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

davomcdave

Out of interest, who is Ms Sturgeon expecting to pay for her proposed referendum? Surely not Londoners again.

mayonnaise

A quick Google tells me the 2013 indy ref admin cost was £15.85 million. Peanuts, no?

davomcdave

mayonnaise wrote: »

A quick Google tells me the 2013 indy ref admin cost was £15.85 million. Peanuts, no?

That's a lot of cancer patients that are denied breakthrough drugs or women that are going to remain with abusive husbands or children that could have had a better education. Hell the Scottish Government could give 100 kids 5 years education at Eton for the cost of another referendum, That is assuming that after years of primary education under an SNP government 100 Scottish kids met the entry requirements of course.

islandannie

I do hope nobody minds me posting a link to a petition as it`s for a very good cause and would enhance life of all Scots regardless of political allegiance.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/183870

Shaka_Zulu

SNP appear on TV Quiz Show



POINTLESS

mayonnaise

davomcdave wrote: »

That's a lot of cancer patients that are denied breakthrough drugs or women that are going to remain with abusive husbands or children that could have had a better education.

Are there cancer patients who were denied their breakthrough drugs due to the cost of the EU referendum also? Or does this only apply to indyref?

iammumtoone

mayonnaise wrote: »

Are there cancer patients who were denied their breakthrough drugs due to the cost of the EU referendum also? Or does this only apply to indyref?

No it applies to both the BIG difference is the EU referendum was a one time vote, at some point in the far distance future there may be another one to see if we want to re-join. Scotland had their once in a generation vote now they are expecting the money to be found for another one only two years later!

elantan

davomcdave wrote: »

That's a lot of cancer patients that are denied breakthrough drugs or women that are going to remain with abusive husbands or children that could have had a better education. Hell the Scottish Government could give 100 kids 5 years education at Eton for the cost of another referendum, That is assuming that after years of primary education under an SNP government 100 Scottish kids met the entry requirements of course.

It's OK ... we can afford it no problem we have Trident so tones of money

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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.

The request for a Section 30 has gone in now. It's too late to stop the sequence of events that will follow from it. Arguing about mandates is over.

Letter asks for second independence vote

Scotland's first minister has signed a letter formally asking for powers to hold a second Scottish independence referendum.
The Scottish Parliament voted by 69 to 59 on Tuesday in favour of seeking permission for another referendum
Nicola Sturgeon argues Scotland should have the choice on what path to follow in the wake of the Brexit vote.
The UK government has already said it will block a referendum until after the Brexit process has been completed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39449459?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_scotland_news&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=scotland

Your points re trade might well be valid as things stand right now. But trade for the entirety of the UK are about to change and are now question marks. Just like with the EU though trade won't cease and to paint it as some sort of either/or choice is laughable.

Politically ? Scots do not like what the rest of the UK vote for. And they also do not like the fact that the Labour party has to either turn into a pale imitation of the Conservative party in order to woo voters there, or else becomes irrelevant when it turns leftwards back towards it's more traditional voters. Scots voters have stuck with center left-ish parties for decades. It's the parties themselves that have changed. Scottish Labour is a dam waiting to burst imo especially given the below.

There's another row brewing with this Repeal Bill today, with ALL of the devolved parliaments. And it's clear now why there is such desperation to delay a second vote in Scotland until Brexit is over with. Scottish Labour have just spent months and especially the last few days trying to belittle independence on the basis that Holyrood with Brexit will have powers enhanced greatly, not powers taken from it.

Soon there is only going to be the Scottish Conservatives, and a couple of hopeful Lib Dems left in Holyrood arguing 100% for the union. Most of those made up of list MSP's who have never won an election in their lives.

Anyway. Sturgeon has penned her official section 30 letter now, let's see what happens next.

Shakethedisease

mrginge wrote: »

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.

Yes, because at least Twitter provides a fuller picture than the Telegraph.



Just think, 1 more % and we could've called that last sentence 'overwhelming'.