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

setmefree2

Gordon Brown: 'Holyrood should gain Brexit powers'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39309133

I have a problem with this to be honest.....shouldn't the RUK be given some sort of guarantee that this isn't going to cost yet more money?

As for renaming the BoE - well Scotland shouldn't have trashed the RBoS should it? That's their fault (and is still costing us money).

Mortgagefreeman

It dosn't really matter what Sturgeon and her Nationalist mates think, there won't be another referendum for 6 years, by which time their government will have gone tits up. They can always decide they're going to have a vote on Independence, and if they win declare UDI, immediately becoming a Third World Nation.:rotfl:

Enterprise_1701C

setmefree2 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39309133

I have a problem with this to be honest.....shouldn't the RUK be given some sort of guarantee that this isn't going to cost yet more money?

As for renaming the BoE - well Scotland shouldn't have trashed the RBoS should it? That's their fault (and is still costing us money).

No way are we renaming the Bank of England, it was founded in 1694, before Scotland joined the UK. The Pound is for the UK, not for those that want to go off and do their own thing.

If Scotland want to go it alone we do not have to make it easy for them, it would be a bit like sitting your child's exams for them and the expecting them to be a good doctor or whatever, any independant could try has to go through a learning curve to find out how things work.

Anyway, if Scotland wanted to keep the pound I could see that seriously getting in the way of joining the eu.

Rinoa

We'd rather keep Brexit than keep Scotland.

Brexit is more important to voters than keeping the United Kingdom together, an opinion poll for The Telegraph has indicated.
Sixty per cent of respondents agreed that Britain’s EU departure mattered more than stopping the UK’s break-up, while just 27 per cent disagreed.
Furthermore a majority of people said they would still vote for Brexit even if they knew it could trigger Scotland’s independence.
The results suggest there is no "buyer’s remorse" over Brexit despite a dramatic week in which the UK’s future has been called into question.

More... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/17/brexit-important-keeping-uk-together-public-say-poll-telegraph/

Mortgagefreeman

Rinoa wrote: »

We'd rather keep Brexit than keep Scotland.

Only the loonies at the SNP could want Independence now that their main asset (Oil) is on decline. So SNP, thanks for all the oil, now you can b ugger off. Please shut the door behind you.:D

.string.

Shaka_Zulu wrote: »

Ruth Davidson has set out three not unreasonable tests to be met before any second vote. I and I imagine the majority of sane people in Scotland will I hope think they are reasonable

Ruth Davidson MSP, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, said it would be “unfair” on Scots to “vote blind” in a referendum by going to the polls before the Brexit negotiations had even been completed. She refused to name an “arbitrary” date for a poll to be held and set out three tests that will push back the poll for years.

Talks would not start on a second referendum before Scots have “seen for themselves” how the Union is functioning following Brexit. The UK is due to leave the EU in March 2019 but there could be a further two-year transitional period while a trade deal is finalised.

Secondly, Ms Davidson said that Scots should know “what the alternative entails” and argued there has not been any clarity from the SNP on even “basic questions” about independence.

She also said there would also have to be political and public consent for another vote, and defined the latter as consistent 60 per cent support in the opinion polls for a referendum.

Even after the tests were met, it could take another 18 months before another referendum is held. A deal would have to be reached between the two governments, legislation passed then a minimum campaign period of six months before polling day.

Perhaps now the SNP can get back to doing the day job for the next few years and give it a rest. I however will not be holding my breath.

Davidson's remarks about what the alternative entails were important and not only because the SNP really needs to substantiate their claims for a better life outside the UK.

There is also the other side of the coin which is the substantiation for a better life outside the EU. Gordan Brown's exhortations are but the opening shot in that particular debate. Reading between the lines, reading the lines and guessing the rest I reckon that May is in the process of planning a new vision for how the UK works post Brexit but the certainty of that simply has to wait until the eventual agreement is fully signed (not just given the nod by Westminster but also ratified by the EU Council (majority vote)). That vision can be partially prepared during the negotiations but not as a committed and rounded view. Also The UK Government's time will be rather fully occupied up to the last minute of those negotiations.

That said, there are implications not the least of which is that any Referendum which might be agreed in the future would have to be after (maybe 6 months but possibly longer) to allow both alternatives to be presented to the Scottish people.

The SNP would fight tooth and nail to avoid that Referendum scenario I suspect (know). Their concept is clearly to spend the whole of the negotiation period feeding false and negative news about the Brexit negotiations to bolster their cause. They will know full well that there will be severe limits to what May etc can say about life after Brexit but the SNP will be quite happy to leak all the bad news, true or FAKE, but no good while negotiations are still going (no running commentary), while at the same time claiming they are excluded from information. They will have a head start in the campaign and the Scots will not be well served by knowing about both alternative paths for their future.


Whatever May comes up with, it will not just be about Brexit as such, she has already stated that she intends to plot a refreshed path for the UK.

Gordon Brown's proposals are but one slant but, although it's a start, contain contain elements which I don't see ever being acceptable. Federal, whatever that word means, is possible; I would suggest one based on the Canadian Model. The ability to approve treaties; no definitely not and the continuation of Barnet also no, not in its present form. Changed and subject to regular review to reflect changing needs OK; one can hardly expect the UK, or England in some Federal sense, to continue subsidies to the regions to the same extent if they are denied the tax revenue which allow it to be provided in the first place.

So in summary, I don't at all agree with any Referendum being held before both sides of the argument have an equal chance to present their case and the date proposed by the SNP is totally unacceptable.

Tromking

sss555s wrote: »

Most of what you say is how I feel about Scotland's independence of the UK.

The massive hole in your comparison and one which is routinely ignored by Nationalists is that your membership of both Unions is subsidised by the rUK. The reason being is that it doesn't fit in with grevience narrative of the SNP and its unquestioning acolytes I suppose.
It's a good job enough of your fellow Scots are either grateful for the subsidy or are fearful of losing the financial kickback Scots get for being part of the Union.Scotland would be in deep doo doo otherwise.

TrickyTree83

.string. wrote: »

Davidson's remarks about what the alternative entails were important and not only because the SNP really needs to substantiate their claims for a better life outside the UK.

There is also the other side of the coin which is the substantiation for a better life outside the EU. Gordan Brown's exhortations are but the opening shot in that particular debate. Reading between the lines, reading the lines and guessing the rest I reckon that May is in the process of planning a new vision for how the UK works post Brexit but the certainty of that simply has to wait until the eventual agreement is fully signed (not just given the nod by Westminster but also ratified by the EU Council (majority vote)). That vision can be partially prepared during the negotiations but not as a committed and rounded view. Also The UK Government's time will be rather fully occupied up to the last minute of those negotiations.

That said, there are implications not the least of which is that any Referendum which might be agreed in the future would have to be after (maybe 6 months but possibly longer) to allow both alternatives to be presented to the Scottish people.

The SNP would fight tooth and nail to avoid that Referendum scenario I suspect (know). Their concept is clearly to spend the whole of the negotiation period feeding false and negative news about the Brexit negotiations to bolster their cause. They will know full well that there will be severe limits to what May etc can say about life after Brexit but the SNP will be quite happy to leak all the bad news, true or FAKE, but no good while negotiations are still going (no running commentary), while at the same time claiming they are excluded from information. They will have a head start in the campaign and the Scots will not be well served by knowing about both alternative paths for their future.


Whatever May comes up with, it will not just be about Brexit as such, she has already stated that she intends to plot a refreshed path for the UK.

Gordon Brown's proposals are but one slant but, although it's a start, contain contain elements which I don't see ever being acceptable. Federal, whatever that word means, is possible; I would suggest one based on the Canadian Model. The ability to approve treaties; no definitely not and the continuation of Barnet also no, not in its present form. Changed and subject to regular review to reflect changing needs OK; one can hardly expect the UK, or England in some Federal sense, to continue subsidies to the regions to the same extent if they are denied the tax revenue which allow it to be provided in the first place.

So in summary, I don't at all agree with any Referendum being held before both sides of the argument have an equal chance to present their case and the date proposed by the SNP is totally unacceptable.

Federalisation won't work, it's just capitulating to the SNP and their merry band of followers who will forever demand increasingly more power until they get what they want.

These nationalist movements just need to be euthanized from within so we can all get back to being British rather than English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish.

sss555s

Tromking wrote: »

The massive hole in your comparison and one which is routinely ignored by Nationalists is that your membership of both Unions is subsidised by the rUK. The reason being is that it doesn't fit in with grevience narrative of the SNP and its unquestioning acolytes I suppose.
It's a good job enough of your fellow Scots are either grateful for the subsidy or are fearful of losing the financial kickback Scots get for being part of the Union.Scotland would be in deep doo doo otherwise.

That may be the case the way things are under Westminster accounting but it would be different when self governed.

There will never be a better time to gain independence as we will be hammered when the true affect of Brexit kicks in and Scotland has everything needed to work towards building a better economy than it currently has under Westminster control.

.string.

A bit of good news here for London and regional centres in the UK; some way to go of course but good news none-the-less

http://www.euronews.com/2017/03/16/german-finance-minister-schaeuble-backs-london-as-strong-financial-centre