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

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

We're going to be out of the EU anyway. Did you miss this somehow ? A transitional deal with a quick accession to full EU membership is now the only route back in. Scotland has to be independent first in order to follow this route.

I would've thought this would be a simple enough concept to take in. Scotland is out if it does nothing, but has a route back in via independence.

Rubbish - but that lie is what you are telling your fellow Scots - shame on you.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No, the full terms of the deal will be known for everyone by Oct 2018 if we go by the two year timetable and if May triggers Article 50 this month. The negotiations will be over by then.

Sturgeon has timed her window to coincide with the end of negotiations. So we'll all know the facts we're voting on and that's the reasoning behind the timing.

No that is not certain - you can wait until the deal is done and dusted. May will let you know when you can apply for a Referendum.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You'll enjoy this. Kevin Hague certainly is..

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/03/15/more-on-why-gers-might-properly-be-called-crap-data/

I've not read anything Kevin Hague has said on the matter, but I suspect his response will be the same as my response and the response of the first comment on that blog. I'll boil it down:

- The GERS figures are an indicative assessment of the state of the Scottish economy, some estimations are made since that is all that is available. It's always been the case.

- The GERS figures indicate that the Scottish economy will face major problems.

- If the GERS estimations are deemed to be incorrect by Richard Murphy then there is no way to know if the outlook would be better or worse for iScotland. The best this argument can hope to achieve is a further unknown and would also by proxy render any economic argument made by the SNP on the basis of GERS also irrelevant and a complete unknown.

- However, as the GERS figures are indicative and the difference is in the £billions I find it disingenuous to suggest that an estimation by the civil service, regulated by the UK Statistics Authority, would allow such erroneous methodologies as to be £billions out in their estimations. They have pulled up the GERS authors on the methodologies in the past, so clearly it is reviewed and clearly it has passed scrutiny.


Edit: Just had a quick look at what Kevin is saying regarding this, came across this

https://twitter.com/kevverage/status/841713286882172929

pretty much the same sentiment.

Edit 2: Also the head of your SNP commission appears to agree with us

https://twitter.com/AndrewWilson/status/841428768304594948

Edit 3: It gets better and better...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Murphy_(tax_campaigner)

A quick read of his wiki bio shows that he's not the most reputable character to be suggesting that GERS is invalid because of the estimations.

Conrad

Listened to LBC all evening yesterday and the various presenters all kept pointing out the vast bulk of callers and texters were vehemently opposed to a further indy ref, and that included shed loads of Scottish contributors. An oft' expressed sentiment was that people did not want another 2 years of division and additional uncertainty.


Yes only an anecdote, but for the last indy ref, contributor participation was more evenly balanced.

Conrad

Shakey, you hate Trump and his Mexican wall.


How do you feel about the following walls and razor wire barriers;




The EU itself is encouraging Ukraine and Turkey to build barriers, and offering EU tax revenue to help pay for them.


There are now walls and fences in place or going up between;


Hungary and Serbia


Hungary and Croatia


Greece and Macedonia


Greece and Turkey


Slovenia and Croatia


Spain and Morocco in Ceuta and Melilla


Austria and Germany


Hungary and Slovakia.

.string.

Moby wrote: »

The problem with you is you don't listen to views which give answers to the questions you ask. You continually bang your drum about Scotland having no economic arguments for independence and I've told you time and time again why that position now has a limited impact, even with the fall in oil prices. I pointed out that the Brexit vote has also changed averything and opened up the brexiteers to charges of hypocrisy, because the 'Better Together' argument contradicts their position towards the EU. Monbiot produces a piece saying the same thing and your response is to label the Guardian as the liberals 'Sun' and as being 'hilariously wrong'. Is that the extent of your ability to move the discussion on?:rotfl:

That's a ludicrous thing to post. Try that logic on those in Scotland who voted to remain yet want independence and those that that voted to leave the EU yet support a party that votes for independence. Where do you assign the term hypocrisy in those cases. (rhetorical question - I would not wish an injury on you!).

... and don't equate the Better Together campaign with the Brexit campaign. There are plenty of people like myself who voted to stay in the EU but given the result of the referendum want Brexit to work for the sake of the whole country including the Scots.

Each case on its merits or demerits.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Rubbish - but that lie is what you are telling your fellow Scots - shame on you.

Not me. EU senior MEP's, on BBC news yesterday in fact. Have a watch. I'm not lying to fellow Scots it's EU officials saying this, openly on camera to the BBC.
"Elmar Peter Brok is a German politician and Member of the European Parliament from Germany, who is best known for his role as chairman of the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs."

Elmar Brok (European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs) states to BBC reporter that Scotland meets all that requirements to join without much negotiation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQzm0FXXerM&feature=youtu.be

Here's where the 'slam dunk' comment comes from also.

Of course, the UK will have its own domestic challenges to untangle as it negotiates, as well as an economy that is likely to slow. Some suggest a second Scottish independence referendum is inevitable. The latest polls show Scotland’s electorate is now split down the middle. One senior EU official BuzzFeed News spoke to in Brussels described an independent Scotland’s chances of joining the EU as a “slam dunk”.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/this-is-how-the-eu-will-handle-theresa-mays-triggering-of-ar?utm_term=.kdMM4GBbLN#.aq4v1X3R4e

zagubov

.string. wrote: »

Now the talk is about participating in EEA via the EFTA route - and this being a seamless process.

This link shows what that would entail:
http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement/eea-basic-features

The bottom line of that is that should Scotland decide to join the EEA through the EFTA Route, it would need to sign an accession treaty which would have to be concluded and ratified, not only by the EU and Scotland, as is the case for a withdrawal treaty, but also by each of the 30 EEA member-states (27 from the EU and three from EFTA).

Enter Spain, Cyprus, Belgium, and France (at least) with their concerns on rewarding secession and setting a precedent for their own countries.

Yet this is touted as a "slam dunk".

More of a "Sham dunk" I would say.

As I mentioned many posts ago on one of the many similar threads to this one, only the EFTA states individually agree to new members joining the EEA. The EU states are meant to do the same in theory but in practice it's decided collectively, often by simple majority.

For example, to the best of my knowledge, Croatia has now been a full member of the EEA for some time and lots of states haven't ratified it yet. Including Spain (and the UK).
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/agreements-conventions/agreement/?aid=2014013

There seems to be no problem with this at all.

So, Slam Dunk it is.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Not me. EU senior MEP's, on BBC news yesterday in fact. Have a watch. I'm not lying to fellow Scots it's EU officials saying this, openly on camera to the BBC.
"Elmar Peter Brok is a German politician and Member of the European Parliament from Germany, who is best known for his role as chairman of the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQzm0FXXerM&feature=youtu.be

Here's where the 'slam dunk' comment comes from also.https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/this-is-how-the-eu-will-handle-theresa-mays-triggering-of-ar?utm_term=.kdMM4GBbLN#.aq4v1X3R4e

It's fair to say that the EU is conflicted on the matter with many saying it'll be fine and easy and many saying it'll be hard and perhaps impossible.

Shakethedisease

Conrad wrote: »

Listened to LBC all evening yesterday and the various presenters all kept pointing out the vast bulk of callers and texters were vehemently opposed to a further indy ref, and that included shed loads of Scottish contributors. An oft' expressed sentiment was that people did not want another 2 years of division and additional uncertainty.


Yes only an anecdote, but for the last indy ref, contributor participation was more evenly balanced.

That YouGov poll yesterday ?

If Nicola Sturgeon calls for a second
independence referendum, do you think the UK government should or should not agree to one taking place?
Should agree : 52%
Should not agree : 48%

A lot of pollsters have been framing the question as 'do you think there should be another indy ref before or after Brexit is complete' then newspapers and folks like Davidson are talking the obvious higher % for "after Brexit" as evidence Scots don't want it at ALL.

The fact is even someone like me ( a solid Yes voter ) would answer no to a vote before Brexit terms known. Not least because I think the longer Brexit plays out the better chance Yes would have of winning. It's been skewing the narratives around this question recently. Now that there's one on the horizon and not hypothetical anymore numbers as above are changing.