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

.string.

zagubov wrote: »

Scandinavia used to be poor. Now it's not, and none of it is a junior partner in a political union similar to the UK, but all of it is in the free trade bloc of the EEA.

So why does Scotland always have to stay in a political union, should its citizens democratically scrutinise its decisions and decide differently?

I see you posted that very late last night, so maybe that's the reason but your post has some "oddities". The reason for this proposed SNP referendum is about Scotland being dragged out of the EU. The EU is a political union which, should Scotland ever be a member, would place Scotland with something like 1/7 of the importance it has in the UK (have a look at the population) and being dragged inexorably into the European Superstate. Good bye Scotland, glad you approve of all decisions made by the European Commission .

fun4everyone

elantan wrote: »

im sure they will accept the will of the Scottish vote ...

Unlike the SNP?

kabayiri

mollycat wrote: »

I think if people in Scotland, (or any part of the UK), had the tax burden that individuals do in Scandinavian countries they'd be screaming blue murder.

This point is always glossed over when the "what's to stop us being like (insert random Scandinavian country here)" brigade are out in force.

You need a plan to move to that different model. It's something which could take several decades, not a few short years.

I think having a neighbour like rUK which has become more American over recent decades makes it more difficult too.

mollycat

kabayiri wrote: »

You need a plan to move to that different model. It's something which could take several decades, not a few short years.

I think having a neighbour like rUK which has become more American over recent decades makes it more difficult too.

Just for clarity, I've no motivation or desire to move to this model, (high tax/ high level of services), either within the UK or (especially!) as an independent country.

I'm happy with the more balanced UK model, and strongly believe that most people in Scotland are too

setmefree2

Nicola Sturgeon 'out of touch' with Scots over Brexit as poll shows support for Theresa May vision

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/29/nicola-sturgeon-touch-scots-brexit-poll-shows-support-theresa/

mrginge

setmefree2 wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/29/nicola-sturgeon-touch-scots-brexit-poll-shows-support-theresa/

I'm afraid this article and research does not fit with the snp agenda therefore it is wrong.

If you're going to post links onto this thread please make sure they only come from twitter.

mayonnaise

If there really is no appetite for an independent Scotland, why are you alt-right unionists getting all wound up about the prospect of a referendum? Should be a walk in the park for the Better Together camp, no? Nicola and the SNP will self destruct and you can all live happily ever after in brexit lala-land.

davomcdave

zagubov wrote: »

Scandinavia used to be poor. Now it's not, and none of it is a junior partner in a political union similar to the UK, but all of it is in the free trade bloc of the EEA.

So why does Scotland always have to stay in a political union, should its citizens democratically scrutinise its decisions and decide differently?

So did everywhere. Everywhere was poor longer than the English because that's where the industrial revolution happened so the English got rich first. Then the Scots, then the Welsh and so it rippled out.

The problem the Scots Nats have now is fracking. There is no good economic reason for independence at any oil price below about $150/bbl and that price is rising all the time while all the time the costs of fracking and shale gas fall which puts an effective medium-term cap on the oil price. The fact is that gas from the Apelachian and Bakken Basins have basically turned US energy markets on their heads. LPG/natural gas can be gotten out of the ground and to consumers and power stations at a tiny marginal cost. Oil can be fracked at a marginal cost of about $40-50/bbl in Bakken.

Outside of short-term effects like wars or other breakdowns in supply it's very hard to see oil prices above $60/bbl in future and $40 or less is likely by 2020 or so. You can't get oil out of the North Sea profitably at $40/bbl and you can't put in new projects even at $60.

The ship has sailed. The SNP had their chance and they blew it. They recognise that Brexit might be the last best chance to push things through but hell, the Scots are going to be livid if they do vote for independence and see what it means for spending on welfare state and education.

The next time you have a once in a generation or lifetime opportunity, try not to blow it is my advice. Oh well, sucks to be you Mr Salmond.

TrickyTree83

mayonnaise wrote: »

If there really is no appetite for an independent Scotland, why are you alt-right unionists getting all wound up about the prospect of a referendum? Should be a walk in the park for the Better Together camp, no? Nicola and the SNP will self destruct and you can all live happily ever after in brexit lala-land.

Because there exists a ScotNat lala-land.

It's ironic that you as pro-EU can allegedly see massive harm to the UK as a whole from leaving the EU but cannot see the harm to Scotland from leaving the UK.

This is obviously of course counter to my view of leaving the EU being OK and Scotland leaving the UK not being OK.

However... as I pointed out many times previously I'm able to reconcile that because of the statistical facts of the situation, the context of the question matters:

- If there is a good deal between the EU and the UK, then Scotland has no need to cause any further problems with it's largest market by far (nearly 6 times larger than the EU for Scotland). It will have a good position, safely in the UK as it is now with most if not all of the 11% of trade with the EU protected under the deal.

- If there is a bad or no deal between the EU and the UK, then Scotland may need to choose which body of trade to protect. 11% or 64%. To the lay-person it's quite obvious that the 64% would be more important to protect.

The issue with the Scottish nationalists is that they do not recognise the figures produced by their own civil service, checked by the UK statistics authority in line with international regulations on statistics.

Of course I'd expect the usual "well it's OK for Brexiters to argue to leave if it's going to hurt them, why not us too?". Except it's not the same, it may seem the same on the surface but the actual context is very different.

FullFact (as used by Scottish nationalists on this thread) states that UK trade with the EU is ~44%.

https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/

So UK voters chose between protecting the 44% or not protecting it. It turns out they chose to risk the 44%. If the UK gets a good deal there's every chance that the majority of the 44% will also be protected. So obtaining a good deal from the EU would protect the vast majority of our trade and also allow us to pursue improved trade relations with the other 93% of the world.

If the UK gets a bad deal, we'll still be free to pursue improved trade relations with the other 93% of the world, but we'll likely take a hit moving to WTO tariffs on the 44%. Not as large as hit as the EU when tariffs are involved, but that's not relevant to the point I'm trying to make.

That's the trade picture of the UK Brexit vote.

The Scottish IndyRef2 vote context is (as I've outlined many times) a choice between the 64% of trade with the rUK and the 11% with the EU.

If there's a good deal for the UK then Scots can protect the 64% and the bulk of the 11%.

If there's a bad deal for the UK then Scots can protect either the 64% or the 11%.

It's always been a simple equation after the Brexit vote, it changed everything for the Scottish nationalist agenda. The best scenario for Scottish independence is one where the UK gets the best possible deal it can get from the EU. Since then if they left the UK and joined the single market they would protect the bulk of that 64% of trade with rUK. But if the eventual outcome were a good deal for the UK with the EU - what's the point in leaving? You'll have a minimal impact on 11% and complete protection of 64%.

The worst scenario is the scenario that Nicola Sturgeon is actually painting for the Scottish people as a reason to leave the UK! Which is why I call them a mendacious political party.

MumOf2

mayonnaise wrote: »

If there really is no appetite for an independent Scotland, why are you alt-right unionists getting all wound up about the prospect of a referendum? Should be a walk in the park for the Better Together camp, no? Nicola and the SNP will self destruct and you can all live happily ever after in brexit lala-land.

Because it's such a disgraceful waste of taxpayers' money, time and effort. All this at a time when the SNP Government should be governing the country, improving education and health services and using the powers that have already been devolved in order to improve the lives of ordinary people living in Scotland.


That's why.