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

.string.

elantan wrote: »

The rumour mill has it May is popping up tomorow to give us a new wee vow ... exciting stuff

I would be surprised at that but one never knows.

To be frank I had anticipated that May would have used the A50 announcement to make some statement of relevance to Scotland but she surprised me by giving her list of negotiation priorities (her plan).

So I'd not be surprised to see very !Ittle, in keeping with her keeping her cards close to her chest, until negotiation actually starts.

UNLESS she uses the occasion to give a new input to the EU to give them a chance to consider a new context for the Negotiations before they start.

There will be a new vision for the UK I suspect ready at the end of the negotiations which will be something the Scottish people will need to ponder on order to make an informed decision should there be a referendum. But it won't be until all is clear and definitive statements can be made.

IMHO of course.

ash28

beecher2 wrote: »

String, I think this is the report referred to.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/583116/IPOL_BRI(2017)583116_EN.pdf

This is the report which the Daily Record cites as highlighting Brendan O'Leary's report, which is reference 17 here:



I suppose it shows that it might theoretically be possible, but that politically it is not. Shame that newspapers never give us the full story

flexibility17 argues that given the status of these dependencies,
separate arrangements can also be made for other parts of the UK

That's interesting as the report mentions the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as not being part of the EU which is correct but it doesn't seem to mention they aren't part of the UK either... or have I missed something. I used to live on the Isle of Man and didn't realise how separate everything is, when I came back the DWP said I had been living abroad......

Channel Islands

As Crown Dependencies the islands are not part of the United Kingdom or European Union, nor are they colonies or overseas territories of the United Kingdom like Gibraltar. They are possessions of the British Crown with independent administrations. Their assemblies pass their own legislation with the assent of the Crown granted in the Privy Council.
The Crown is responsible for defence, diplomatic representation and citizenship, although the islands maintain their own controls over housing and employment that apply to British as well as other citizens.
The islands have the right to establish direct relations with foreign governments. Although not parts of the European Union, they are in a customs union with it.

Isle of Man

As a Crown dependency, the Isle of Man is not part of the United Kingdom or European Union. The Tynwald passes its own legislation with the assent of the Crown granted in the Privy Council.
The Crown is responsible for defence and diplomatic representation, and acts on the advice of the UK ministry of justice. The Isle of Man has its own controls on immigration and housing.

ash28

.string. wrote: »

Thank you for that, I was nearly there but you beat me to it. It was good to get a response.

It is indeed a pity that the newspaper did not give a fuller explanation.

It seems to be that key words are
"An exponent of constitutional flexibility17 argues that given the status of these dependencies, separate arrangements can also be made for other parts of the UK when England and Wales leave the UK".

What I mean by that is that such a view is an argument by such an "exponent", but not a position taken by the EU.

I agree with you that the political question attitudes are very important.

It would seem to me therefore that the conclusion made by O'Leary is not based on conclusions drawn by the EU but on opinions by others, maybe including his own, maybe not.

So the impression given by that Newspaper article is at best unclear or as you say incomplete, at worse misleading.

The matter of free movement of Irish/N.Irish people can easily be solved I think, with maybe Ireland assisting border checks into the mainland of the UK, although it should probably be more subtle than that to avoid ruptions with NI unionists (as is mentioned on the report). It is the trade within the Island that is more problematic and I haven't myself yet seen a solution proposed for that.

A lot will depend on the EU<>UK trade deal reached after Brexit, as will a lot of what we are discussing here.


But having said that, the NI situation is indeed complex, EU partipation in the Good Friday agreement making it a bit unique.

The EU report on Northern Ireland probably cited Brendan O'Leary's article as it uses the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man to show that some Crown Dependencies are outside of the EU, however they are outside of the UK too. It also uses Greenland as example of a dependency outside the EU, however Greenland is part of Denmark.

Brendan O'Leary's article cited in the report and by the Daily Record was published on 27th June 2016 just days after the EU referendum, according to the Daily Record it was published by the LSE, when it is a actually an LSE blog post. It just about sums up the state of most journalism in the UK at the moment.

So, in essence, as Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU, then they will remain and at the same time remain part of UK, while England and Wales will leave the EU. Scotland and NI will continue to use sterling under existing UK arrangements and they will not join Schengen, etc.

UK enterprises could relocate to EU zones within the UK.

Scotland could vote for independence and NI could vote for re-unification.

Whether it's Trump or Clinton the UK will go to the back of the queue with regard to trade deals.

A lot water has passed under the bridge since then.

Fake news by the newspapers? Or just poor journalism? It just goes to show why you need to get to the original source, unfortunately most people will believe everything they read.

beecher2

ash28 wrote: »

Fake news by the newspapers? Or just poor journalism? It just goes to show why you need to get to the original source, unfortunately most people will believe everything they read.

It is really frustrating, and you really do have to check everything you read. Twitter's worse, yesterday there was a twitter storm with Scottish Labour accusing the SNP of talking Glasgow down, ascribing the following quote to the group leader of Glasgow SNP

"there are two cities in the world that have gone backwards. Glasgow and Detroit".

In fact this is the full quote:

Aitken's other big plan is reversing Glasgow's population decline.

"There are two one million-people cities in the world that have gone backwards: Glasgow and Detroit. Now I'm not for a second comparing us to Detroit which is an American tragedy," Aitken says.

However, Aitken believes Glasgow can nearly double its population. "I see no reason why we shouldn't set a target for Glasgow to be a one million people city again."

It is embarrassing that this is the standard of debate to be honest.

mollycat

beecher2 wrote: »

It is really frustrating, and you really do have to check everything you read. Twitter's worse, yesterday there was a twitter storm with Scottish Labour accusing the SNP of talking Glasgow down, ascribing the following quote to the group leader of Glasgow SNP

"there are two cities in the world that have gone backwards. Glasgow and Detroit".

In fact this is the full quote:



It is embarrassing that this is the standard of debate to be honest.

Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it "fake news".

Nothing factually incorrect with the piece you quoted as far as I can see.....especially when compared with pro-independence "facts" posted on this thread.

beecher2

mollycat wrote: »

Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it "fake news".

Nothing factually incorrect with the piece you quoted as far as I can see.....especially when compared with pro-independence "facts" posted on this thread.

You don't see that the quote is out of context? Find that a bit bizarre really. I didn't say it was fake news so don't understand why you've used quote marks.

Frank McAveety accused Susan Aitken of trashing 'our city's reputation' which most non partisan people would see as a wilful misinterpration of what she was saying.

mollycat

beecher2 wrote: »

You don't see that the quote is out of context? Find that a bit bizarre really. I didn't say it was fake news so don't understand why you've used quote marks.

Frank McAveety accused Susan Aitken of trashing 'our city's reputation' which most non partisan people would see as a wilful misinterpration of what she was saying.

You quote a post commenting on fake news, and imply by the tone and content of your post that the tweet you then describe can be judged in the same way.

Anyway, if this is just one more thing for you to take offence at, my advice is just to chill.....who cares what random people on Twitter think of your lovely city? :A

TrickyTree83

beecher2 wrote: »

You don't see that the quote is out of context? Find that a bit bizarre really. I didn't say it was fake news so don't understand why you've used quote marks.

Frank McAveety accused Susan Aitken of trashing 'our city's reputation' which most non partisan people would see as a wilful misinterpration of what she was saying.

She's clearly drawing a comparison between Glasgow and Detroit, but want's a 'get out of jail free card' by saying "I'm not comparing them"... whilst comparing them.

Genius. Where do they find these people?

By drawing the comparison she may well be seen by some as trashing Glasgow's reputation by clearly and obviously drawing parallels with Detroit.

beecher2

mollycat wrote: »

You quote a post commenting on fake news, and imply by the tone and content of your post that the tweet you then describe can be judged in the same way.

Anyway, if this is just one more thing for you to take offence at, my advice is just to chill.....who cares what random people on Twitter think of your lovely city? :A

I was commenting on the need to read the source material, and giving an example.

I am not talking about random people on Twitter, Frank McAveety is the council's leader!

beecher2

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

She's clearly drawing a comparison between Glasgow and Detroit, but want's a 'get out of jail free card' by saying "I'm not comparing them"... whilst comparing them.

Genius. Where do they find these people?

By drawing the comparison she may well be seen by some as trashing Glasgow's reputation by clearly and obviously drawing parallels with Detroit.

She's clearly talking about population.