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

IveSeenTheLight

.string. wrote: »

Not really, Annie's post exposed that being within the EU is not a panacea for job security since,, as ISTL pointed out, jobs have been at risk for years i.e. pre Brexit. I think ISTL did indeed miss the point. Brexit is an oscillation on top of what was planned apparently. Mind you if Natland did come about, a pre-shrunk Natland currency would improve Natland's cost competitiveness, so low-paid jobs might recover.

I don;t think that was the message IslandAnnie was projecting

IveSeenTheLight

.string. wrote: »

The two situations are quite different but I too wonder about the point of the current Scottish SNP Goverrnment, they're a totally unconstructive waste of space at Westminster and neglect the Day job of their devolved responsibilities.

They're a good whinge machine though.

I agree they are different, but in some ways they are very similar and shows where the control remains.

How can you say, now is not the time and then 3 weeks later call a snap General Election? Hypocracy and not the first time TM has went back on her word.

As for the MSP's at Westminster, from what limited time I have seen PMQ, they hold the government to account far more than the traditional opposition parties do

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

There are two "Referendums" here, one is a legal Referendum done according to the UK Constitution and the other is the "Referendum" on which the SNP is putting it's hopes. May does not have to reject the first, as I have said, and as for the second all she has to do is declare it illegal and not recognised by the UK Government.

I know you think there are legal arguments regarding a new definition of the meaning of legal, but the effect of any vote, masquerading as.a Referendum, being unrecognised by the UK Government would be to discredit it before it was even started.

So Duck Face is a prejorative, who would have thought that.

Edit: I noted that you did not react to the 6 reasons I gave for not agreeing a Referendum at this time.

We know what the reasons are for saying No to a referendum. However, and Tricky and I have been over this many times already, is that there may be other routes for a legal referendum to happen without a Section 30. It's completely untested legal ground... so far.

The precedent that Scots voters do have the right to have a say on their own constitutional future has already been set in 2014. The onus would now be on May to say legally why they no longer do so ? That's going to be a real toughie to prove. And if indeed as 2014 showed, the Scots do have the right to a say in their own constitutional future, then why is Westminster trying to withhold that right by taking control of the timing.

After June 8th, Sturgeon's going to be pressing hard for May to name a date and issue a Section 30. The timing the Scottish Parliament has already asked for will be explicitly laid out in the SNP's manifesto, and again the SNP are very likely to gain a majority of Scottish seats.

You might find this a good read ( from Conservativehome today ).

The Prime Minister’s gamble in Scotland – and why pressure for another independence vote may become unstoppable

However, this is not a risk-free game in Scotland. The very same strategy, of pushing this election as a referendum on the SNP’s ambition to have another vote on Scottish independence, does run the risk of rebounding on May after the result is declared.

Sturgeon knows that her task is simple. She must win the election in the overwhelming majority of constituencies in Scotland, and then win the PR war thereafter.

May must also know that her future prospects as Prime Minister are hopelessly intertwined with those of the Scottish First Minister. This is a general election with little at risk, beyond the Union itself.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/04/peter-duncan-a-general-election-with-little-at-risk-beyond-the-union-itself.html

I was particularly struck by the very marked differences in commentary from Conservative members living in Scotland, and those from rUK with the members themselves eventually commenting on it. It's very true and worth taking on board.

reading the comments it is interesting to see those that are actually living in Scotland and those who are getting their information from the inaccurate reporting in the Telegraph, Mail, etc which often is completely wrong especially on the Scottish Government. Many are also letting their prejudice against the SNP and their leadership - "wee lassie" affect their opinion.

The SNP are formidable opponents, they are led by a 46 year old graduate (older than Osborne) who has been politically active for over 30years. They have a wide selection of professional politicians from media people like John Nicolson through the professions and with experts like George Kerevan and activists like Tommy Shepherd. They have a wide generational span. They have a lot of activists and money.

Against them we have the Conservatives. We are much fewer in number have very few constituency associations and those that we do are staffed by pensioners. We have 1 MP.

A good read if you've got 10 mins spare. Full article/comments at link.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

In essence the devolved administrations should reasonably act as devolved administrations and not equals to Westminster - as they're not. So telling those in Westminster what they'd prefer to happen and then having Westminster collate the results and formulate a reasonable approach for the entire country. That doesn't seem unreasonable. But instead the Scottish government dug their heels in and laid down red lines and demands when they really are in no position to do so. That may be tough to hear but it's the truth, everything that is going on with Brexit is under Westminster (i.e. reserved) control.

This isn't anything new. And while it might be true currently and in the past, there's nothing to say that changes could'nt have been made or laid out in future devolved relationships in order to accommodate and compromise. I'm afraid the way it looks now is that the Tories are all gung ho for changing the Scotland Act, they're going to have to. But only to take previously devolved powers back without the Scottish Govt's consent ( same will be true for Wales/NI).

This isn't acceptable in a Union, and it sets very bad precedents for what's in store in the future concerning devolved govts.

The jobs dependent on the UK market in Scotland are exactly what it says on the tin. Trade will not stop overnight, very true, completely agree, unreasonable to suggest otherwise.

But lets not ignore what those jobs figures mean.

~500,000 jobs in Scotland rely on the rUK market.
~120,000 jobs in Scotland rely on the EU market.

If the UK gets a deal with the EU that lessens the impact on the UK economy then a smaller proportion of the 120,000 will be hit.

If the UK gets a bad deal with the EU then possibly all of the 120,000 could be hit.

At the same time it's also true that if the UK gets a good deal with the EU that Scotland could be independent, join the EU and suffer a proportionally smaller hit to the 500,000 jobs that depend on the rUK market.

But also true that if the UK gets a bad deal with the EU that were Scotland to be independent and in the EU and therefore subject to the deal that possibly all of the 500,000 jobs could be hit.

Therefore I would have thought the Scottish government would be doing everything in its power to lessen the hit to Scottish jobs. Saying they'd like to keep Single Market access as we have now is fine, but threatening independence if you don't get it is not.

Because by saying they want to keep Single Market access as we have now they demonstrate that they want to protect the jobs that depend on the EU. But by threatening independence to rejoin the EU they are threatening 500,000 jobs in the process. The Scottish government doesn't appear to going about its business in a logical way, in fact its rather fanatical in its pursuit of independence and has forgotten completely about the rUK market.

Threatening 500,000 jobs to protect 120,000 jobs is not sensible, I'm sure everyone will agree with that.

Hopefully this time (I've forgotten how many times I've been over this argument) I've made it clearer to understand. Not only does the independence argument depend on a good Brexit deal, but the Scottish government are working against that right now and also therefore against independence being a workable solution for you. It seems that only the Westminster government in that situation is working towards an achievable independent Scotland. It's bizarre is it not?

Edit: To give this more context, the SNP and in particular Nicola Sturgeon are constantly referring to Brexit as a cliff edge. If that cliff edge deal comes to pass, 120,000 is less painful than 500,000. Are they not being disingenuous?

But many don't think you're going to get a good Brexit deal ? What if it's a terrible one, or none at all if May walks away ? What then ?

Referendum

---

> Exit route. I for one is glad Sturgeon is holding the door open. And am sure, many who do not consider themselves nationalists in any way shape or form feel the same way. The independence question being asked right now is way too early. Asking it two years from now is a different matter altogether. Sometimes I feel like May isn't really interested in a deal and the route is being prepared now ( early GE, no information or plans, vague soundbites, right wing newspapers always on about being 'punished' by the EU etc ) for no deal.

What's your idea of a good Brexit deal anyway ? And are you confident it'll happen ? Honestly ?

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

This isn't anything new. And while it might be true currently and in the past, there's nothing to say that changes could'nt have been made or laid out in future devolved relationships in order to accommodate and compromise. I'm afraid the way it looks now is that the Tories are all gung ho for changing the Scotland Act, they're going to have to. But only to take previously devolved powers back without the Scottish Govt's consent ( same will be true for Wales/NI).

This isn't acceptable in a Union, and it sets very bad precedents for what's in store in the future concerning devolved govts.

But many don't think you're going to get a good Brexit deal ? What if it's a terrible one, or none at all if May walks away ? What then ?

Referendum

---

> Exit route. I for one is glad Sturgeon is holding the door open. And am sure, many who do not consider themselves nationalists in any way shape or form feel the same way. The independence question being asked right now is way too early. Asking it two years from now is a different matter altogether. Sometimes I feel like May isn't really interested in a deal and the route is being prepared now ( early GE, no information or plans, vague soundbites, right wing newspapers always on about being 'punished' by the EU etc ) for no deal.

What's your idea of a good Brexit deal anyway ? And are you confident it'll happen ? Honestly ?

Before moving on to your questions on what I think is a good deal and whether I'm confident it will happen or not, I feel given you're still asking "What if it's a bad or terrible deal?" indicates to me you've not fully understood what I wrote.

If it's a bad deal the UK will need to deal with it as best we can. That doesn't mean it's suddenly OK to put 500,000 Scottish jobs on the line when only 120,000 Scottish jobs are on the line with a bad deal.

Please tell me you follow this? Perhaps someone else will be better at explaining this.

Rinoa

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

How can you say, now is not the time and then 3 weeks later call a snap General Election?

Easy. Indyref2 would be a distraction for several years if TM said yes. The focus now, quite rightly, should be on negotiating a successful Brexit.

A UK GE gives TM the mandate she needs without being held to ransom by the EU - and it will be over in 6 weeks.

mollycat

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

If it's a bad deal the UK will need to deal with it as best we can. That doesn't mean it's suddenly OK to put 500,000 Scottish jobs on the line when only 120,000 Scottish jobs are on the line with a bad deal.

Please tell me you follow this? Perhaps someone else will be better at explaining this.

Tricky, I've thought for a long time, (as will have many others who frequent this thread), that the arguments put forward by yourself, .string et al are pearls before swine.

My guess would be that the pro-independence posters here are aware of the economic points you put forward but are unwilling to acknowledge same, (after all this crusade is their life.)

They may of course be so deluded/ indoctrinated that they actually do believe their counterargument; but I dont think so.

A third possibility is that they do not posses the capacity to understand what you have very patiently and skillfully explained numerous times.

IveSeenTheLight

Rinoa wrote: »

Easy. Indyref2 would be a distraction for several years if TM said yes. The focus now, quite rightly, should be on negotiating a successful Brexit.

A UK GE gives TM the mandate she needs without being held to ransom by the EU - and it will be over in 6 weeks.

What mandate does it give TM?
The Conservative already hold a majority government.

She kicked the can down the road 9 months waiting to trigger article 50 and effectively has kicked the can further down the road by another 14 months with the GE.

How can she have meaningful discussions on Brexit when there is a risk that the shape of the government could be different from where it currently is.

Yes Labour is in turmoil, but there is an assumption that they'll get a greater return than they currently have.

Giving Scotland their Indy Ref 2 should also in your thought process clarify the situation as oppose to leave it as an uncertainty.
It would not have impacted the negotiations on Brexit as the UK continue to negotiate in alignment with the Conservative wishes and bears no consideration on the devolved parliaments anyway.

IveSeenTheLight

mollycat wrote: »

Tricky, I've thought for a long time, (as will have many others who frequent this thread), that the arguments put forward by yourself, .string et al are pearls before swine.

My guess would be that the pro-independence posters here are aware of the economic points you put forward but are unwilling to acknowledge same, (after all this crusade is their life.)

They may of course be so deluded/ indoctrinated that they actually do believe their counterargument; but I dont think so.

A third possibility is that they do not posses the capacity to understand what you have very patiently and skillfully explained numerous times.

There is of course a fourth option that we consider and accept the current position, acknowledge that there will be an initial period of cost and lowering of living standards but fully believe that making that initial sacrifice will bear much better fruits going forward as the governments of the future will solely be looking after the interests of the people of Scotland.

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

There is of course a fourth option that we consider and accept the current position, acknowledge that there will be an initial period of cost and lowering of living standards but fully believe that making that initial sacrifice will bear much better fruits going forward as the governments of the future will solely be looking after the interests of the people of Scotland.

The pain will be proportional to the number of jobs at risk.

Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP have been and continue to say Brexit is the biggest threat to the Scottish economy and that if the UK government do not allow the UK or Scotland to remain in the single market that they will seek (and have sought) another independence referendum.

They are wrong about that, independence is the biggest threat isn't it. The numbers are quite obviously describing that to all of us.

So either the SNP are liars and they're purposely misleading everyone or they're stupid. Because what they claim to be the case is demonstrably not true. How are they looking after the best interests of Scottish people by risking 4 times as many jobs as Brexit whilst telling everyone to look the other way, like some third rate magic trick.