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

zagubov

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I haven't said that at all.

I merely pointed out what has been asked and ascertained up to now.

I never said it was a binary choice for the electorate, but for the Scottish government and pro Indy protagonists to maintain a "Will of the people" stance they must act accordingly. EEA/EFTA has not been asked for by the electorate.

It's interesting now that what I say has to be misinterpreted or misrepresented in order to make follow up comments. Why not address it within the context it was given? I.e. the supposed "Will of the people"?

I would agree with you and not challenge the undeniable truth that no three-way option has been offered or discussed but i would propose that the time for such thinking will come in the future, so the SG should prepare for it.

Joining the EU may be a sub-optimal choice, and the electorate may need to be informed of the other options. As the old saying goes, "the best is the enemy of the good".

The only problem with being in EFTA is the possible envy of any misguided Brexiters who may see it as Scotland "having their cake and eating it", which as we all know, must be a terribly bad thing. :think:

TrickyTree83

zagubov wrote: »

I would agree with you and not challenge the undeniable truth that no three-way option has been offered or discussed but i would propose that the time for such thinking will come in the future, so the SG should prepare for it.

Joining the EU may be a sub-optimal choice, and the electorate may need to be informed of the other options. As the old saying goes, "the best is the enemy of the good".

The only problem with being in EFTA is the possible envy of any misguided Brexiters who may see it as Scotland "having their cake and eating it", which as we all know, must be a terribly bad thing. :think:

So how does EFTA come up as an option if the Scottish electorate hasn't even asked for it? That's the circle I'd like squaring. If the SNP and Greens are all about the will of the Scottish electorate as they proclaimed during the indy2 debate in Holyrood then EFTA isn't on the table is it? And if it is on the table then the proclamation about it being due to the will of the people is suspect is it not?

Shakethedisease

cogito wrote: »

Shakey, you appear to be incapable of answering a very simple question. Here are the EU negotiating guidelines:

http://www.todayonline.com/world/text-eu-27-draft-brexit-negotiations-guidelines

Please show us where the word Scotland appears. I won't hold my breath.

Apologies again, It was the EU Parliament a week or so ago. Under 'M' and 'N'.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/resources/library/media/20170329RES69090/20170329RES69090.pdf

And these folks during the debate.

MEP from Spanish governing party @gonzalezpons hits out at Tories for "preventing Scotland being part of Europe.” #Brexit

MEP @jmterricabras calls for #Brexit talks to respect Scotland, Northern Ireland & Gibraltar.

Polish MEP @J_Lewandowski states that Scotland, Northern Ireland & England have 'different visions for the future'. #Brexit

French MEP @franckproust: UK will be weaker for #Brexit, especially if Scotland decides independence with Europe.

Knew I'd read something somewhere.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

So how does EFTA come up as an option if the Scottish electorate hasn't even asked for it? That's the circle I'd like squaring. If the SNP and Greens are all about the will of the Scottish electorate as they proclaimed during the indy2 debate in Holyrood then EFTA isn't on the table is it? And if it is on the table then the proclamation about it being due to the will of the people is suspect is it not?

The Scottish electorate didn't ask for Brexit either. EFTA/EEA would be transitional damage control. And it will be presented to Scottish voters as such should the need arise.

May's going to want transitional stages out. It might be unavoidable now that Scotland is included in the first phase before ( hypothetical ) independence occurs. But May will get the blame for this, not Sturgeon who can say hand on heart to Scots voters that she has already presented proposals which were completely ignored in order avoid Scotland being taken along for the ride.

And that Tricky is how you square the circle.

zagubov

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

So how does EFTA come up as an option if the Scottish electorate hasn't even asked for it? That's the circle I'd like squaring. If the SNP and Greens are all about the will of the Scottish electorate as they proclaimed during the indy2 debate in Holyrood then EFTA isn't on the table is it? And if it is on the table then the proclamation about it being due to the will of the people is suspect is it not?

IMHO, the SG would be well advised to see if EFTA can be sold to the electorate as a halfway house to full membership of the EU, especially if EU membership may need to be negotiated slowly to ensure it provides sufficient benefits for Scotland. Being in the EU gives the benefits of being in the larger union, the EEA. The electorate should be reminded that there are multiple routes to that end.

They should have the right to canvas the electorate as to their wishes and they would be smart to include the EFTA option at that point.

EEA membership via EFTA accession could offer more benefits and fewer costs. If the choice is presented with a full comparison to the EU route, it will broaden Scotland's options. If the electorate wishes to proceed directly to EU membership or via the EFTA route, the will of the people can be met.

Thrugelmir

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Apologies again, It was the EU Parliament a week or so ago. Under 'M' and 'N'.

Didn't realise that MEP's in Brussels had any right of say in UK Constitutional Affairs. Seems as if democracy is being thrown out of the window. The EU was formed to bring about lasting peace in Europe. At the moment seems hell bent on reopening every wound that exists from your narrative. A rather concerning state of affairs. Given other events globally.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The Scottish electorate didn't ask for Brexit either. EFTA/EEA would be transitional damage control. And it will be presented to Scottish voters as such should the need arise.

May's going to want transitional stages out. It might be unavoidable now that Scotland is included in the first phase before ( hypothetical ) independence occurs. But May will get the blame for this, not Sturgeon who can say hand on heart to Scots voters that she has already presented proposals which were completely ignored in order avoid Scotland being taken along for the ride.

And that Tricky is how you square the circle.

zagubov wrote: »

IMHO, the SG would be well advised to see if EFTA can be sold to the electorate as a halfway house to full membership of the EU, especially if EU membership may need to be negotiated slowly to ensure it provides sufficient benefits for Scotland. Being in the EU gives the benefits of being in the larger union, the EEA. The electorate should be reminded that there are multiple routes to that end.

They should have the right to canvas the electorate as to their wishes and they would be smart to include the EFTA option at that point.

EEA membership via EFTA accession could offer more benefits and fewer costs. If the choice is presented with a full comparison to the EU route, it will broaden Scotland's options. If the electorate wishes to proceed directly to EU membership or via the EFTA route, the will of the people can be met.

Yes I get what you're saying but my point is that there is no mandate for EAA membership, the question has not been asked so how can independence leading directly to EEA membership be the will of the Scottish electorate?

That's the circle I wanted squaring.

I'm not talking about Brexit, I'm on about current affairs and future affairs.

The questions put to the Scottish electorate thus far are if they want to remain in the UK and if they want to remain in the EU. Nothing else, anything other than these two options/results is pure speculation.

So taking the pro Indy argument that the 2016 Holyrood election created a situation where the Brexit result triggers an independence referendum based on the will of the Scottish electorate means the choice must be between EU membership (and consequently eurozone membership) and remaining in the UK. Should the ballot be ambiguous enough to allow for EAA membership to be an outcome it's not the will of the Scottish electorate thus far in any vote is it? So how could it be considered a legitimate outcome unless it is explicitly voted for in a future vote?

Are you getting where I'm coming from on this?

It appears that those in charge appear to want independence rather than respecting the will of the people as they say if EEA membership becomes the outcome of indy2.

Shakethedisease

Tromking wrote: »

Falmouth and/or Devonport were mooted duriing indyref1.

Neither are immediately suitable.

Oh and very good luck selling it to those that live nearby.

Scottish independence: Where might Trident go?

has led some to believe Devonport might be the best option for an alternative location for Trident. However, the Royal United Services Institute's Malcolm Chalmers says even though - time and expense allowing - Devonport might work as an alternative to Faslane, it couldn't recreate Coulport.

Falmouth was also seriously considered in its own right in the 1963 shortlist. However, the area has a strong tourist economy and the proposed site would have required National Trust land acquisition which would be very difficult, if not impossible.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28009977

zagubov

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Should the ballot be ambiguous enough to allow for EAA membership to be an outcome it's not the will of the Scottish electorate thus far in any vote is it? So how could it be considered a legitimate outcome unless it is explicitly voted for in a future vote?

However it is phrased or constructed, the ballot will have to allow for EEA membership to be an outcome, as EU membership always leads to it (although the reverse doesn't have to be true, as, interestingly, EEA membership doesn't inevitably mean EU membership).

I am now suggesting that the SG should widen their question and offer the Scotland the bigger prize of EEA membership, thereby expanding the choice available to them.

Let them be upfront about it, and address the populace on the matter. Choice is good.

Shakethedisease

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Didn't realise that MEP's in Brussels had any right of say in UK Constitutional Affairs. Seems as if democracy is being thrown out of the window. The EU was formed to bring about lasting peace in Europe. At the moment seems hell bent on reopening every wound that exists from your narrative. A rather concerning state of affairs. Given other events globally.

No but the EU Parliament has to vote the final deal through. NI and Good Friday seem paramount. The Scottish Govt will be watching developments there very closely I can assure you and asking 'why can't we have that then ? We voted remain too'. The EU might be inclined to agree since NI like Scotland is part of the UK also. Special deals for one part which voted remain and not for the other..hmmmm...

Messy, messy stuff. But at least they recognise NI and Scotland's remain votes matter. May seems oblivious.