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

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

People vote on information available to them at the time. Brexit taken on it's own is one thing, Brexit along with a host of other political factors is another.

Why Scotland would be better off long term within a a UK who's gotten a very bad deal/none at all from Brexit is something that Unionist parties and folks like yourself have still to convince of. Just saying it doesn't make it so. You're all still stuck on 2014 economic arguments that aren't likely to exist in a few years time.

Scotland receives an annual multi-billion pound subsidy from (mainly) English taxpayers. That's a current conomic argument. And it's factual, it's why Scotland's fiscal deficit is over 9% of GDP.

Pretending that isn't so, doesn't stop it from being so.:)

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.
... And for good reason. I can't bring myself to believe that I can fly simply because I've not tested the theory by jumping over the balcony. I've noted your claim before but not seen any substantiation for it. ... Happy Jumping !

The precedent that Scots voters do have the right to have a say on their own constitutional future has already been set in 2014.
No, the precedent, if such is a relevant concept in view of the established UK Constitution, is more that agreement has to be obtained from the UK before holding a referendum. Given that the request to have such a referendum at this time is unreasonable, there would seem to be little argument to condone such a transparently hostile act.[/I]

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.
I've already given several reasons, and there is also the other little matter which is that it is the law. Anyway, Westminster is not witholding anything, but is objecting to the timing is a) the request (of which you claim there has been none) and b) the date asked for the referendum.

After June 8th, Sturgeon's going to be pressing hard for May to name a date and issue a Section 30.
Easily done - which I've indicated already, namely
--- After Brexit is done, ask again then and it can be considered because --- see my list as starters.

There is no way I believe that May will agree an essentially open-ended timetable for any referendum

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.
I'm pleased to hear that but doubt it will be explicit, maybe it will be hidden in the small print.
As I said before the key issue will be how many people vote for the SNP, not the number of seats

I've highlighted the comments above to which I've responded in Italics.

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

The 2014 Referendum was sanctioned by a section 30 order. That would be a clear precedent that a section 30 order is required for a referendum to be held. Particularly since one N. Sturgeon signed that Edinburgh agreement.

But that in itself doesn't legally justify refusing another one. The precedent is that a referendum has already been held and that the UK Govt issued a Section 30 order in order to do so. It'll be up to the UK Govt to justify legally why they won't issue a Section 30 for the next one requested given the same circumstances and procedures have been followed from the Scottish side as last time. 'Now is not the time' isn't a legal basis for anything, it's a political soundbite.

The UK Govt is going to have to come up with something much better than that.

Anyone could organise some kind of nationwide vote on independence in Scotland, but unless it is a legal referendum it can be ignored. If someone wanted it not to be ignored, they would have to go to the Supreme Court and try to convince them it was legal.

A fully legal referendum without a section 30 order is an unknown and hasn't been tested on court. Should a court deem a referendum legal without a section 30 order, there is no reason why it should be ignored.

You're thinking of Catalonia. Sturgeon has no intention of going ahead with a referendum that isn't legal. The crux of the matter is whether a referendum without a section 30 order would or would not be legal. No one knows as yet. And the SNP has never accepted that a section 30 order is needed, going along with it last time for clarity and quickness.

Unless you are contemplating UDI, Scotland cannot become independent without the UK government passing the necessary Scotland Indpendence Act.

No one, but no one from the Scottish Govt is touting going the UDI route.

Those legalities consist of the requirement for a section 30 order. They applied in 2014, they apply now, and they will apply in 2019, unless the next government amends the Scotland Act 1998.

The requirement for a section 30 order is untested in legalities. One was issued last time for clarity and in order to put the referendum firmly outwith the legal constitutional minefield which would ensue without one.

This time round NOT issuing one will take it to the courts to test the constitution. Something Cameron was very keen to avoid incidentally. But is likely the onus will be on the UK Govt to challenge the legalities of a referendum going ahead given the precedents of 2014 ( ie having to justify they won't issue a section 30 given the Scottish Parliament's clear will to hold a vote ), rather than the Scottish Govt challenging to get a Section 30.

The Scottish Govt holding a legal referendum without a section 30 has not been tested. It would be unwise to pre-empt any court decision on something which has never been to the courts before.

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

Scotland receives an annual multi-billion pound subsidy from (mainly) English taxpayers. That's a current conomic argument. And it's factual, it's why Scotland's fiscal deficit is over 9% of GDP.

Pretending that isn't so, doesn't stop it from being so.:)

That's going to be severely eaten into if the UK economy goes t**s up with Brexit. No chance of recovery either with the Tories intent on changing the Scotland Act to suit themselves.

All different in a few years time perhaps.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I've highlighted the comments above to which I've responded in Italics.

The law has never been tested string. Cameron wasn't very keen on doing so at all. Salmond laughed a lot when presented with the idea that the Scottish Parliament couldn't hold a legal referendum in Scotland, asking Scottish voters their opinion..without Westminster's say so.

We'll see how it goes. Sturgeon for now is definitely keener on going down the political route to a second vote. But hold that comfort blanket close anyway.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

That's going to be severely eaten into if the UK economy goes t**s up with Brexit. No chance of recovery either with the Tories intent on changing the Scotland Act to suit themselves.

All different in a few years time perhaps.

Presumably you are thinking if UK GDP falls that Barnett would fall in line with it, there's no precedent for reducing Barnett without a valid reason to do so, if the revenue taken is less then less will be divided between the constituent countries I see no reason for it to be arbitrarily cut apart from currently being disproportionate.

However as an independent nation, losing a proportion of 500,000 jobs, having a lower credit rating, the Euro and so not in control of interest rates or able to manipulate it in any meaningful way alongside a drop in GDP will make that deficit increase from 9% without spending cuts and/or high taxes on the jobs and industry that do remain.

Jobs = tax receipts
Good credit rating = good rates for borrowing to settle the deficit in the short term

I'm sure you know this. I think you're at pains now to try to justify an independent Scotland economically, there doesn't appear to be any good answers. Even the Growth Commission cannot side step the reality of how integrated the UK market is and what that would mean if WTO barrier sprung up between the single market and the UK.

The difficulty pro-independence support has at explaining away the economics was dealt with last time by oil being in the mythical $100+ per barrel price bracket. Not only did that white paper turn out to be ridiculously wrong in reality but you're now telling us that oil has been abandoned as the saviour of the economic argument for iScotland, yet another silver bullet isn't forthcoming. The arguments for the union from 2014 are largely the same given the UK will not be where iScotland intends on ending up. In 2014 that was outside the EU, arguably better conditions as iScotland could have joined the EEA back then and it would have been problem solved, at least until 2016 as we now know. The new argument for independence has all the same problems as back in 2014 just this time the UK market will be outside the EU single market (probably) and iScotland wanting to be in it (for some bizarre reason).

Isn't it time to just admit that there is no economic reason for Scottish independence? That if you're a Yes voter you're happy to potentially:

- lose your job
- pay higher taxes
- have worse public services
- have higher credit costs

If as a Yes voter you're happy to have the above and still think that the political argument of "no Conservative government" is worth the sacrifices then essentially - fair play, that's an ideological position, like rectums, everyone's got one.

If you're not happy to have the above, then you should stop lying to yourself and others, see for yourself that the SNP is actually driving your dream into a brick wall and do something about it. An independent Scotland that isn't poorer, bleaker and more depressing than you may find it now is not what the SNP's version of independence by any means necessary is offering to you.

The SNP are demonstrably lying to you all already.

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

The SNP tell you that a "Conservative hard brexit cliff edge is the most dangerous threat to the Scottish economy". Clearly they are lying. When caught out they attempt to wriggle out of it by saying trade won't stop overnight and that Scotland is the rUK's largest market. None of that will matter if iScotland is in the EU single market and the UK is outside of it, regulations will spring up overnight after a transition and some trade will stop, some jobs will be lost.

The SNP is attempting to use misdirection and misinformation to whip you up into a frenzy over independence again, as I said before like a third rate magician trying to con you out of the £5 note you put under the middle cup.

I know this paper isn't everyone's cup of tea, but it does contain quotes and statistics from the SNP and "experts" who disagree with each other:

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/611116/snp-claim-brexit-bigger-threat-to-scots-after-warnings-indy-would-spark-19billion-of-greece-style-cuts/

Instead of saying the experts were wrong, Mr Brown bleats on about productivity, yet more recently we've found that the Scottish economy is contracting (may be behind pay wall for some):

https://www.ft.com/content/4991b3a8-88ed-31f8-ab39-4f66a6ef97f0

For those behind the pay wall:

Scotland’s economy contracted by 0.2 per cent at the end of 2016, defying a broader expansion in the UK in figures that will do nothing to bolster the country’s case for independence.

Official stats from the Scottish government show overall GDP growth in 2016 was 0.4 per cent, compared to a 1.8 per cent expansion in the UK as a whole. Quarterly growth in the UK meanwhile was 0.7 per cent in the last three months of the year.

Mr Brown has been caught in the act of misdirection multiple times, but I can forgive him as he has an impossible task. Making the impossible possible, that being making an independent Scotland seem less riskier than staying in the union. He's trying, but it just doesn't work.

It does feel as though if you truly believe that independence should happen that you need to abandon the SNP. They're going about it in totally the wrong way, they're doing you no favours as you look set to lose a 2nd referendum (should it take place) in the near future under their stewardship.

If EU membership is the aim - you've lost the fishermen and their families and friends due to the CFP. We're getting that back, whether it's under Holyrood control (I think it will be, the Conservatives have said it will be) or not. The fishermen will get their livelihoods back. Coastal communities can grow, employ and enrich themselves once again without being under a bureaucratic yoke. They've waited for decades for this chance, they're not going to say no and throw it all away a second time.

If EU membership is the aim, you've lost some of the die hard independence support who voted to leave the EU. You will be subverting their democratic will. You might pick up some of the EU remain vote, but certainly not all of it if the educated demographics are true. These people will see things like the job statistics (500,000 vs 120,000), trade statistics (64% vs 11%), GERS with the 10% deficit and the argument will be clear as day to them.

So who is left for you to count on for the vote? This will transcend party politics, it did last time as did the EU referendum. The anti-conservative argument will only take you so far with a small section of the populace. The opinion polls whilst untrustworthy are consistently showing support for the union remaining on top, there is no groundswell of support for independence. You may say you're starting from 40%+ instead of ~20% this time, but the arguments are all the same this time around and the magic oil isn't there. Instead the evidence is mounting against independence for Scotland, the evidence that the SNP are incompetent is mounting against them as time goes by.

You may want to fool yourself because it is what you believe in, but taking an objective view of this thread and the reality of the situation - independence is worse for Scots than Brexit. It should be the time to put aside the divisions that you believe exist and work for the best deal possible so that potentially an independent Scotland, the dream, stays alive. Because without that good deal between the UK and the EU, it's finished for the foreseeable future until your economy rebalances away from the rUK market. Under a Brexit future I don't see that happening at all if anything it will further entrench the UK integrated market which makes the economic argument for independence a dead one in perpetuity.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Presumably you are thinking if UK GDP falls that Barnett would fall in line with it, there's no precedent for that.

However as an independent nation, losing a proportion of 500,000 jobs, having a lower credit rating, the Euro and so not in control of interest rates or able to manipulate it in any meaningful way alongside a drop in GDP will make that deficit increase from 9% without spending cuts and/or high taxes on the jobs and industry that do remain.

Jobs = tax receipts
Good credit rating = good rates for borrowing to settle the deficit in the short term

I applaud your detailed reply. Thank you.

But am afraid apart from the fact that the Euro isn't up for discussion for many years yet, and that Barnett is already up for review in 4 years time and likely to be cut whatever happens. You've completely forgotten somehow when talking in absolutes to scale up all those job losses x 10 for England after we leave the EU.

~120,000 jobs depend on the EU single market in Scotland.

How many for England ?

And credit ratings etc are just as vunerable to Brexit effects for the UK and losing Scotland. There's also the outside chance that the rUK via a cheering rabid media react so badly to any independence vote that Scotland ends up walking away with no assets at all ( but also no debt ). Oil goes up and down. but better to have it than not.

Independence is the aim. For some it's about the politics, some it's about changing the economics, for some it's about ideals, and for some it's about the EU. Only those wary of the economic arguments are left to persuade now. Given the core voters, mainly in the older demographics it has to be said.. of all other political parties in Scotland are not enough in themselves now to hold the UK together.

Brexit is a scary economic prospect. As is independence there's no denying it. But Brexit with Theresa May and her party in charge is a frightening political prospect also for many Scots watching this unfold. No one knows what's going on.

The SNP have been in charge for a decade now. Sturgeon whatever you personally think of her is seen in the main as a steady pair of hands. The other parties have no policies to offer other than carping. Many might opt for steady hands in already well known challenging and debated economic circumstances ( such as those you describe above for independence ).. than to stick with the complete unknown economic consequences of Brexit and very little, if any say or control over the consequences from a Scottish perspective.

Davidson stood up and told us all last year these Brexit effects could be catastrophic remember ?

Tromking

Tory support "surging" in Scotland apparently.
John Curtice predicting 12 seats for the Tories and a Labour wipe out.
How about them apples Shakey?

kelpie35

Tromking wrote: »

Tory support "surging" in Scotland apparently.
John Curtice predicting 12 seats for the Tories and a Labour wipe out.
How about them apples Shakey?

I just hope and pray it is far more than 12.

We must get the SNP OUT once and for all.

mrginge

Tromking wrote: »

Tory support "surging" in Scotland apparently.
John Curtice predicting 12 seats for the Tories and a Labour wipe out.
How about them apples Shakey?

Ah yes but it's very early days. Still well over a year to go.

:rotfl: