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

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I wasn't blaming the SNP for people voting for them. I'll blame the SNP for propagating lies and independence as a solution to some of the lies.

The reason for SNP voters not being represented in government in Westminster is because you vote for a regional party. You then complain that you have no left wing governmental representation. You say that you and many Scots hate the Conservatives, I can think of no better way of giving the Conservatives power than splitting the Labour vote, like you did.

Like I said, slow round of applause. :T

Ah right, so you appear to have missed the last 50 years of Scottish politics. Where do you think the SNP learned all their best anti-Tory messages from ? Labour MP's have been using the same narratives for decades. Vote for us to keep the Tories out was one of their most frequently used in Scotland. It just didn't work so well when they appeared to be turning into Tories themselves.

The SNP have reaped the dividends from decades of anti-Tory messages from Scottish Labour MP's.

Now you hope you're going into an independence campaign again, except this time with less answers than you had in 2014 and ironically less to gain.

Might as well give you the referendum (although I believe you won't get it until Westminster is happy for you to get it) because we will watch it crash and burn and put the topic to bed for the next 25 - 50 years, if not more hopefully.

Scotland and England are slowly but surely drifting apart, at an accelerated rate over the last few years.. both politically and economically in needs, wants and what's considered by their own voters respective best interests. England and Wales will be on their own in a 'global' yet isolationist sort of way soon enough.

Just as an aside, I was reading an article about the latest Panelbase poll. And the part that caught my attention was the fact that Panelbase had to strip out previous No voters from the sample because they were far less likely to turn out for an election or not knowing who to vote for. I've stated this before but imo previous No voters not turning out at all at the next referendum will put a severe dent in any No vote compared to last time. You want to be keeping a real eye on that. Not so much those polled who will vote, but those who won't.

Adding up the raw numbers gives the two main pro-independence parties an outright majority of the vote - just. The SNP and Greens have approximately 50.3% between them.

Part of the explanation is that No voters from 2014 are significantly more likely than Yes voters to say they have less than an 80% chance of turning out for an election, or that they don't know which party they would vote for, and as a result end up being removed from the sample.

http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/scotland-will-become-independent-says.html

Shakethedisease

Oh and Ruth's right about the almighty row.

Ruth Davidson: 'Foolhardy' to devolve all EU agriculture powers to Scotland after Brexit

The Scottish Tory leader said she expected “an almighty political row” over the coming months over whether Westminster or Holyrood runs agriculture after powers are repatriated from Brussels.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/06/ruth-davidson-foolhardy-devolve-eu-agriculture-powers-scotland/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw

These are already devolved and will have to be taken back.

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Scotland and England are slowly but surely drifting apart, at an accelerated rate over the last few years.. both politically and economically

Couldn't agree more.

Meanwhile, another report has found that Scotland's top private firms have suffered a drop in combined profits.
The annual Scotland Ltd report by financial and business advisers Grant Thornton assesses the commercial performance in the past year of Scotland's top 100 privately-owned limited companies.
It reveals total combined profits of £16.6bn in 2016, down from £20.8bn in 2015.
A total of 110,632 people are working for the top 100 firms, down from 116,284 in 2015.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Oh and Ruth's right about the almighty row.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/06/ruth-davidson-foolhardy-devolve-eu-agriculture-powers-scotland/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw

These are already devolved and will have to be taken back.

but you don't actually care about argiculture or fishing except to cause maximum harm to the people of the UK and the hated tories.
if you did care, then you wouldn't be desperate to give the powers away asap

elantan

Shake have u had a wee laugh at the Stephen Daisley/Ian Murray/John Nicholson spat ?


Hilarious if you needing a wee giggle ...

beecher2

elantan wrote: »

Shake have u had a wee laugh at the Stephen Daisley/Ian Murray/John Nicholson spat ?


Hilarious if you needing a wee giggle ...

It is like the vandalism caused by a sticker all over again.

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I was clearly talking about winning an indy ref and that in my own opinion Sturgeon should be mooting EEA/EFTA as possible transitional options in the event of a Yes win. ...

And that is what is both stupid and wrong. There is no transitional option "until independence and Brexit is sorted out". As Article 56 of the EFTA convention makes clear "Any State may accede to this Convention", so until until independence is 'sorted out' and Scotland becomes a state it cannot apply to join EFTA.

And as the Scotland Act 1998 makes clear, signing up to treaties is a reserved power, so the Scottish Parliament lacks the capacity to do so.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...You on the other hand were babbling on about how Norway wouldn't allow Scotland access if unless it were independent.

As I am trying to explain to you, Scotland cannot become a member of EFTA, or the EEA, or even the EU, until it becomes an independent state, because that is what it says in the EFTA convention, and the EU and EEA treaties, for that matter.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

.... We've crossed wires somewhere, and it's best if you just admit it and move on.

The only wire that is being crossed is the one in your head connecting your brain to the outside world.:)

Your opinion on what Sturgeon should be mooting in the 'event of a yes win', is based on something is not possible.

This is how the EFTA/EEA option would work;

1) Win the referendum
2) Spend a few years negotiating the terms of independence with the UK government
3) Once agreed, wait another few months for the Scottish Independence Act to get royal assent and confirm the date
4) Have a big party on the appointed date with lots of fireworks, lasers, bottles of Buckast, or whatever takes your fancy
5) Submit an application to join EFTA
6) Negotiate with EFTA, and the existing four members, reach agreement, and sign the convention
7) Submit an application to join the EEA
8) Negotiate with the EC, and the existing twenty-seven members, reach agreement and sign up to the EEA.

I must admit, I am not sure why this should be advanced as an option. After all, it is entirely possible that the EFTA members might well not be interested wasting their flippin time talking to this new Scotland, if it was their intention to subsequently join the EU and quit EFTA. In fact, it would be a waste of Scotland's time as well; it might as well submit an application to join the EU at stage 5. It would save a bit of money as well. EFTA is only an option if you want to avoid signing up to the CAP and CFP, and you don't mind having a bit less input into the evolution of the acquis.

Things might have been simpler if someone had thought of putting an exit clause into the Treaty of Union in 1707. But I have looked at the text, and I can't see one. I can supply you with a list of the 31 Scottish negotiators who were responsible for this omission, if you are interested, but since they are all dead, I doubt they would be able to provide an explanation.

elantan

beecher2 wrote: »

It is like the vandalism caused by a sticker all over again.

Aye that one was hilarious

In my town we still have no lamppost signs up ... they had two weeks after indy ref to get them down or face a fine ... wonder how big their fine would be by now

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

And that is what is both stupid and wrong. There is no transitional option "until independence and Brexit is sorted out". As Article 56 of the EFTA convention makes clear "Any State may accede to this Convention", so until until independence is 'sorted out' and Scotland becomes a state it cannot apply to join EFTA.

And as the Scotland Act 1998 makes clear, signing up to treaties is a reserved power, so the Scottish Parliament lacks the capacity to do so.



As I am trying to explain to you, Scotland cannot become a member of EFTA, or the EEA, or even the EU, until it becomes an independent state, because that is what it says in the EFTA convention, and the EU and EEA treaties, for that matter.



The only wire that is being crossed is the one in your head connecting your brain to the outside world.:)

Your opinion on what Sturgeon should be mooting in the 'event of a yes win', is based on something is not possible.

This is how the EFTA/EEA option would work;

1) Win the referendum
2) Spend a few years negotiating the terms of independence with the UK government
3) Once agreed, wait another few months for the Scottish Independence Act to get royal assent and confirm the date
4) Have a big party on the appointed date with lots of fireworks, lasers, bottles of Buckast, or whatever takes your fancy
5) Submit an application to join EFTA
6) Negotiate with EFTA, and the existing four members, reach agreement, and sign the convention
7) Submit an application to join the EEA
8) Negotiate with the EC, and the existing twenty-seven members, reach agreement and sign up to the EEA.

I must admit, I am not sure why this should be advanced as an option. After all, it is entirely possible that the EFTA members might well not be interested wasting their flippin time talking to this new Scotland, if it was their intention to subsequently join the EU and quit EFTA. In fact, it would be a waste of Scotland's time as well; it might as well submit an application to join the EU at stage 5. It would save a bit of money as well. EFTA is only an option if you want to avoid signing up to the CAP and CFP, and you don't mind having a bit less input into the evolution of the acquis.

Things might have been simpler if someone had thought of putting an exit clause into the Treaty of Union in 1707. But I have looked at the text, and I can't see one. I can supply you with a list of the 31 Scottish negotiators who were responsible for this omission, if you are interested, but since they are all dead, I doubt they would be able to provide an explanation.

Scotland will do the same as rUK do re leaving the EU. Apparently there will be a 'seamless' transition between EU/Single Market trade and lots of free trade agreements all in place once 2 years are up.

No reason to think an independent Scotland won't be able to do the same leaving the UK. Salmond in particular has been visiting EFTA countries quite routinely over the last 6 months. Those fishing grounds eh.. lots of Single Market participants with huge interests there. Hopefully Westminster will do as Ruth Davidson is alluding to and make a power grab for them. It will be a most unpopular move and Sturgeon would do well to sit back for a bit and let them go for it over riding Holyrood's express wishes... then call a referendum. :cool:

Shakethedisease

elantan wrote: »

Shake have u had a wee laugh at the Stephen Daisley/Ian Murray/John Nicholson spat ?


Hilarious if you needing a wee giggle ...

Ha ha yes. That and Historywoman's latest deranged mutterings have made for an amusing few days.

Spanner needs a column I agree. Sometimes I think it's Rowling herself you know. Then I think naaah.