes time.

elantan

Allegedly the National now outsells the Scotsman.... nice one

The_Last_Username

elantan wrote: »

Allegedly the National now outsells the Scotsman.... nice one

Really?
Show us the figures then?
With how many hundreds of thousands in Scotland are buying?
As a reference, from the March audit the Scottish Sun sold 222,643, the Record 167,547 and even the Times Scotland 24,398.
So, figures?

elantan

The_Last_Username wrote: »

Really?
Show us the figures then?
With how many hundreds of thousands in Scotland are buying?
As a reference, from the March audit the Scottish Sun sold 222,643, the Record 167,547 and even the Times Scotland 24,398.
So, figures?

Well if you want the exact figures


http://www.abc.org.uk/Certificates-Reports/Our-Reports/

Feel free to join

Moto2

The figures (Jun-Dec 2106) aren't out until mid Jan

The National wasn't included in the ABCs for the first half of the year

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/regional-website-abcs-online-growth-for-publishers-as-website-figures-jump/

Shakethedisease

elantan wrote: »

Allegedly the National now outsells the Scotsman.... nice one

I have no idea about physical papers.. but the Scotsman's website is absolutely dire. None of my browsers can cope with the ads, and the comments sections under the articles.. It's like a 2014 time warp. They all seem to be migrating over to the Herald's comments sections too which I really only still subscribe to mainly for the Sunday version.

Love The National's front covers. Like the paper or not, it's a very strong stand out in the newspaper stands in the morning. The Sunday Herald seems to be pulling no punches in this weeks edition about Davidson and Dugdale either from their tweets tonight.

The Sunday Herald View Tory cruelty and Labour failure betray Scotland

'Kezia Dugdale should go.' says senior Momentum leader in Scotland Full story in tomorrow's paper

Brexit case moves into Supreme Court on Monday in final legal show-down Full analysis in tomorrow's paper

Calls for Sturgeon to lead second EU ref for all of UK Full story in tomorrow's paper

Indyref2 more likely after Tory Brexit snub to Scotland Full story in tomorrow's paper

Yes, definitely worth the subscription just for the Sunday. :T

Shakethedisease

Oh and I see the SNP got their two million target for the National Survey. I'm not surprised as they pulled out all the stops going to do so online, via members, street stalls everywhere etc. Should give them a good lot of data to gage what's what with the Yes 2014/ Leave 2016 and No 2014/Remain 2016 people that responded in particular.. ( I assume they'll discount the solid 10/10 Yes/Remain and No/Leave voters ).

A_Medium_Size_Jock

elantan wrote: »

Well if you want the exact figures


http://www.abc.org.uk/Certificates-Reports/Our-Reports/

Feel free to join

We'll take that as a "no" then shall we?
"Allegedly" my wotsit; "allegedly" the moon is made of cream cheese - & btw, given that The Scotsman is so dire I wouldn't be surprised if almost ANY other newspaper had more readers.
As for "Feel free...."?
At a minimum of £500 for "access to reports"?
As usual for you, you're just taking the proverbial.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Oh and I see the SNP got their two million target for the National Survey. I'm not surprised as they pulled out all the stops going to do so online, via members, street stalls everywhere etc. Should give them a good lot of data to gage what's what with the Yes 2014/ Leave 2016 and No 2014/Remain 2016 people that responded in particular.. ( I assume they'll discount the solid 10/10 Yes/Remain and No/Leave voters ).

Tell us, do they plan on publishing any of this data?

Moto2

What does it matter?

Sturgeon has already said a second independence referendum is "highly likely" following the EU referendum.
Now, it may happen if the UK goes hard on brexit

Next week, who knows?