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

mrginge

cogito wrote: »

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?

they would vote for it because the SNP will tell them that's the best deal on offer.

And they will tell them this while the UK and EU are in mid negotiation to allow at least some access to the SM and while the UK is actively progressing trade deals with various non-EU countries.

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

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.:)

We're talking about Scotland becoming independent. Thus 'a state'. Which makes your whole post above irrelevant. You keep confusing and conflating an independent Scotland, with a Scotland still within the UK. In fact lots of posters here are doing so.

EFTA/EEA is an option open to Scotland should a vote for independence occur. Imo ( <-- that means in my OWN opinion ) Sturgeon should sell it for all it's worth as a transitional phase after independence is voted for.

Less time spent skimming posts without taking them in and more time spent actually reading what they say methinks.

Shakethedisease

mrginge wrote: »

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?

No. Outside the UK but in the Single Market hasn't been sold as yet.

However in the context of the posts here ( kabayiri ) which seem to concentrate solely on Scotland and 27 other EU states and how Sturgeon is going to work that one out/seen as a dissenting voice/narrow nationalist cause blah blah...

I was simply pointing out that at the end of the day selling the Single Market to Scottish voters as the least worst of two options is all Sturgeon needs to do. It'll be up to someone else entirely to sell a hard Brexit and right wing Conservative Governments for the next ten years.

Shakethedisease

Thrugelmir wrote: »

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

Full Single Market access will be a very good start. Won't have that in the UK.

mollycat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I was simply pointing out that at the end of the day selling the Single Market to Scottish voters as the least worst of two options is all Sturgeon needs to do. It'll be up to someone else entirely to sell a hard Brexit and right wing Conservative Governments for the next ten years.

People would really advocate throwing away every single one of the numerous advantages of being a part of the UK on the basis of: 1. Leaving a EU that may self destruct in a generation anyway, and 2.The fact that future democratically elected UK governments may not be to their liking? (Even for a whole 10 years!)

Shallow, short term thinking that would lead to an irreversible and almost immediately regretted consequence.

Anyone who lives in Scotland who hopes for any kind of future, or their children's, grandchildren's, etc etc futures needs to run a million miles from this illogical, selfish cult of nonsense.

Tromking

Latest panelbase Westminster voting intention poll has the Tories up 3 on 27% with Scottish Labour down 1 on 15% and the SNP static on 47%.
Up front Unionism becoming a thing in Scotland it seems.

AnotherJoe

mollycat wrote: »

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!!

I disagree, they seem to believe the economic argument is in their favour because access to the SM is a being held up as a panacea - the independence argument on its own is obviously not credible since they would swap being one voice in 4 to one voice in 28, so that cant be it.

Go it alone ala UK i can understand. A nation might say "we want independence and screw the economy". That at least is a rational argument. "he who would sacrifice freedom ..." etc

But, leave the UK and then plan to jump back into a worse (and failing) version of it with less influence on the grounds of independence, that's barking.

kabayiri

antrobus wrote: »

What favourable accession terms do you think would be offered, and why?
...

The why is difficult...I can't speak for the EU.

Favourable terms?....Well, a newly formed iScotland would be carrying more debt than would fall under the rules. But, there are ways around this.

An iScotland would not have all the state machinery in place, and might have to rely on leasing services from a Brexited UK too.

The commitment to move to the Euro might need some flex on timeframe too.

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Full Single Market access will be a very good start. Won't have that in the UK.

Who knows what the outcome will be. As a comparison NAFTA is clearly not working for all the parties concerned. As business itself exploits the freedoms afforded.

kabayiri

AnotherJoe wrote: »

...
But, leave the UK and then plan to jump back into a worse (and failing) version of it with less influence on the grounds of independence, that's barking.

It's a leap of faith as a minimum.

I suppose a poor and destitute Scotland could bid for more of the billions of Euros in the Social Cohesion Fund!