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

elantan

Anyone watch last night's debate on the EU ?

Thrugelmir

elantan wrote: »

Anyone watch last night's debate on the EU ?

Was there a debate or simply another slew of misinformation. No politician of any party seems to want to tackle on the key issue. Without change Europe can only become more insular.

elantan

There was an argument and a recognition of project fear but no real change of tactics

.string.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yes, to be clear, I still think it's most probable the UK will vote to stay in the EU.

And even if the improbable comes to pass and we do leave the EU, that the politicians will panic once reality sets in and do whatever needs to be done to keep us in the Single Market.



The timing is critical - as is what happens after a potential Brexit vote - because the only way any of it would work is if the UK then also decides to leave the single market and I don't think that would be settled for a year or so.

Again, to be clear, the only circumstances it makes absolute sense for Scotland to vote for indy are if the UK decides to leave the EU and decides to leave the single market and if Scotland could then vote to leave the UK and also be 100% sure of inheriting the UK's current EU membership, with all the various exemptions, etc, intact, as the remaining state.

That is a highly improbable set of circumstances and the timeline to try and pull it off would be unrealistically tight.

But if those were the exact circumstances we were asked to vote on I think we'd be mad to vote No.

I understand your disquiet and share your opinion on the folly of those that promote Brexit. A few thoughts:

Gove was on TV tonight (question time). I didn't like his approach, repeatable saying we are all wonderful and could leap tall buildings, nor his perpetuation of some of the lies the Brexit campaign (I shall start calling that a Conpaign I think). Anyway, to get to the point, he said he thought a Brexit would be in 2020.

The timing is defined to be in 2 years after announcement of the intent, and can be extended only by consent of all member States and also the UK. But I don't see, without I admit a great deal of thought, why the UK would want to prolong the exit, except if it was bean counting on some crucial export concerns. But at this time I would put an exit in 2018 or very soon after as more likely.

The Scottish element would be a factor I think, and in the interests of maintaining the UK together, it may be important to the UK Goverment to get the Brexit done and dusted and do the negotiations on trade on the basis of a larger UK than would be the case if Scotland separated. So in that context I can't see the UK Goverment being in any mood to ease the way for another Scottish Referendum or if it happened to support its legitimacy, and instead to negotiate the arrangements for the whole of the UK. There would be agendas and different agendas, and hidden agendas all round.

Not that I take the above as what would definitely happen, I'm just pointing out that I don't think things will go smoothly

.string.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Was there a debate or simply another slew of misinformation. No politician of any party seems to want to tackle on the key issue. Without change Europe can only become more insular.

That seems a variant of the remark of the type "There's a terrible storm, Europe is isolated"!

Brexit means an isolated UK, not an isolated Europe.

But I agree that the EU needs reform. I would hope that, in the event of a "Brexin" the UK will build on the navel-gazing now happening in the EU and lead a movement for some useful reforms from within.

zagubov

.string. wrote: »

The Scottish element would be a factor I think, and in the interests of maintaining the UK together, it may be important to the UK Goverment to get the Brexit done and dusted and do the negotiations on trade on the basis of a larger UK than would be the case if Scotland separated. So in that context I can't see the UK Goverment being in any mood to ease the way for another Scottish Referendum or if it happened to support its legitimacy, and instead to negotiate the arrangements for the whole of the UK. There would be agendas and different agendas, and hidden agendas all round.

Not that I take the above as what would definitely happen, I'm just pointing out that I don't think things will go smoothly

I think this suggests that the UK government is a bit unimaginative. Why should the UK disband if one kingdom wants out and another stays in? The kingdom of Denmark didn't disband when Greenland opted out of the EU. Part stays in and trades with Europe; part stays out and deals with NAFTA or whatever.

The UK could have its cake and eat it. Maybe the government just lacks vision. The lack of sensible arguments on both sides of this debate is appalling. And not that surprising.

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

I think this suggests that the UK government is a bit unimaginative. Why should the UK disband if one kingdom wants out and another stays in? The kingdom of Denmark didn't disband when Greenland opted out of the EU. Part stays in and trades with Europe; part stays out and deals with NAFTA or whatever.

The UK could have its cake and eat it. Maybe the government just lacks vision. The lack of sensible arguments on both sides of this debate is appalling. And not that surprising.

It's an interesting idea but misses the central point: neither Scots nor English want to leave the United Kingdom.

zagubov

Generali wrote: »

It's an interesting idea but misses the central point: neither Scots nor English want to leave the United Kingdom.

I'm not proposing either has to leave the UK. If you mean leave the EU, I can't tell; the debate here in the UK can only be described as exasperating.:mad:

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

I'm not proposing either has to leave the UK. If you mean leave the EU, I can't tell; the debate here in the UK can only be described as exasperating.:mad:

Despite many reports to the contrary, C21st communications mean that I can keep up with UK political debates from afar.

I'm glad to be well away from this crap. I am pegged up as the local expert now and again at work and I think I'm going to have to say tomorrow that I think that there is a decent risk that Brexitiots will carry the day.

If that's the case I'll be very glad to be watching things from afar although I suspect the ramifications will be very widespread.

.string.

zagubov wrote: »

I think this suggests that the UK government is a bit unimaginative. Why should the UK disband if one kingdom wants out and another stays in? The kingdom of Denmark didn't disband when Greenland opted out of the EU. Part stays in and trades with Europe; part stays out and deals with NAFTA or whatever.

The UK could have its cake and eat it. Maybe the government just lacks vision. The lack of sensible arguments on both sides of this debate is appalling. And not that surprising.

Not a likely or even possible scenario I suggest, any more than, for example, Northern Ireland leaving and the rest of the UK staying.

The best scenario for all of, IMHO, is to remain in the EU under the favourable terms in place and the under-pinning secured by Cameron's negotiation.