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

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Scotland might need to reapply. But it will be a quick process once Scotland does. A 'slam dunk' as one MEP said the other day but the independence debate has now moved well past just EU memebership.

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Sturgeon is playing her last card because it's the only one left. What she has overlooked is that English sentiment has moved since the last independence referendum, and no one now cares very much whether Scotland stays in the Union or not.
So if that's how they want it the Scots are perfectly entitled to spend the next two years wasting time in pointless, devisive and damaging electioneering, when they could be lead by a responsible and less blinkered government that was actually going to address the faults in the lagging Scottish economy.
Scottish business could be spending the time usefully cooperating with government-led economic growth and preparing for the undoubted challenges of Brexit. But if the country isn't interested in that and prefers the exitement of continuous electioneering, then good luck to them.
No one else in the UK now cares very much. Nor it seems does the EU, after the dead silence Sturgeon's last tour of European countries produced.

i don't agree at all with that, my judgement would be that most DO want the Union to survive and don't associate the squalid tactis of the SNP to be typical of Scots.

.string.

Conrad wrote: »

Indy's will make the case British financial services companies would move to Scotland to access the EU. A fair argument.


However, this will be countered with British reducing corporation tax, perhaps a sweetheart tax deal for financial services alone which the socialist Scottish state wont be able to countenance.


Furthermore new MIFID2 and BASAL4 rules due in 2018 make the EU still less tolerable for FS companies.

Yes, I doubt that London is that vulnerable but, humouring the notion of Financial Services moving, I would also add that timing is critical; there are plenty in Europe who would like to plunder the UK's financial sector; they are not likely to hold back and wait a few years saying "after you Nicola"!

.string.

In the HoC today, following May's report on the EU Council meeting, May poured cold water on the SNP Neverendum and left the impression that a Referendum would not be granted until at least after Brexit Agreements were signed off. That could be some years after 2019.

The response from the SNP were consistent with that Shakey has been saying. That they will go ahead anyway. But whatever the SNP might argue to the contrary, such a Referendum would be illegal and it could, and would, be ignored. In my view May should not give even an imp!icit nod to a future Referendum. I would be better to simply say that the SNP should have better justification for a new request but in any case it should not be until after Brexit. That might be relaxed to negate the human right argument advanced by Shakey.

But in the end Scottish Separation will depend on the results achieved by Brexit, not only regarding the EU but also the new trade deals that are being developed. If they are not good news we will ALL be unhappy. Hopefully things will be positiive and the British public will be happy.

Shakethedisease

vivatifosi wrote: »

Watching the political pundits on TV, they think that May will delay the vote until after Brexit, when Scotland will be fully aware of the outcome. She is likely to cite the Barroso doctrine, which apparently states that even though Scotland is part of the EU as part of the UK, they would have to apply to join, not stay in. Therefore May can argue that the timing is not as important as Sturgeon suggests.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/13/independent-scotland-would-have-to-apply-to-join-eu-commission-says

May will try and delay it. That much is obvious.. but on that Autumn 2018/Spring 2019 Sturgeon won't budge on. It's the point of calling another referendum in the first place. I normally don't like quoting WingsoverScotland here but he's boiled the reasons as to why Sturgeon won't budge down far more succinctly that I can.

FACT 4: A POST-BREXIT REFERENDUM IS THE SAME AS A BLOCKED ONE
A few Unionist pundits (such as Alex Massie and Hugo Rifkind) are beginning to coalesce hesitantly around the idea that while Theresa May cannot defensibly flat-out refuse a second referendum, she could grant one under the condition that it was delayed until after the UK had left the EU.
This, however, is like allowing a condemned man an appeal against his sentence, on the condition that it was only held after he had been executed.

Scotland being forced out of the EU against its will is the entire justification for a second referendum. The sole purpose of the referendum is to give the Scottish people the chance to escape that fate. A delayed referendum obviously fails in that purpose, and is therefore not fit for that purpose. It is a non-credible option

More likely that if a Section 30 isn't granted the Scottish Govt will hold a referendum anyway. Lots of talk about boycotts and things like that but as long as the Scottish Govt agree to be bound/act by the result of that advisory referendum then calls for boycotts etc are playing a risky game.

The only way to really delay things would be through the courts. Citing the Scottish Govt don't have the right to hold a referendum at all. Which is going to be a toughie to prove since it holding referendums isn't prohibited by the Scotland Act.

In short some sort of vote WILL happen between Autumn 2018/Spring 2019. Sturgeon didn't call another ref only in order to faff about with delays over a Section 30. She asked for it to be polite and also to follow the established roadmap of the first referendum. But that's not to say the established roadmap of the first referendum is the only one.

The timing is VERY important, nothing to do with EU acceptance and everything to do with starting talks over a transitional/interm Single Market deal while still within it. Once the UK has left, that's out of the window. It's staying in the Single Market which is Sturgeon's main priority so May's 'Barrosso doctrine' won't work, it's not what Sturgeon is after in the immediate term.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

In the HoC today, following May's report on the EU Council meeting, May poured cold water on the SNP Neverendum and left the impression that a Referendum would not be granted until at least after Brexit Agreements were signed off. That could be some years after 2019.

The response from the SNP were consistent with that Shakey has been saying. That they will go ahead anyway. But whatever the SNP might argue to the contrary, such a Referendum would be illegal and it could, and would, be ignored. In my view May should not give even an imp!icit nod to a future Referendum. I would be better to simply say that the SNP should have better justification for a new request but in any case it should not be until after Brexit. That might be relaxed to negate the human right argument advanced by Shakey.

But in the end Scottish Separation will depend on the results achieved by Brexit, not only regarding the EU but also the new trade deals that are being developed. If they are not good news we will ALL be unhappy. Hopefully things will be positiive and the British public will be happy.

No string it wouldn't be illegal for the Scottish Govt to hold a referendum in Scotland asking the Scottish people their opinion. Why would it be ?

Ignoring the result is a whole different question. But it would politically be very difficult for May to do so. 'Will of the People' eh.

mrginge

Be pretty easy to ignore the result of a referendum where only one side participates.

kabayiri

mrginge wrote: »

Be pretty easy to ignore the result of a referendum where only one side participates.

Yep. Plus, it all feels so premature.

Let's see where we are after 9 months / 1 year of A50 negotiations.

It might go well. Or we might find an intransigent EU negotiating partner.

Who knows.

Mortgagefreeman

Rinoa wrote: »

Oh, I remember him.

Wasn't he the same McTavish who 2 years ago argued against Scottish Independence, claiming it would be economic suicide?

Well with all due respect, he works in the North Sea Oil industry, so he should know.During the last Referendum Oil was over $100 a barerel, now it's less than half that, so of course it makes perfect sense.:rotfl:

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...
Ignoring the result is a whole different question. But it would politically be very difficult for May to do so. 'Will of the People' eh.

It would be politically very popular down here for May to ignore, actually.

It shows her mettle.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

May will try and delay it. That much is obvious.. but on that Autumn 2018/Spring 2019 Sturgeon won't budge on. It's the point of calling another referendum in the first place. I normally don't like quoting WingsoverScotland here but he's boiled the reasons as to why Sturgeon won't budge down far more succinctly that I can.



More likely that if a Section 30 isn't granted the Scottish Govt will hold a referendum anyway. Lots of talk about boycotts and things like that but as long as the Scottish Govt agree to be bound/act by the result of that advisory referendum then calls for boycotts etc are playing a risky game.

The only way to really delay things would be through the courts. Citing the Scottish Govt don't have the right to hold a referendum at all. Which is going to be a toughie to prove since it holding referendums isn't prohibited by the Scotland Act.

In short some sort of vote WILL happen between Autumn 2018/Spring 2019. Sturgeon didn't call another ref only in order to faff about with delays over a Section 30. She asked for it to be polite and also to follow the established roadmap of the first referendum. But that's not to say the established roadmap of the first referendum is the only one.

The timing is VERY important, nothing to do with EU acceptance and everything to do with starting talks over a transitional/interm Single Market deal while still within it. Once the UK has left, that's out of the window. It's staying in the Single Market which is Sturgeon's main priority so May's 'Barrosso doctrine' won't work, it's not what Sturgeon is after in the immediate term.

Your echo chamber does you no favours.

How is it going to be 'a toughy' to argue that a referendum on constitutional arrangements held without agreement from Westminster who are in control of constitutional arrangements is not legal?

Edit: And Nicola wants to remain in the single market only now? What happened to the will of Scots to remain in the EU?

You make it up as you go along don't you? Like when we said you won't be able to "remain" but you were adamant that there will be no "re-applying". You've now changed your tune.