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

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

antrobus wrote: »

There is a 'legal argument'. I'm no sure how strong it is.

Well compared to the alternative of 100% definitely leaving the EU even a weak chance of remaining via successor state status is an improvement.

Strange. That blog of yours says otherwise.

Of course, the EU and the UK’s Westminster government would have to consent to this in as part of their post-Brexit treaty, and it could only work if there was significant related devolution to Scotland, as the First Minister suggested.

The passage you refer to is discussing the 'reverse greenland' option of Scotland staying in the EEA whilst also staying in the UK.

The passage I quoted referred to a newly Indy Scotland being in the EEA - which would not require Westminster approval as the UK is leaving the EU - and as the author notes is also unlikely to meet any objection from the existing member states..

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

..Whether that's via the EU/EEA/EFTA remains to be seen. Imo the most likely way at the present time ( given the current unknowns ) to win an indy ref campaign is via EEA or EFTA being put forward as a purely transitional option until independence and Brexit is sorted out. With a future EU referendum after this point.....

The EFTA convention clearly refers to Member States. Thus EFTA membership would require Scotland to be a state. There is no 'transistional option' as your describe it.

See Article 56

http://www.efta.int/sites/default/files/documents/legal-texts/efta-convention/Vaduz%20Convention%20Agreement.pdf

Both Norway and Iceland have already made the position very clear.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/21/norwegian-minister-warns-scotland-cannot-pursue-nicola-sturgeon/

Less time spent on twitter, more time spent in the real world, methinks.:)

beecher2

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/labour-set-to-lose-scottish-councils-2qt7jkxgj
Article on labour losing council seats

Since then, however, support for Labour has collapsed. Whereas on average polls at the beginning of 2012 for Westminster voting intentions put Labour on 41%, the SNP on 30%, Tories on 17% and Liberal Democrats on 8%, this has now fallen sharply to a record low of 15% for Labour, while the SNP has risen to 47% and the Tories to 27%, but the Lib Dems have slipped to 4%.

And on most expecting independence

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/most-expect-independence-gkx98h35g

antrobus

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well compared to the alternative of 100% definitely leaving the EU even a weak chance of remaining via successor state status is an improvement. ...

It would make Brexit a lot simpler. Scotland takes on all the UK's EU financial obligations. And as the successor state Scotland will be welcome to the £1.6 trillion national debt as well. I think you will find that most people south of the wall would be very happy with that.:)

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...The passage you refer to is discussing the 'reverse greenland' option of Scotland staying in the EEA whilst also staying in the UK....

Well, I was responding to your statement that there was "virtually no impediments to Scotland gaining EEA membership almost immediately". Perhaps you should have been clearer as to what you were being immediate about.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

.The passage I quoted referred to a newly Indy Scotland being in the EEA - which would not require Westminster approval as the UK is leaving the EU - and as the author notes is also unlikely to meet any objection from the existing member states..

The UK will have left the EU well before Scotland can become independent.

antrobus

beecher2 wrote: »

...And on most expecting independence

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/most-expect-independence-gkx98h35g

The poll results appear to be here..
http://www.panelbase.com/media/polls.aspx

Interestingly, the results show that; if there was a referendum tomorrow, the majority would still say 'No', and that 51% say that there should not be another independence referendum in the next few years.

The results don't seem to include the 'expect independence' question. And I'm not sure how you would interpret the result that "38% expect independence in 5-10 years, 16% in 10-15., and 7% in 20-30", given the results noted above. I really don't know.

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Sturgeon only has to sell Single Market membership to the Scottish electorate, pitching it as as the lesser of two economic evils given that change is going to happen either way.

How about convincing people of the economic benefits of independence first?

TrickyTree83

Thrugelmir wrote: »

How about convincing people of the economic benefits of independence first?

Haha, prove the existence of rocking horse excrement whilst you're at it

mrginge

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Sturgeon ( as Hamish has also alluded to ) only has to sell Single Market membership to the Scottish electorate, pitching it as as the lesser of two economic evils given that change is going to happen either way.

Hasn't that already been sold to the Scottish electorate?
You have at least 62% based on the eu referendum already. And the fact that they aren't getting SM membership under brexit should make independence a dead cert.

Why do you need to delay any more?

mollycat

Thrugelmir wrote: »

How about convincing people of the economic benefits of independence first?

The people who post here supporting Independence don't care about the economic arguement; I say that because there is no one that could fail to understand the economic arguement.

Therefore to them, this economic arguement is less important than the offence of being governed by the democratic choice of their fellow UK electorate. (And not having the patience to wait a further 5 years to attempt to change this )

Their fallacy is to believe the economic arguement doesn't matter!

Because of the financial robustness they have lived in for decades, (the UK), they have become accustomed to living with the safety net a strong economy can provide and think that this indulgence could continue in an iScotland.

They might want to live in a Greece style economy with Greece style services; I dont!!

cogito

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

If however Sturgeon decides to go for Indy based on EEA rather than EU membership - ie we get to keep all the single market and free movement stuff and also control of fishing grounds - then it would likely push support for Indy over the 50% mark.

Under this scenario, Scotland would lose the subsidy it gets under the Barnett formula, have to pay membership fees to the EU and not get the money from the EU that it's counting on. Why would the Scots vote for lose, lose, lose?