UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:AIUI, an official referendum can only take place by Act of Parliament, which would presumably also need to guarantee that a Yes vote will lead to the dissolution of the Union (on some reasonable timescale). But, it's still fully in the hands of Westminster, and the Parliament there can over-rule anything that the Scottish Parliament decides.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
if Westminster says no, does Holyrood have the power to take things further?
quote:On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, do I want to live in the UK if the Tories spend the next eight years running it into the ground, sorry, taking back control?
Originally posted by kingsfold:
I think my dominant feeling is "Oh God not again."
quote:Tell us when, and we'll put the kettle on for you!
Originally posted by Boogie:
May I move to Scotland?
quote:That would be an entirely welcome option, which probably dooms it to oblivion.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The only option really open to stop another referendum and (IMO) almost certain dissolution of the Union is to change the direction of Brexit to one that is more acceptable to the people of Scotland, and the rest of the UK.
quote:Agreed.
Originally posted by kingsfold:
I think my dominant feeling is "Oh God not again."
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:I think in the case where Brexit makes it easier for the EU to move in this direction, as it'll be seen as a reaction to a exceptional set of circumstances, rather than purely acceptance of the independence of part of another EU member (which the UK will not be by then anyway).
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There remains the question of just how willing the EU might be, not so much to welcome Scotland, but to give ideas to, say, Catalonia.
quote:The question depends on the circumstances, change the circumstances and the question changes. So, in a way it's impossible to put the same question to the people twice. That is especially true when circumstances change significantly. The question will need to be formulated over the next year or so, taking into account the changes in the relationship between the UK and EU, and the changes to devolution promised and partially delivered since 2014. The remaining within the UK position is now significantly different. And, there will be repurcussion on the details of the independence proposal - though I would expect the white paper to still carry forward much of the 2014 version.
Originally posted by Sipech:
The cynical view that has some currency is that if you don't like the answer you get first time round in a "once in a generation" referendum, you ask again in a few years' time.
quote:What is the 'self' that is being 'determined'?
I don't live in Scotland, but I would be a yes voter. The right to self determination is a powerful force, throughout the world.
quote:National self-determination. See Ireland. I think it's in the UN Charter.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
quezalcoatiquote:What is the 'self' that is being 'determined'?
I don't live in Scotland, but I would be a yes voter. The right to self determination is a powerful force, throughout the world.
quote:Absolutely. EU membership is the trump card for the SNP. And, as I've said, the only option the UK government has to defeat that card is to change tack on Brexit to something that gives the people of Scotland something much closer to what we want - free access to the single market, access to the European labour market. A differential agreement where Scotland has something different from the rest of the UK would be difficult, seeking that for the whole UK would be much more practical (and, IMO welcome to the majority of the UK population). If Mrs May was to head down that road, and soon, then the Scottish government would probably struggle to get a request for IndyRef2 through the Scottish Parliament, and will probably not even try, waiting for a more opportune moment (remember Nicola and the SNP don't want to hold a referendum on independence - they want to win a referendum on independence).
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There is no question that Brexit is a game-changer as far as Scottish independence goes.
Viewed from this distance, any such referendum would be about EU membership more than Scottish independence.
quote:But some of the concessions that Scotland asked for - like remaining in the single market, separate deals etc - were turned down by the EU, not just London. Some of the experts who contributed to the policy document told the Nats that what they were asking was impossible - but got ignored.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think that is going to be a killer argument - Scots were promised that a No vote meant staying in the EU. Now we have, not just Brexit, but hard Brexit, apparently, and no concessions for Scotland.
quote:Non-membership within the UK, however, is a given.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
EU membership isn't a given.
quote:The worst case scenario for Scotland is out of the UK and vetoed as a member of the EU. Which is within the bounds of possibility.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Non-membership within the UK, however, is a given.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
EU membership isn't a given.
quote:Within the UK = not in the EU
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:The worst case scenario for Scotland is out of the UK and vetoed as a member of the EU. Which is within the bounds of possibility.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Non-membership within the UK, however, is a given.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
EU membership isn't a given.
quote:Only if you assume that the rump UK would treat an independent Scotland on a par with its own citizens, which is a little hopeful.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Within the UK = not in the EU
Not in the UK and not in the EU is the same
Not in the UK and in the EU is a win
There's no lose option there - the worst case scenario is what we're heading for already.
quote:True, the evidence to support the idea that the UK government would treat anyone on the basis of rationality and common decency is thin on the ground. When the UK government has already decided to rip up trade deals with the entire G20 then kicking Scotland in the privates out of spite would be a consistent, irrational, course of action.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Only if you assume that the rump UK would treat an independent Scotland on a par with its own citizens, which is a little hopeful.
quote:No, those are different things. We have spent countless pages agreeing that the UK can't leave the EU, yet keep all the benefits of being in the EU without any of the obligations. Why would you think Scotland could leave the UK and keep the benefits without the obligations?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:True, the evidence to support the idea that the UK government would treat anyone on the basis of rationality and common decency is thin on the ground. When the UK government has already decided to rip up trade deals with the entire G20 then kicking Scotland in the privates out of spite would be a consistent, irrational, course of action.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Only if you assume that the rump UK would treat an independent Scotland on a par with its own citizens, which is a little hopeful.
quote:That is unreasonable. It's akin to the argument that the EU should treat the UK with special indulgence despite (if not because of!) it deciding to leave.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:True, the evidence to support the idea that the UK government would treat anyone on the basis of rationality and common decency is thin on the ground.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Only if you assume that the rump UK would treat an independent Scotland on a par with its own citizens, which is a little hopeful.
quote:Pretty much. Out of the EU and out of the UK means being entirely self-funded. The Institute of Fiscal Studies - yeah, I know, boo! - thinks that Scotland currently spends £1,000 more head than it brings in. So it'll have to either cut services or increase tax after independence.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Only if you assume that the rump UK would treat an independent Scotland on a par with its own citizens, which is a little hopeful.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Within the UK = not in the EU
Not in the UK and not in the EU is the same
Not in the UK and in the EU is a win
There's no lose option there - the worst case scenario is what we're heading for already.
It doesn't seem consistent to me to argue that Scotland leaving the EU is going to be horrible, whereas Scotland leaving the UK makes no difference.
It is reasonable to argue that people in the last referendum were voting for Scotland in both the EU and UK. That no longer seems to be on offer.
Nicola Sturgeon is trying to offer the people of Scotland a choice between Scotland in the EU but not the UK and Scotland in the UK but not the EU, and argues that the former is better. She might be right.
But it might also be the case that what she ends up with is Scotland in neither the EU nor the UK, and I'm not sure you can make a coherent case for that being "the same" as Scotland in the UK but not the EU.
Being a small independent country as a member of the EU is one thing - you gain a measure of self-determination, but don't seem to lose economically because the EU market is still there.
Being a small independent country outside everything? That's a different kettle of fish.
quote:No, it's not about special indulgence. It's about the attitude that comes with the negotiation. And, the evidence is clear that the UK government is currently treating no one on the basis of rationality or common decency. And, it's looking like it might be contagious - but, if you treat those you are about to enter into negotiations with with apparent contempt and disrespect one shouldn't be surprised if they return the favour.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:That is unreasonable. It's akin to the argument that the EU should treat the UK with special indulgence despite (if not because of!) it deciding to leave.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:True, the evidence to support the idea that the UK government would treat anyone on the basis of rationality and common decency is thin on the ground.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Only if you assume that the rump UK would treat an independent Scotland on a par with its own citizens, which is a little hopeful.
quote:Well, since Brexit brings no blessings to the UK at all - except to be able to get rid of some of those non-white, non-Anglosaxon people (if you're the sort of person who considers that a benefit) - Scottish Independence can't do any worse.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I think independence is likely to prove as much a mixed blessing to Scotland as Brexit is to the rest of the UK.
quote:Shooting yourself in both kneecaps can't do any worse than shooting yourself in one kneecap?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, since Brexit brings no blessings to the UK at all - except to be able to get rid of some of those non-white, non-Anglosaxon people (if you're the sort of person who considers that a benefit) - Scottish Independence can't do any worse.
quote:The Irish were told that they were too poor, too wee, and too superstitious, and they would be better off in the British Empire, under the sign of the butcher's apron, (Union Jack).
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Man doth not live by bread alone, but it does help.
quote:If by "actually working" you mean "not sliding rapidly to the economic status of Somalia" then I agree. If, on the other hand you mean what the pro-Brexit campaigners claim (being a world economic power) then not a chance. If the UK manages to retain it's position in the top seven economies (over a timescale of 20 years post Brexit, at least) would surprise me. And, that's just purely in terms of the numbers that rank economies. The loss of our cultural ties to Europe, degradation of our university teaching and research output, increasing opportunity for degrading workplace practices and abuses of human rights and countless other markers of civilisation and standard of life will all be negative.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Much as I loathe Brexit, the economic numbers give it a chance of actually working.
quote:This time I think the Nats will win. I thought the Brexiters would win too. Both are equally as stupid, vain, dishonest and short sighted but for different reasons.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Much as I loathe Brexit, the economic numbers give it a chance of actually working. Whether this is the case for an independent Scotland, even in the EU, remains very much to be seen. Tubbs may not be a welcome voice for you here, but I think she is the voice of reason.
quote:At least they're consistent
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:No, it's not about special indulgence. It's about the attitude that comes with the negotiation. And, the evidence is clear that the UK government is currently treating no one on the basis of rationality or common decency. And, it's looking like it might be contagious - but, if you treat those you are about to enter into negotiations with with apparent contempt and disrespect one shouldn't be surprised if they return the favour.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:That is unreasonable. It's akin to the argument that the EU should treat the UK with special indulgence despite (if not because of!) it deciding to leave.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:True, the evidence to support the idea that the UK government would treat anyone on the basis of rationality and common decency is thin on the ground.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Only if you assume that the rump UK would treat an independent Scotland on a par with its own citizens, which is a little hopeful.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:You know, other countries outside the EU do export goods to it. Presumably you would just do what they do: get your products certified by EU regulators, just as EU manufacturers get their products certified by US regulators for sale in the US.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Hard Brexit could be catastrophic. Not because of tariffs, but because the current harmonized regulations would be gone. So if I want to export widgets to the EU, what do I do, if the EU does not recognize my ability to conform to EU regulations? And even worse, the UK government is saying that we need not conform? Eh?
quote:Whatever happens between a post-Brexit rUK and an EU Scotland must be the same as what will happen at the border between NI and the Republic post-Brexit, yes?
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Surely Scotland as an EU member would be prevented by EU regulations from making special deals on its own with the rUK.
quote:If you are getting your products certified, presumably electronically, so that the transport of goods is 'frictionless', then you are accepting some harmonization with EU regs. How is that hard Brexit?
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:You know, other countries outside the EU do export goods to it. Presumably you would just do what they do: get your products certified by EU regulators, just as EU manufacturers get their products certified by US regulators for sale in the US.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Hard Brexit could be catastrophic. Not because of tariffs, but because the current harmonized regulations would be gone. So if I want to export widgets to the EU, what do I do, if the EU does not recognize my ability to conform to EU regulations? And even worse, the UK government is saying that we need not conform? Eh?
And is preserving trade relations with the EU worth the cost of worse trade relations with the rUK, which would seem to be the inevitable result of a hard Brexit? Surely Scotland as an EU member would be prevented by EU regulations from making special deals on its own with the rUK.
I understand that good trade relations all around might be the preferred option for many, but I find it hard to imagine that all the business Scotland currently does with with the rest of the UK would easily be made up in the EU market.
quote:Of course, but this adds time and expense into current supply chains. A lot of the inter-EU trade is in intermediate products which relies on regulations being harmonised across the trading area. Those arrangements can be preserved, as long as the UK just adopts all necessary EU regulations in totality and without amendment.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
You know, other countries outside the EU do export goods to it. Presumably you would just do what they do: get your products certified by EU regulators, just as EU manufacturers get their products certified by US regulators for sale in the US.
quote:We had the bread queues, well wide spread dependence on food banks, anyway. We still benefit from EU membership, and though there is evidence of investment in new business moving to the rest of the EU and declines in some sectors (eg: student numbers at universities) it hasn't been long enough for those impacts to be felt.
Originally posted by rolyn:
All the talk of broken Britain bashing itself in bollocks over Brexit has so far failed to produce the bread queues.
quote:What "Donald factor"? Are you referring to Trump? If so then there is quite a lot of resentment that the proposed State visit would bring him to Scotland to avoid disrupting London through the associated protests. Yet another example of the Tories pissing on Scotland to their advantage.
Also there is the Donald factor which was not a consideration at the last Scottish Referendum.
quote:What ominous sounds? The Eurozone is currently one of the strongest global economies, and growing more strongly than the UK economy. A bit of stress handling a massive influx of refugees, which isn't helped by the UK not accepting more people in need.
Add in the ominous creaking sounds coming from the EU and you may find previous Nationalistic fervour to have become significantly more sober.
quote:She may not explicitly be aiming for that endpoint. However her past record doesn't speak well in this regard, she seems fairly comfortable with accepting less good outcomes as long as she can said to have fulfilled her mandate (no matter how narrow the terms you have to describe that in).
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
At the same time, there is probably a lot of bluff and counter-bluff going on. The right wing may be saying, 'we will walk away', but I doubt if Mrs May really wants to do that, and face 30 mile queues of trucks into Dover.
quote:Please let's not be hoodwinked into believing that Ms Sturgeon's tactics have much to do with Brexit, the EU or the Single Market. I can sincerely say that there aren't many politicians I admire more than Ms Sturgeon of her predecessor Alex Salmond. They are masters of the long game, seizing on any opportunity to further their cause. In the 1950's, Scotland's politics were little different from England's. The shires voted Conservative and the industrial heartlands voted Labour. Orkney and Shetland was a long term Liberal seat. Scottish nationalism was a loony fringe. By the 1980's it had gained some traction, but was still no threat to the union. In the 90's Labour made the mistake of believing that devolution would take the heat out of nationalism, despite Alex saying that he saw it as a stepping stone to independence. Instead it let the genie out of the bottle.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Absolutely. EU membership is the trump card for the SNP. And, as I've said, the only option the UK government has to defeat that card is to change tack on Brexit to something that gives the people of Scotland something much closer to what we want - free access to the single market, access to the European labour market.
quote:The sequencing of events is critical here, is it not?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If the EU were to offer Scotland continued seamless membership, which it yet might, independence is almost a certainty, but it will involve the almost total rupture of more than 300 years of our joint history. If Scotland finds itself outside the EU, I don't believe it will vote to leave the UK as well.
quote:This is disingenuous, as you have been repeatedly told in the other thread. Depending on the type of trade good the tariff applies to, it's either trivial (because it's the rawest of raw commodities) or dependent on a common regime for compliance and dispute resolution (a significant chunk of the UK's trade with the EU). Without either of these 'tariff free access' is largely meaningless.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If she goes into negotiations offering tariff free access to the UK market, which she will, it's up to Juncker, Barnier and others.
quote:Whatever you have repeatedly told me, I disagree with you. We are already compliant because we're members of the EU. It also stands to reason that some sort of agreed dispute resolution needs to be in place. But that, like the question of free access to the Single Market, is a matter of political will. If the EU Commission plays hardball to the extent that we all take an economic hit, I have no hesitation in blaming them for it.
Originally posted by chris styles:
This is disingenuous, as you have been repeatedly told in the other thread. Depending on the type of trade good the tariff applies to, it's either trivial (because it's the rawest of raw commodities) or dependent on a common regime for compliance and dispute resolution (a significant chunk of the UK's trade with the EU). Without either of these 'tariff free access' is largely meaningless.
quote:After Brexit, the UK will no longer be a member of the EU. Even if at that point the UK grand-fathers all EU legislation into UK law, the law itself is still subject to revision and change and a trade agreement would have to be based on accepting all such changes going forward.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Whatever you have repeatedly told me, I disagree with you. We are already compliant because we're members of the EU.
quote:Well, yes - but that's a pretty daft thing to say in-and-of-itself. Of course deciding to give free access to the Single Market to a non-EU state without the normal strings is a matter of political will.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
But that, like the question of free access to the Single Market, is a matter of political will. If the EU Commission plays hardball to the extent that we all take an economic hit, I have no hesitation in blaming them for it.
quote:Potentially more convoluted. Something like:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:The sequencing of events is critical here, is it not?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If the EU were to offer Scotland continued seamless membership, which it yet might, independence is almost a certainty, but it will involve the almost total rupture of more than 300 years of our joint history. If Scotland finds itself outside the EU, I don't believe it will vote to leave the UK as well.
Someone cannier than me might be able to see another way, but surely it has to be 1. Brexit 2. Scexit (from the UK) 3. Scre-entry (to the EU). Short of contriving an impossibly convoluted referendum question along the lines of "do you want leave the UK provided the EU lets Scotland back in?"
quote:There are many UK jobs which depend on our trade with the EU. There are likewise many EU jobs which depend on trade with the UK. A good deal is one which protects ALL those jobs. The economic hit I referred to applies both sides of La Manche, and I hope that it won't be exacerbated by grandstanding.
Originally posted by mr.cheesy:
But it seems a weird position to claim that the EU Commission attempting to make decisions which are good for the other states rather than the state which desires to leave - and which then decides that it can't possibly give a non-EU state anything approaching the deal that EU states have - is somehow responsible for any resulting UK economic hit.
quote:That's what I would have thought, yes.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Whatever happens between a post-Brexit rUK and an EU Scotland must be the same as what will happen at the border between NI and the Republic post-Brexit, yes?
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Surely Scotland as an EU member would be prevented by EU regulations from making special deals on its own with the rUK.
But in general, this has to be true. EU members can't negotiate their own trade deals.
quote:I don't see the point of that. Wouldn't Scotland likely have to give up those deals as a condition of accession to the EU? Otherwise it's just a back door for UK access to the EU market w/o freedom of movement.
Assuming that the Scots vote for independence, and that Brexit goes ahead, I don't see any realistic way of achieving Scottish independence first. Which means that Scotland will leave the EU as part of the UK, and must then apply to join it as an independent country. So there's going to be a period when it has to stand alone. It may or may not seek special trade arrangements with the UK in this interim period.
quote:I didn't say it would be frictionless. You asked "what do I do" to export widgets to the EU in the absence of harmonized regulations - my answer is, essentially, learn to deal with the friction that every other non-EU country deals with when exporting widgets to the EU. It's probably not as convenient as what you have now, but I don't see why it should be considered "catastrophic".
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:If you are getting your products certified, presumably electronically, so that the transport of goods is 'frictionless', then you are accepting some harmonization with EU regs. How is that hard Brexit?
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:You know, other countries outside the EU do export goods to it. Presumably you would just do what they do: get your products certified by EU regulators, just as EU manufacturers get their products certified by US regulators for sale in the US.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Hard Brexit could be catastrophic. Not because of tariffs, but because the current harmonized regulations would be gone. So if I want to export widgets to the EU, what do I do, if the EU does not recognize my ability to conform to EU regulations? And even worse, the UK government is saying that we need not conform? Eh?
And is preserving trade relations with the EU worth the cost of worse trade relations with the rUK, which would seem to be the inevitable result of a hard Brexit? Surely Scotland as an EU member would be prevented by EU regulations from making special deals on its own with the rUK.
I understand that good trade relations all around might be the preferred option for many, but I find it hard to imagine that all the business Scotland currently does with with the rest of the UK would easily be made up in the EU market.
quote:The EU is quite a lot bigger than the UK. The UK would be losing a bigger market than the EU would be (in a WTO disaster scenario) and one would imagine that the EU believes it could negotiate deals as a major economic power with others that the UK could not.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
There are many UK jobs which depend on our trade with the EU. There are likewise many EU jobs which depend on trade with the UK.
quote:But that totally discounts the fact that if the EU offers the UK a "great deal", the EU is then busted. Anything other than a deal where the UK is a net contributor is a problem.
A good deal is one which protects ALL those jobs. The economic hit I referred to applies both sides of La Manche, and I hope that it won't be exacerbated by grandstanding.
quote:Brexit headbangers like John Redwood would welcome this scenario. Boris thinks it's acceptable. While most of us would prefer a much better negotiated exit, I believe the UK economy is resilient enough to cope and then rebound. I would hate to see Scotland abandon this.
Originally posted by Dave W. :
You asked "what do I do" to export widgets to the EU in the absence of harmonized regulations - my answer is, essentially, learn to deal with the friction that every other non-EU country deals with when exporting widgets to the EU. It's probably not as convenient as what you have now, but I don't see why it should be considered "catastrophic".
quote:Which is, of course, the biggest problem that the UK faces - that Mrs May has let her decisions be made by a small minority of "headbangers". Which has resulted in a Brexit that seems to be intent on reducing immigration regardless of the cost, the only reason for which I can see is simply to rid the country of as many brown-skinned non-English-speaking people as possible.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Presumably, Mrs May cannot accept a regime for compliance and dispute regulation, as she will get eaten alive by the headbangers.
quote:I agree entirely with your analysis. Though, probably using a term different from "long game", since we all recognise that politics isn't a game. Unless, of course, you want to use a national referendum to shore up divisions in your own party, or treat millions of people as nothing more than pawns ... The SNP have managed a very strong and effective long-term campaign, and if the manna hadn't fallen when Mr Cameron put having a manifesto on EU membership into the Conservative manifesto they'd have continued their gradual build-up, making a gradually stronger case for independence until they could work for another referendum sometime after 2030.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I can sincerely say that there aren't many politicians I admire more than Ms Sturgeon of her predecessor Alex Salmond. They are masters of the long game, seizing on any opportunity to further their cause. ... manna fell from heaven for the SNP in the form of the Brexit referendum in which England and Scotland voted differently. The SNP has taken its hammer and chisel to this crack and made it into a gaping chasm.
quote:Except, she hasn't asked for anything impossible. Maintaining the place of Scotland within the single market would be relatively simple, maintain the place of the UK within the single market. It would be easier to get that from the rest of the EU than the part-in, part-out pic'n'mix plan Mrs May wants. The EU gets something from that - some continued money from the UK, freedom of movement, no shocks to the trade systems. The UK gets something from that - access to the single market, freedom of movement, no issues with the Irish border, and no IndyRef2.
Nicola has done this by demanding something that's absurdly impossible, and using the PM's inability to give in to her demands as an excuse to build a sea channel between England and Scotland.
quote:If the idea is to shock the Commons into rowing back from a Hard Brexit (ie a no-EU-deal Brexit) then it isn't going to work. The Tories don't give a shit about Scotland, they'll be quite happy to see Scotland go independent, then massively devalue verses Sterling.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Except, she hasn't asked for anything impossible. Maintaining the place of Scotland within the single market would be relatively simple, maintain the place of the UK within the single market. It would be easier to get that from the rest of the EU than the part-in, part-out pic'n'mix plan Mrs May wants. The EU gets something from that - some continued money from the UK, freedom of movement, no shocks to the trade systems. The UK gets something from that - access to the single market, freedom of movement, no issues with the Irish border, and no IndyRef2.
quote:There may be some EU immigrants who are brown skinned, but they certainly aren't the majority. The million Polish people hear are exclusively white. And most of them speak good English. So what has Brexit got to do with brown skinned non English speakers? The overtures the government is making towards Commonwealth ties may result in more brown skinned people coming here. But the colour of their skin or where they come from, be it India or Poland, is irrelevant. What matters is that they have jobs useful to the British economy. It's about controlling migration, not eliminating it.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which has resulted in a Brexit that seems to be intent on reducing immigration regardless of the cost, the only reason for which I can see is simply to rid the country of as many brown-skinned non-English-speaking people as possible.
quote:Depends what you mean by "useful to the British economy". A sizeable proportion of the "Leave" vote feel that British workers are being undercut by migrant workers whether from the EU, the Commonwealth or anywhere else.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
But the colour of their skin or where they come from, be it India or Poland, is irrelevant. What matters is that they have jobs useful to the British economy. It's about controlling migration, not eliminating it.
quote:Well, quite. If you don't want brown people in the UK, the obvious solution would've been to vote Remain.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:There may be some EU immigrants who are brown skinned, but they certainly aren't the majority. The million Polish people hear are exclusively white. And most of them speak good English. So what has Brexit got to do with brown skinned non English speakers? The overtures the government is making towards Commonwealth ties may result in more brown skinned people coming here. But the colour of their skin or where they come from, be it India or Poland, is irrelevant. What matters is that they have jobs useful to the British economy. It's about controlling migration, not eliminating it.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which has resulted in a Brexit that seems to be intent on reducing immigration regardless of the cost, the only reason for which I can see is simply to rid the country of as many brown-skinned non-English-speaking people as possible.
quote:We obviously aren't going to agree on this, but in addition to the respect Nicola Sturgeon demanded from Mrs May, the PM also has to respect the 17 million voters who wanted out. Jeremy Corbyn is tearing himself and his party apart because he can't balance the two thirds of Labour voters who voted Remain with the two thirds of Labour constituencies which voted Leave. What Nicola demanded is that the PM ignore the millions of English voters to whom control of immigration matters. You have expressed the view that they're all racist bastards, but it wasn't in the PM's gift to agree to Ms Sturgeon's demands.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Except, she hasn't asked for anything impossible. Maintaining the place of Scotland within the single market would be relatively simple, maintain the place of the UK within the single market. It would be easier to get that from the rest of the EU than the part-in, part-out pic'n'mix plan Mrs May wants. The EU gets something from that - some continued money from the UK, freedom of movement, no shocks to the trade systems. The UK gets something from that - access to the single market, freedom of movement, no issues with the Irish border, and no IndyRef2.
quote:That may matter for you, but I see no evidence that it cuts it for a large percentage of Brexiteers.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:There may be some EU immigrants who are brown skinned, but they certainly aren't the majority. The million Polish people hear are exclusively white. And most of them speak good English. So what has Brexit got to do with brown skinned non English speakers? The overtures the government is making towards Commonwealth ties may result in more brown skinned people coming here. But the colour of their skin or where they come from, be it India or Poland, is irrelevant. What matters is that they have jobs useful to the British economy. It's about controlling migration, not eliminating it.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which has resulted in a Brexit that seems to be intent on reducing immigration regardless of the cost, the only reason for which I can see is simply to rid the country of as many brown-skinned non-English-speaking people as possible.
quote:It's more than just Brexshit. This government has a whole raft of measures that make the UK an increasingly unattractive place for anyone to come to. Some of that is racism, pure and simple. And, skin colour is only one measure of racism - Poles or Romanians have received treatment as bad as Indians or Africans - just without Brexshit there is little the government can do to "send them home". Meanwhile there have been a whole shedload of disgraceful stories of people who have lived in the UK practically all their lives being sent to nations where they have no connection - often countries within the Commonwealth. Australians and others who are native English speakers have it a bit easier, their funny accents are more acceptable it seems, but they aren't immune from setting up homes and
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:There may be some EU immigrants who are brown skinned, but they certainly aren't the majority. The million Polish people hear are exclusively white. And most of them speak good English. So what has Brexit got to do with brown skinned non English speakers? The overtures the government is making towards Commonwealth ties may result in more brown skinned people coming here. But the colour of their skin or where they come from, be it India or Poland, is irrelevant. What matters is that they have jobs useful to the British economy. It's about controlling migration, not eliminating it.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which has resulted in a Brexit that seems to be intent on reducing immigration regardless of the cost, the only reason for which I can see is simply to rid the country of as many brown-skinned non-English-speaking people as possible.
quote:Yes, that may be their belief, but it is factually incorrect. The fact is, immigration generates wealth, not just for big business, but for everyone
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Depends what you mean by "useful to the British economy". A sizeable proportion of the "Leave" vote feel that British workers are being undercut by migrant workers whether from the EU, the Commonwealth or anywhere else.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
But the colour of their skin or where they come from, be it India or Poland, is irrelevant. What matters is that they have jobs useful to the British economy. It's about controlling migration, not eliminating it.
quote:Why should skin colour be a factor? No, seriously, why? By and large, people who actually live in multiracial area soon become pretty much colourblind.
Moreover skin colour and cultural differences are factors that can't be ignored.
quote:Again, I would be very wary of this kind of thinking.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
in reality if it all went pear shaped, is the rest of the UK really going to say, 'No, sorry, you can't come back'?
quote:That's not really true, is it. Leaving a bigger country/economy clearly is a risk when the bigger country/economy is helping to pay the bills.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I never thought that actually pushing the button would be a good idea. Until now. Now they really have nothing to lose in pushing the button and making it work.
quote:Is there nothing to be lost, though? Would Scotland stand an equal, better or worse chance in the world standing alone rather than as part of the UK? I don't think the calculation is as simple as you are suggesting.
Everyone in the UK is going to face severe economic pain, so why not do it now in an independent Scotland; lance two boils with the one dirk? And that is where it's at. If there was ever going to be an independent Scotland the time is now when there is nothing at all to be lost
quote:I think if Scotland had an economic meltdown there would be enormous political pressure to allow them to devalue. I can't see a way back in that circumstance because of the instability it would bring to rUK.
and in reality if it all went pear shaped, is the rest of the UK really going to say, 'No, sorry, you can't come back'?
quote:What has changed is that Scotland as part of the UK will soon no longer be in the Single Market. That with the meltdown of Labour the Tories could be in power for a while, and that with Hammond committed to years of austerity, Scotland is likely to face the effect of severe cuts in the future.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
ISTM that this is the biggest argument against independence - the economic and financial figures just don't stack up. They didn't in 2014 and not a lot has changed on that front.
quote:Do people vote based on economic arguments?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
ISTM that this is the biggest argument against independence - the economic and financial figures just don't stack up. They didn't in 2014 and not a lot has changed on that front. Unless the SNP work out how to square that particular circle, then I can't see how they can present a cogent economic argument for a viable post-independence Scotland.
quote:My prediction: same result, similar or greater margin.
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
So Nicola Sturgeon has fired the starting gun for a second Scottish independence referendum. What do shipmates think is going to happen this time round?
quote:I would think that some people do, for example, there might be the fear that one's savings might go west in an independent Scotland, if the economy performs badly. And other fears, about jobs, and so on. But I often think of Ireland, which was a poor country before independence and after, for quite a time. But then Irish nationalism was/is a different beast, I know.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Do people vote based on economic arguments?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
ISTM that this is the biggest argument against independence - the economic and financial figures just don't stack up. They didn't in 2014 and not a lot has changed on that front. Unless the SNP work out how to square that particular circle, then I can't see how they can present a cogent economic argument for a viable post-independence Scotland.
quote:Yes. My Indyref1 vote was almost entirely economically driven.
posted by Boogie:
Do people vote based on economic arguments?
quote:Actually, I think economic arguments rarely affect how people vote. At least, not to the extent that a large proportion of the population consider the economic arguments in any great depth. Just look at recent examples. Trump runs a campaign almost totally devoid of economic detail. Any consideration of economic arguments would say the UK is economically better off inside the EU than outside, if economics were a significant factor Remain would have had a landslide yet Leave won by a narrow margin. Any consideration of the economics of immigration would show that immigration is a good thing, yet UK parties know that to win votes they need to present a "tough on immigration" message. And, as I've already mentioned in the 2014 vote as the polls started to suggest a Yes victory the UK government didn't bribe the Scottish electorate with an economic argument but by providing more political powers (or, promising to do so anyway).
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:I would think that some people do
Originally posted by Boogie:
Do people vote based on economic arguments?
quote:If my thinking was entirely driven by economics, I'd have voted No to independence in 2014. Though I do believe an independent Scotland could be at least as prosperous as Scotland within the UK there is no certainty of that - indeed the odds are long. It would require cooperation from others outside Scotland (eg: to obtain membership of the EU) and some good luck (eg: no collapse in oil price in the short term), as well as a long term determined and competant programme to broaden the economic base in Scotland to remove reliance on oil revenue. As I've said, that made economics a very weak part of the Independence campaign.
Originally posted by kingsfold:
quote:Yes. My Indyref1 vote was almost entirely economically driven.
posted by Boogie:
Do people vote based on economic arguments?
quote:You may be the exception. Most people don't. If they did, Remain would have won.
Originally posted by kingsfold:
quote:Yes. My Indyref1 vote was almost entirely economically driven.
posted by Boogie:
Do people vote based on economic arguments?
quote:Look upon it as them returning the complement. Scotland doesn't seem that bothered about anyone else. (Sorry, but they don't. It's not just the English, but the Welsh, Northern Irish and Gibraltar who are negotiating Brexit).
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
...
And, now we're hearing on the news this morning that Westminster is likely to veto a second referendum prior to the conclusion of Brexit negotiations - putting the interests and wishes of Scotland behind those of England. A move that would give the Independence vote a few extra percent on a plate (yet more evidence, if any were needed, that this government is very capable of shooting itself in the foot).
quote:Most Scots did vote Remain.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:You may be the exception. Most people don't. If they did, Remain would have won.
Originally posted by kingsfold:
quote:Yes. My Indyref1 vote was almost entirely economically driven.
posted by Boogie:
Do people vote based on economic arguments?
Tubbs
quote:I was talking about the whole of the UK. If economic arguments swayed people then Cornwall, Wales etc would have voted Remain as well.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:Most Scots did vote Remain.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:You may be the exception. Most people don't. If they did, Remain would have won.
Originally posted by kingsfold:
quote:Yes. My Indyref1 vote was almost entirely economically driven.
posted by Boogie:
Do people vote based on economic arguments?
Tubbs
quote:Worst slums in Europe of the time to be exact. Ireland had nothing to lose, nothing at all. If it was going to be shit we might as well have been independent and shit and the same argument will run in the minds of many Scottish people whether we like it or not.
But I often think of Ireland, which was a poor country before independence and after, for quite a time.
quote:And I don't think those issues have gone un-noticed by the SNP to be honest. The DUP will do a dance over the next few weeks in the hope of imposed direct rule as that really is their only hope now. I think they are beginning to recognise that the death throes are appearing for Northern Ireland in general and largely through the hard Brexit push. I don't think Ireland is at the stage where it would be ready to even entertain notions of a united Ireland, but rather ironically Northern Ireland seems to have advanced along that line further than the country beside it which for decades it insisted wanted it more. As others have said, economics aren't always primary concerns, but they will be important; especially if the Republics economy appears more stable (if any economy can be said to be stable these days!).
the UK government hasn't taken the concerns of NI into consideration in their mandate-less dash for a hard Brexit - and, the concerns of NI are more significant than those of Scotland (the breakdown of the Good Friday agreement and a return to border checks would be a disaster for the people of NI)
quote:Sorry, I meant that Scotland has a track record of voting for economic reasons, and so there is no reason why IndyRef2 should be different.
I was talking about the whole of the UK. If economic arguments swayed people then Cornwall, Wales etc would have voted Remain as well.
quote:Some charts showing the economic impact of Scottish independence. But they are from the Telegraph. And Spain has stirred the pot.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:Sorry, I meant that Scotland has a track record of voting for economic reasons, and so there is no reason why IndyRef2 should be different.
I was talking about the whole of the UK. If economic arguments swayed people then Cornwall, Wales etc would have voted Remain as well.
quote:No surprise there - we all know Spain has issues with its own separatists. It's also hardly news that Scotland would have to go through the normal process of a new country joining the EU. The only way you could avoid that would be with some kind of bizarre reverse independence maneuver, where we cancel Brexit, and then England-and-Wales leaves the UK (so "the UK" (aka Scotland, or perhaps Scotland-and-NI) remains an EU member.)
Originally posted by Tubbs:
And Spain has stirred the pot.
quote:And it treats them a hell of a lot worse than Britain treats the Scots, too.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
we all know Spain has issues with its own separatists.
quote:Isn't the point, Marvin, that Britain has suited the Scots very well over the last 300 years, and at the present time receives significantly more in public spending than it raises in taxation, including the oil revenues? (Only between 1980 and 1985 has Scotland made a net contribution to the exchequer over services received). Scotland would pay a heavy price in both increased taxation and welfare cuts were it to become independent.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
we all know Spain has issues with its own separatists.
Marvin: And it treats them a hell of a lot worse than Britain treats the Scots, too.
quote:As far as I can tell (from lots of time with family in Dublin, and also from friendship with Poles / time in Poland last year) that's a common position amongst those who regard themselves as the (formerly) colonised. I suspect those emotions come as a set, independent of the true degree of the grievance which is called upon to justify them - which in the cases I have mentioned varies widely; in fact wildly.
Scottish Nationalism is defined essentially by its Anglophobia, so much so that its leaders and most of its supporters are content to surrender political power to Brussels and economic power to Frankfurt to escape London, Whitehall, and the City.
quote:I know nothing, but I don't think it is quite as simple as is being suggested by these academics. For one thing, accession to the EU is a political decision by the existing members, not a right to be claimed by a prospective member.
Originally posted by Louise:
There's not a queue to join the EU except in the imaginings of British newspapers and politicians who are playing a bit fast and loose with the truth. Candidate countries join when they are ready and compliant with EU acquis ( the body of common rights and obligations that is binding on all the EU member states) - which Scotland already is. It would have to rejoin as an independent country- but the Spanish position is not to veto that - it wasn't in 2014 and it isn't now. Its position which Dastis is re-stating is that Scotland would have to rejoin as a new country under Article 49, but Scotland is already compliant with the acquis and could use steps like EEA membership as a half-way house, so would not face any insuperable difficulties.
quote:Yes, Scottish independence is, by definition, set against government from London.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Scottish Nationalism is defined essentially by its Anglophobia, so much so that its leaders and most of its supporters are content to surrender political power to Brussels and economic power to Frankfurt to escape London, Whitehall, and the City.
quote:You're saying things as if they're obvious when they appear to be the opposite. I was very much a Remain supporter, but it is really fucking hard to claim that the EU has no significant impact on sovereignty when the whole purpose of the EU project was to sacrifice something of individual national sovereignty in various areas so that the wider EU can operate on behalf of all the states. You can't state that individual states have full sovereignty over fishing or agricultural payments when the whole point is that decisions about these things have been ceded to a super-national union of states and that there are processes in place which mean that the states have a legal obligation to comply with them.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That doesn't mean that therefore we're seeking to surrender that power regained to Brussels and EU institutions. For a start, the EU and institutions don't have any significant impact on the sovereignty of nation states - this was a myth that the Remain campaign should have demolished a year ago, and was one of the many failings of that campaign.
quote:Well, as a supporter of an Independent Scotland which would be a net beneficiary of EU funds, I guess you would say that, wouldn't you.
Second, what little sovereignty is surrendered to the EU is a very small price for the benefits of EU membership.
quote:Well, I never said anything about full sovereignty. I thought I was quite clear that EU membership involves some transfer of sovereignty to EU institutions. Of course, some examples such as harmonisation of regulations and fisheries have cross-border implications such that in or out of the EU there would still need to be international treaties governing them with similar ceding of sovereignty. Fish don't know when they swim into or out of territorial waters of different nations. Pollution from factories doesn't know when it's blowing across a national border. What the EU does is provide institutions that manage those cross-border issues, the differences in sovereignty implications compared to other treaty mechanisms doesn't really seem that substantial.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You're saying things as if they're obvious when they appear to be the opposite. I was very much a Remain supporter, but it is really fucking hard to claim that the EU has no significant impact on sovereignty when the whole purpose of the EU project was to sacrifice something of individual national sovereignty in various areas so that the wider EU can operate on behalf of all the states. You can't state that individual states have full sovereignty over fishing or agricultural payments when the whole point is that decisions about these things have been ceded to a super-national union of states and that there are processes in place which mean that the states have a legal obligation to comply with them.
quote:Certainly Scotland has benefitted from regional development funding, but the level of such funding has been falling significantly over the last decade or so. There's no reason to assume that independence would change that, such that Scotland would receive a lot more regional development funding than we currently do, indeed the current trend of reducing such payments would surely continue. The balance of receipts to Scotland under regional development, CAP etc and payments to the EU will depend upon the assessment of what Scotland would be asked to contribute to the EU. As a strong and prosperous economy, freed of the shackles of Westminster imposed austerity measures, there's no reason to automatically assume that Scotland wouldn't be a net contributor to EU funds.
quote:Well, as a supporter of an Independent Scotland which would be a net beneficiary of EU funds, I guess you would say that, wouldn't you.
Second, what little sovereignty is surrendered to the EU is a very small price for the benefits of EU membership.
quote:Bullshit, you're in cloud cuckoo land. Scotland already has a lot of EU structural payments because parts are considered some of the poorest in Europe. There is no scenario put out by anyone that suggests Scotland would be a net contributor any time soon.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As a strong and prosperous economy, freed of the shackles of Westminster imposed austerity measures, there's no reason to automatically assume that Scotland wouldn't be a net contributor to EU funds.
quote:I can well believe that there would be a net trade benefit to Scotland, but that might need to be balanced against any trade problems with the rUK if there was no agreement.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, of course, the biggest "sweaties" aren't the payments from the EU. They are access to the Single Market, access to EU labour pool, access to EU employment, EU research collaborations etc. Things which would be worth the cost of EU membership even without any substantial regional development payments etc.
quote:Scotland does not receive a lot of EU structural funding. Scotland has secured €941m for 2014-2020, split almost equally between the Regional Development and Social funds. Of course that £150m per year (approx. depending on exchange rates) from EU structural funds is a drop in the bucket compared to total tax revenue and spending in Scotland.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Scotland already has a lot of EU structural payments because parts are considered some of the poorest in Europe.
quote:If the Scottish contribution to the EU was assessed at the same per capita rate as the current UK contribution, that would be about £1b per year ... something around 10x the amount we'd get back from structural funds. Even rolling in agricultural payments under CAP (which I haven't been able to find a figure for - but in the EU referendum it was said to be about 30% of total funds, so that would be somewhere around £300m per year), and reducing the per capita contribution by 50% and it's still likely that Scotland would be either neutral or a small net contributor to EU funds - Scottish contribution about £500m per year, receiving approx. £150m structural funds + £300m under CAP. And, I don't expect the contribution to the EU from Scotland to be as small as that, and future structural funds are likely to decrease.
There is no scenario put out by anyone that suggests Scotland would be a net contributor any time soon.
quote:I've already said that EU membership is not guaranteed. But, it's a far sight more likely that an independent Scotland will be in the EU than that the UK will be.
Vote independence if you want. But don't think this is going to lead inevitably to EU membership.
quote:Yes you 'know nothing' but academics who are experts on the subject for a living obviously don't know what they're talking about.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
]I know nothing, but I don't think it is quite as simple as is being suggested by these academics.
quote:How would Scotland replace the money lost from Westminster?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Scotland does not receive a lot of EU structural funding. Scotland has secured €941m for 2014-2020, split almost equally between the Regional Development and Social funds. Of course that £150m per year (approx. depending on exchange rates) from EU structural funds is a drop in the bucket compared to total tax revenue and spending in Scotland.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Scotland already has a lot of EU structural payments because parts are considered some of the poorest in Europe.
quote:If the Scottish contribution to the EU was assessed at the same per capita rate as the current UK contribution, that would be about £1b per year ... something around 10x the amount we'd get back from structural funds. Even rolling in agricultural payments under CAP (which I haven't been able to find a figure for - but in the EU referendum it was said to be about 30% of total funds, so that would be somewhere around £300m per year), and reducing the per capita contribution by 50% and it's still likely that Scotland would be either neutral or a small net contributor to EU funds - Scottish contribution about £500m per year, receiving approx. £150m structural funds + £300m under CAP. And, I don't expect the contribution to the EU from Scotland to be as small as that, and future structural funds are likely to decrease.
There is no scenario put out by anyone that suggests Scotland would be a net contributor any time soon.
quote:I've already said that EU membership is not guaranteed. But, it's a far sight more likely that an independent Scotland will be in the EU than that the UK will be.
Vote independence if you want. But don't think this is going to lead inevitably to EU membership.
quote:It is. Subject specialists are still arguing to support a particular point of view though. Just with better written arguments at longer length than the average journalist. We tend to gravitate to material that supports the world-view we already have. Or we gloss over the bits that don’t fit. (Depeche Mode was recently declared the soundtrack of the Alt Right. While I applaud their musical taste, they can’t have listened to some of the lyrics very carefully.)
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:Yes you 'know nothing' but academics who are experts on the subject for a living obviously don't know what they're talking about.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
]I know nothing, but I don't think it is quite as simple as is being suggested by these academics.
For reference, citing The Guardian on independence = citing The Daily Telegraph and rightwing papers on immigration, EU, NHS etc. It has form on this issue, just as other newspapers do for their political positions. It's not miraculously exempt. Checking what the subject specialists say is absolutely necessary on subjects like the EU/Scottish independence.
quote:Not quite true. The majority of those who bothered to vote, voted to remain, this was approx. 42% of those eligible to vote, so most Scots did not vote to remain.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:Most Scots did vote Remain.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:You may be the exception. Most people don't. If they did, Remain would have won.
Originally posted by kingsfold:
quote:Yes. My Indyref1 vote was almost entirely economically driven.
posted by Boogie:
Do people vote based on economic arguments?
Tubbs
quote:I like your logic, because that means significantly less than 50% of the UK electorate voted in favour of Brexit, and therefore we should quit all this nonsense about leaving the EU.
Originally posted by DonLogan2:
The majority of those who bothered to vote, voted to remain, this was approx. 42% of those eligible to vote, so most Scots did not vote to remain.
quote:Have the republicans gained in support without us noticing, and are going to manage to slip in a referendum on whether or not we should retain our monarchy before any other vote?
Next vote will be to decide on who rules over us, not anything about independence.
quote:If you don't know or care about the difference between writing based on academic research by people who have actually done the research and who are not outliers* or known partisans in their academic community, and the ultra-swift research a journalist does for an article to be published in a politically-partisan newspaper and how that gets massaged, then there's no point continuing the conversation.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:It is. Subject specialists are still arguing to support a particular point of view though. Just with better written arguments at longer length than the average journalist. We tend to gravitate to material that supports the world-view we already have. Or we gloss over the bits that don’t fit. (Depeche Mode was recently declared the soundtrack of the Alt Right. While I applaud their musical taste, they can’t have listened to some of the lyrics very carefully.)
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:Yes you 'know nothing' but academics who are experts on the subject for a living obviously don't know what they're talking about.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
]I know nothing, but I don't think it is quite as simple as is being suggested by these academics.
For reference, citing The Guardian on independence = citing The Daily Telegraph and rightwing papers on immigration, EU, NHS etc. It has form on this issue, just as other newspapers do for their political positions. It's not miraculously exempt. Checking what the subject specialists say is absolutely necessary on subjects like the EU/Scottish independence.
Tubbs
quote:A short question that requires a very extensive answer, but let me try to summarise the issues.
So what's changed, Kwesi?
How come Scotland moved from being majority Conservative in the 1950s, to being almost entirely Labour by the 1990s, to being almost entirely SNP by 2015?
quote:Actually I do appreciate the difference between the two. I’m just pointing out that that both are designed to do the same thing – to encourage people towards a particular view point. My other point is actually similar to yours. That we look for materials from sources we feel are creditable and that resonate with us to back up our points. Or present what we see are lesser sources apologetically – “the only reference I can find for this is the Mail”.
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:If you don't know or care about the difference between writing based on academic research by people who have actually done the research and who are not outliers* or known partisans in their academic community, and the ultra-swift research a journalist does for an article to be published in a politically-partisan newspaper and how that gets massaged, then there's no point continuing the conversation.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:It is. Subject specialists are still arguing to support a particular point of view though. Just with better written arguments at longer length than the average journalist. We tend to gravitate to material that supports the world-view we already have. Or we gloss over the bits that don’t fit. (Depeche Mode was recently declared the soundtrack of the Alt Right. While I applaud their musical taste, they can’t have listened to some of the lyrics very carefully.)
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:Yes you 'know nothing' but academics who are experts on the subject for a living obviously don't know what they're talking about.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
]I know nothing, but I don't think it is quite as simple as is being suggested by these academics.
For reference, citing The Guardian on independence = citing The Daily Telegraph and rightwing papers on immigration, EU, NHS etc. It has form on this issue, just as other newspapers do for their political positions. It's not miraculously exempt. Checking what the subject specialists say is absolutely necessary on subjects like the EU/Scottish independence.
Tubbs
I've argued in this style on the boards for over a decade on the grounds that there's not much point citing the Guardian to a Telegraph reader, or Thinking Anglicans to a conservative Evangelical etc. I usually try to find academically-sound sources who aren't obvious partisans and see what they say - do you have equivalent people who are not known partisans who work in these disciplines who contradict what I've posted? Then go ahead and post them. These are important complex subjects.
I somehow doubt the next time someone attacks your posts with stories from the right wing press, that your answer is going to be 'It's a fair cop Guv, you've posted a Telegraph article on the government reforms saying they're great- no point me citing what health researchers say about the NHS' or 'You say the Daily Mail says this causes cancer? Wow, no point me posting links to NHS Behind the Headlines or the actual peer reviewed journal - cos that's just people who argue better/longer than journalists so we can safely ignore them.'
* like the way you get the occasional archaeologist or astronomer who is a creationist, or the occasional person who is well-known in their field as being pretty much discredited
quote:I wonder what the Greeks would have to say about that, let alone other members of the Eurozone. Of course, you could argue that Scotland's sovereignty would not be compromised by EU membership in that it could leave if it so chose. The decision to join the EU, however, would involve membership of the Euro, and acceptance of the strict economic disciplines that necessitates. In other words, the practical parameters within which Scotland's Parliament would make its sovereign decisions would be much curtailed- possibly to the relief of those living in Scotland! I make these remarks as very disappointed opponent of Brexit.
For a start, the EU and institutions don't have any significant impact on the sovereignty of nation states
quote:I saw the Spectator version of that earlier today. Though, if Scotland is to benefit from business moving from the UK into EEA/EU member states (and, avoid Scottish business doing the same) then the referendum needs to be as soon as possible. Because by 2019 businesses will have already made their decisions about dealing with Brexit, including relocating (some of) their business inside the EEA/EU. If they have a realistic prospect of only being outside the EEA/EU for a short while in Scotland then Scotland will look attractive, and for that too happen there would need to be a Yes vote, even if there will still be a period of negotiation before Independence and subsequent entry into the EEA/EU.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting comments from the economist Wren-Lewis, who seems to have switched to support for Yes2. I guess that his ideas will be strenuously challenged, e.g. his comment that Brexit may lead to a 10% drop in incomes, his view that Scotland can attract foreign investment (in the single market), and his view of upcoming Tory austerity (savage).
There are differences from the last vote, and it will be interesting to see how they are described. For example, No seemed to promise stability last time; this time, not so much.
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/brexit-makes-economics-of-scottish.html?m=1
quote:Most businesses have already identified potential locations and are moving forward with their relocation plans. Applying for licences, organising premises and hiring staff takes time. A few have already announced where they're going.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:I saw the Spectator version of that earlier today. Though, if Scotland is to benefit from business moving from the UK into EEA/EU member states (and, avoid Scottish business doing the same) then the referendum needs to be as soon as possible. Because by 2019 businesses will have already made their decisions about dealing with Brexit, including relocating (some of) their business inside the EEA/EU. If they have a realistic prospect of only being outside the EEA/EU for a short while in Scotland then Scotland will look attractive, and for that too happen there would need to be a Yes vote, even if there will still be a period of negotiation before Independence and subsequent entry into the EEA/EU.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting comments from the economist Wren-Lewis, who seems to have switched to support for Yes2. I guess that his ideas will be strenuously challenged, e.g. his comment that Brexit may lead to a 10% drop in incomes, his view that Scotland can attract foreign investment (in the single market), and his view of upcoming Tory austerity (savage).
There are differences from the last vote, and it will be interesting to see how they are described. For example, No seemed to promise stability last time; this time, not so much.
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/brexit-makes-economics-of-scottish.html?m=1
It's a good reason for the Scottish government to push for an early referendum, even autumn 2018 is late in relation to businesses planning relocation post-Brexit. A delay to start campaigning until summer 2019, with a referendum sometime in 2020, would totally eliminate most of the benefit such an English-speaking, more or less familiar culture location within the EEA/EU. Ireland, will have already taken the lion share of that bonus.
quote:The Westminster government is looking to cut outgoings everywhere and can't be trusted to stick to a manifesto commitment unless it's supported by the Daily Mail. I'm not sure that Scotland won't need to replace the money lost from Westminster even if Scotland stays in the UK.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
How would Scotland replace the money lost from Westminster?
quote:They're not illogical - they're just not economic arguments. The EU is good because Europe is significantly to the political left of England, so EU rules are better than London Tory rules.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The SNP are in the strange position of making arguments about why a “hard” Brexit is bad but why a “hard” departure from the UK would be good. These arguments are so illogical,
quote:The UK market is currently worth four times the rest of the EU market. The economic question is whether that would still be the case if the UK leaves the Single Market with no deal in place.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The SNP are in the strange position of making arguments about why a “hard” Brexit is bad but why a “hard” departure from the UK would be good. These arguments are so illogical, given that the UK market is worth 4 times what the EU market is worth to Scottish trade, that I conclude there is another reason why they want to leave the UK: they just don’t like the English.
quote:Hell, no. Being an MP/MSP/councillor is a thankless job where you'll be criticised for everything you do, and never praised. It's even worse than ordained ministry (I've no plans in that direction either).
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
Actually a (maybe semi-)serious question: Alan, have you considered standing for election?
quote:This is hardly surprising when one recalls that the SNP campaigned for a No vote in 1975, reflecting the party's core support amongst inshore fisherman whose interests had been sacrificed for the perceived greater good. The policy of the SNP was subsequently changed for "independence in Europe" because it promised to reduce fears that Scottish independence was too much a shot in the dark. Anti-European sentiment has persisted amongst the (former) fishing communities.
As was pointed out above, a not insignificant portion of Euroscepticism comes from within the SNP
quote:Sad but true. They really are a shower of shite.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:The Westminster government is looking to cut outgoings everywhere and can't be trusted to stick to a manifesto commitment unless it's supported by the Daily Mail. I'm not sure that Scotland won't need to replace the money lost from Westminster even if Scotland stays in the UK.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
How would Scotland replace the money lost from Westminster?
I am still just about wanting to stay in the UK. The attraction of independence right now is that of getting out of the fire into the frying pan.
quote:Why do you think so?
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
It's quite simple in economic terms really. An independent Scotland in the European single market with the rUK outside would be better off than Scotland remaining in Brexit Britain.
quote:No chance of getting into the EU then though.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A ten year moratorium! Jesus H. Icecream. The SNP MPs could resign and fight 59 by-elections on an independence platform, and then declare UDI.
quote:Fifty-six, actually, and they might not win. Not everyone in Scotland thinks that having Independence Referenda every few years is a good idea. As it was, Sturgeon spent the last Holyrood election tacking cautiously between her ultras who want an independence referendum NOW! and those who thought that a period of calm was appropriate. And there isn't an exact match between "Remain" and "Yes" voters. If Ruth Davidson and her little chums run on a platform of "pissed off unionists who want a bit of piece and quiet" and nab a couple of seats off the SNP it would be, to say the least, embarrassing. There's precedent for this, btw, after the Anglo-Irish agreement the SDLP managed to take a constituency off the Unionists (and a random bloke who ran as the ROI Foreign Secretary in four seats, without campaigning, managed to save his deposit in three). The SNP speak for a large proportion of the population of Scotland but quite likely not a majority, and certainly not all of them.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A ten year moratorium! Jesus H. Icecream. The SNP MPs could resign and fight 59 by-elections on an independence platform, and then declare UDI.
quote:If Article 50 is given by end March 2017, the 2 year period doesn't end until March 2019 - and the negotiations are likely to go right up to the wire, if not into overtime.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting point about 'now is not the time' - Nicola had suggested autumn 2018 or spring 2019. So presumably May is saying that Brexit details won't be known by 2019? Do you remember the 100 years war?
quote:Not really the same thing. There is a law about the way elections are to be conducted, as far as I know there is no law which says the Prime Minster has to allow the leader of a devolved authority to decide the date of an independence referendum.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
"Now is not the time"
quote:A referendum would, I imagine, require an Act of Parliament. Given that Mrs May has a small majority and is beholden to the DUP and the Tory headbangers to get things through the House of Commons, I'm not sure it's something that's actually in her power to grant. Granted, the SNP would all vote for a referendum, but a lot of Tories might not. If (admittedly big 'if' given the uselessness of the current Labour leader) Corbyn decided that he was opposed to another independence referendum a large swathe of the PCP might vote against. You can imagine what that would do for May's already fraying credibility.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Not really the same thing. There is a law about the way elections are to be conducted, as far as I know there is no law which says the Prime Minster has to allow the leader of a devolved authority to decide the date of an independence referendum.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
"Now is not the time"
quote:Well, of course, in both cases a "simple referendum question" is wrong. Both the UK leaving the EU and Scotland leaving the UK are very complex issues, with a range of possible outcomes. Therefore, neither can be answered in a "simple referendum question".
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It feels a bit like both sides are being rather contradictory; if a single simple referendum question was wrong to get out of the EU, why is it not wrong for getting out of the UK?
quote:You seriously think that an Indy2 ref in less than 2 years time would be sufficient time to give voters a clear choice - even though it can't possibly be known then what it is that they're voting for/against wrt the British deal with the EU? I think you're so used to believing your own rhetoric that you've lost the ability to tell when it is complete bollocks.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, those are entirely comparable. Not.
quote:If independent Scotland's to be in the EU, how could trade between rUK and Scotland be any easier or harder than between rUK and any other EU country? If there are border and customs checks between rUK and the EU generally, there will have to be the same between rUK and Scotland as well.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It depends on the degree of convergence between various countries, doesn't it? Hard Brexit seems to indicate no convergence of regulations, so you go back to paper documentation of goods, which are checked at frontiers - this sounds disastrous; hence the talk of 30 mile queues at Dover. It's hard to believe that anybody sensible wants this, but you never know with the headbangers, who seem to regard the single market as 'betrayal'.
As to trade between Scotland and England, the degree of convergence would have to be negotiated. I suppose it might also be 'hard', but this seems peculiar to me - so London wants commercial suicide all round?
quote:Yes, I do. By this time next year, about when formal campaigning will kick off, there would have been an extensive Parliamentary debate drawing up a White Paper. Which, I see no reason to be much different from the 2014 White Paper - there would need to be revisions to the intent for Scotland to be an EU member as it would no longer be seeking to continue an existing membership, and will need to address the desired relationship with the rest of the UK (since that will no longer be covered under EU membership). That will give a clear indication of what the Scottish government would seek if given the go ahead by the electorate, which is one side of the choice.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:You seriously think that an Indy2 ref in less than 2 years time would be sufficient time to give voters a clear choice - even though it can't possibly be known then what it is that they're voting for/against wrt the British deal with the EU? I think you're so used to believing your own rhetoric that you've lost the ability to tell when it is complete bollocks.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, those are entirely comparable. Not.
quote:Well, while actual events may yet pull the same thing forward, Sturgeon said this afternoon "is not proposing #scotref now… but when the terms of Brexit clear and before it is too late to choose an alternative path. "
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, I do. By this time next year, about when formal campaigning will kick off, there would have been an extensive Parliamentary debate drawing up a White Paper.
quote:This may be what the First Minister and the SNP hardliners think, but where is the evidence that the majority of Scots feel the same? The FM talked up this situation with comments like "I'm not bluffing" to the point where she couldn't back out of making the call. Whatever any of us may think of the merits of staying in the Single Market, it was never going to be possible for the British Government to make a separate deal for Scotland while maintaining the UK union. The only thing they could have done to assuage Nicola would have been to fight for the whole UK to stay in the SM, which would alienate millions of English voters. This is the problem Jeremy Corbyn faces with Labour voters. So what the FM did was set the bar impossibly high to trip up the Government. Scotland hasn't been forced into this situation. The SNP has brought it on.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I don't think there's a general desire for a referendum. Most people would much prefer to wait until sometime after 2030. However, there's a recognition that circumstances have forced it upon us.
quote:You are totally off-beam. Things are completely different to 2014; not least the dramatic reduction in the oil price, the decimation of the North Sea oil industry, the fact that May is triggering Article 50 etc and so on.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If we were starting from scratch, two years would indeed be insufficient time. But, we aren't starting from scratch. We're starting from decades of discussion about the issues, and in particular starting from the 2014 referendum campaign which has already worked through most of the issues.
quote:But, where is there evidence that there are "millions of English voters" who do not want the UK to remain in the Single Market? Remaining in the Single Market would be consistent with the June 2016 referendum result, which is as close as millions of English voters had had an opportunity to express their opinion on the subject.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The only thing they could have done to assuage Nicola would have been to fight for the whole UK to stay in the SM, which would alienate millions of English voters.
quote:Who said anything about recycling the arguments from 2014? All I said was that we had an extensive discussion leading upto 2014, and subsequently. And, although there are some significant changes in circumstance, there are also a lot of things which haven't changed in that time.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:You are totally off-beam. Things are completely different to 2014; not least the dramatic reduction in the oil price, the decimation of the North Sea oil industry, the fact that May is triggering Article 50 etc and so on.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If we were starting from scratch, two years would indeed be insufficient time. But, we aren't starting from scratch. We're starting from decades of discussion about the issues, and in particular starting from the 2014 referendum campaign which has already worked through most of the issues.
If you think that you can just recycle arguments from 2014 then you're madder than a bag of spanners.
quote:Enough things have changed for it to take way way longer than 2 years to have a reasoned debate about the future of the nation, never mind the fact that the British deal won't even have been decided by then. You want people to make a decision before they even know what the options are.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Who said anything about recycling the arguments from 2014? All I said was that we had an extensive discussion leading upto 2014, and subsequently. And, although there are some significant changes in circumstance, there are also a lot of things which haven't changed in that time.
quote:The general picture of what the British government are seeking is already known, it was put in a short White Paper a few weeks ago. I guess we'll know quite soon after Mrs May triggers Article 50 whether it's going to be completely impossible, when we get responses from the EU. If that's the case then we'll be falling back on WTO rules. Otherwise there will be a deal similar to the white paper - even if the details take 18 months to sort out (which will be about the time of the earliest date suggested for Indyref2).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
never mind the fact that the British deal won't even have been decided by then. You want people to make a decision before they even know what the options are.
quote:I've never bought in to the argument that people didn't know what they were voting for last 23rd June. Andrew Marr has proved several times, by showing playbacks, that David Cameron and George Osborne both made it clear that a Leave vote would result in leaving the Single Market. One of the reasons why I have favoured an early General Election is that the question of whether or not the Prime Minister has a mandate for her style of Brexit would be answered. I believe she would receive an overwhelming endorsement of her position. Which is that Brexit inevitable removes us from the Single Market unless we make it something other than Brexit. The PM's understanding is that this is incompatible with granting Nicola Sturgeon's demands. But Nicola knows that and always has. Just as she knows that the PM won't agree to an early referendum. It's all manna from heaven for her agenda of driving as big a wedge as she can between Scotland and England to destroy the union. People should see her agenda for what it is.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, where is there evidence that there are "millions of English voters" who do not want the UK to remain in the Single Market? Remaining in the Single Market would be consistent with the June 2016 referendum result, which is as close as millions of English voters had had an opportunity to express their opinion on the subject.
quote:The competitive advantage combined with the ability to attract inward investment that would have otherwise gone to England would in the medium term make Scotland better off than if they stayed in the post Brexit UK. Obviously none of this is certain but it does change the equation.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Why do you think so?
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
It's quite simple in economic terms really. An independent Scotland in the European single market with the rUK outside would be better off than Scotland remaining in Brexit Britain.
At the moment, while still in both the UK and the EU, Scotland does far more trade with the rest of the UK than with the rest of the EU, even though the latter is much larger. Scotland in the post-Brexit UK would encounter more friction in its EU trade; Scotland outside the UK (and in the EU, let's assume) would encounter more friction in its UK trade. Wouldn't adding friction to the larger share of trade (by leaving the UK) be worse economically than adding friction to the smaller share of trade (by staying in the UK)?
quote:Ask yourself why Cameron and Osborne, leading Remain campaigners, were saying that. They were saying it because the Leave campaign (or, parts of it at least) were saying that the UK could leave the EU and stay in the Single Market, pointing to nations like Norway to show this is possible. Cameron etal were saying that this would not be possible, which was a campaign tactic consistent with the "project fear" approach rather than necessarily a statement of fact.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Andrew Marr has proved several times, by showing playbacks, that David Cameron and George Osborne both made it clear that a Leave vote would result in leaving the Single Market.
quote:I'm not sure what is hard to understand about this: the negotiations with the EU will not finish until 2019. If there is a Scottish referendum before then, voters will not know what the options are.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If you read what I read, you'll see that isn't what I'm saying. At present we have an outline of a plan from the UK government, and that has been known long enough for the EU to have had time to consider their response, and a statement that if the UK doesn't get something like that then they'll fall back on WTO terms. You've right, the EU will prefer something other than WTO terms and so are likely to put in an offer that is also somewhere between Single Market and WTO. We will find out what that is once Article 50 is triggered. I'm not sure what is so odd about that.
quote:Cloud cuckoo land. An independent Scotland may indeed be a better deal than in the UK, if it was able to get access to the Single Market. But that's quite a big question given that nobody currently has any idea whether that's possible, whether the UK will have access to the Single Market, whether an Independent Scotland would have access to the Single Market or whether even most Scots want to have access to the Single Market.
Of course, we won't know that EU position for a few weeks. I've never claimed to know that. But, we will know that, and that will further constrain the final deal after 18 months negotiation. That does mean that when the Scottish Parliament debates the options to produce a White Paper the terms of Brexit will be imprecise, but with the starting positions of both sides already stated and an expectation that the final deal will be somewhere between them. By the time the people of Scotland vote the Brexit negotiations will have concluded, and the deal will be going through the processes of getting it ratified by all the sovereign nations of the EU, and the UK Parliament.
quote:Bullshit. You are utterly delusional.
I don't know what that final deal will be. But, by the time we vote in Autumn 2018 we probably will, and if the referendum is delayed until the spring of 2019 then there would have been a month or two to take that into consideration - though we'd have had 18 months with the broad picture already known.
quote:Which is more or less what I've been saying, though it'll be late 2018 (there will need to be at least three months after the end of negotiations to get it agreed by all EU nations and UK Parliament) - assuming a triggering of Article 50 at the end of the month. But the main points of the negotiations will be known before then - we already know the opening negotiating position for the UK. Which is what the voters need to know in regard to the rUK relationship to the EU, the only relevant issues being what, if any, restrictions on trade will be in place between Scotland (in EU/EEA) and the UK. Many other aspects of those negotiations will be irrelevant to independent Scotland (eg: whether the UK will participate in EU research programmes, adhere to EU environmental policies etc).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure what is hard to understand about this: the negotiations with the EU will not finish until 2019.
quote:You're sounding like Mrs May, missing entirely the irony that Scottish voters in 18-24 months will have a lot more information on the options than the UK voters were permitted in June last year. There may be a few details still unclear, but broadly speaking the No to Independence option will be quite clear. Though I expect the Better Together will try and spin a series of fantasies about how the UK will be a great trading nation, an economic world power while not tied to the EU - the same nonsense that the Leave campaign were spouting last year. But, they'll still be saying that 10 years from now even as the evidence that it's not going to happen builds up. So, a referendum now or in 10 years won't be any different on that point.
If there is a Scottish referendum before then, voters will not know what the options are.
quote:No, the Scottish government can't begin those negotiations before Independence. Once Scotland is free of English domination it can start negotiating our own relation to the EU independent of the rUK relation to the EU. If an independent Scotland can't negotiate with the EU until the rUK says we can, then we're not independent.
Before the point of Brexit, Scotland can't even begin to negotiate with the EU, the EEA or whatever it is that the Scottish government wants today.
quote:Again, apparently that was OK for the whole UK in relation to Leave or Remain in the EU. But, it's not OK for Scotland to vote for or against Independence?
You'd be voting blind and without the information. This is not a controversial point except to those who already think they know the answer.
quote:Indeed, those are the questions that the people of Scotland will need to talk about over the next couple of years, and of course we have already discussed those 3 years ago. There's nothing in those questions which suggest we need an even longer conversation on these issues, such that we should delay the independence referendum beyond the Autumn 2018 - Spring 2019 proposed by the Scottish government. Much less that that delay should be at the insistence of the UK government rather than the wish of the Scottish Parliament.
An independent Scotland may indeed be a better deal than in the UK, if it was able to get access to the Single Market. But that's quite a big question given that nobody currently has any idea whether that's possible, whether the UK will have access to the Single Market, whether an Independent Scotland would have access to the Single Market or whether even most Scots want to have access to the Single Market.
quote:Both sides are pedalling fantasies. The Nats’ picture of a Scotland free from the English yoke of oppression, able to take its rightful place at the centre of the international stage is just a big spin. And sounds remarkably familiar.. You just have to choose which unicorn you like and hope it doesn’t bite you on the arse.
Though I expect the Better Together will try and spin a series of fantasies about how the UK will be a great trading nation, an economic world power while not tied to the EU - the same nonsense that the Leave campaign were spouting last year. But, they'll still be saying that 10 years from now even as the evidence that it's not going to happen builds up. So, a referendum now or in 10 years won't be any different on that point.
quote:This. And for the time being the only organisation who has the authority to negotiate a change to this on behalf of the Scots is the UK government and its reps in the Brexit negotiations.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I don’t blame Scotland for wanting to leave this shit show, but the fact that Scotland can’t currently negotiate in its own right is nothing to do with the English. Scotland can’t negotiate with the EU / EEFTA until they say it can. The EU said no to special status and refused to allow them to negotiate separately. One deal for all and everyone leaves together. EEFTA says that Scotland can’t apply now as it doesn’t meet their criteria.
quote:It may be the way things were reported here, but the Nats did a really good impression of trying to negotiate with the EU in their own right in the aftermath of the Referendum. And got told no. Although parts of member nations could opt out, parts of non-member nations couldn't opt in. The Faroe Islands aren’t members of the EU either.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I don't know who is claiming that Scotland will be able to negotiate anything with the EU before Scotland gains independence. Sturgeon tried for a special deal for Scotland, and has been told quite plainly that the EU can only negotiate with an independent nation (the UK) and can't make separate arrangements with parts of nations (despite Greenland having a different arrangement with the EU from the rest of Denmark).
The whole discussion is, after IndyRef2 assuming a Yes vote, can an independent Scotland seek EU membership. The answer to that is clearly yes, there is nothing stopping an independent Scotland seeking EU membership. Whether that application is successful and how long it will take are different questions. That does not, in anyway, depend on whatever arrangement the rUK has with the EU - if Scotland is independent and the rUK outside the EU, the UK government has not basis to tell either Scotland or the EU what they should do.
quote:Which I thought I just said. The Scottish Government seeking to do what it's supposed to do, get the best for the people of Scotland and represent them, sought to keep Scotland within the Single Market. They followed two options, and found neither could be made to work. The long shot was a special deal for Scotland different from the rest of the UK, and they were told quite clearly the only way for Scotland to have a different deal from the rest of the UK was for Scotland to be independent from the rest of the UK - and for that to be an established fact rather than an aspiration.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
It may be the way things were reported here, but the Nats did a really good impression of trying to negotiate with the EU in their own right in the aftermath of the Referendum. And got told no.
quote:The 45% are those who voted for Independence in 2014. The Leave vote in June was 38% in Scotland.
If I was one of the 45% of Scottish people who voted Leave, I’d be well pissed. Sturgeon is treating them with the same contempt as May is treating the Remain voters in the rest of the UK.
quote:OF course - but the relationship between the UK and the EU might be relevant for Scotland's decision. If Scotland joined the EU, then it must trade with the UK on the same terms as the other EU members. If Scotland is outside the EU, it can negotiate different terms.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That does not, in anyway, depend on whatever arrangement the rUK has with the EU - if Scotland is independent and the rUK outside the EU, the UK government has not basis to tell either Scotland or the EU what they should do.
quote:Which are questions that will be debated endlessly as the referendum campaign progresses. But, it is clear that the deal Mrs May is currently working for is not a deal that will work for Scotland - the question is whether Scotland can work up a deal that's better for Scotland if given the opportunity. If Mrs May opts for the relatively sane option of seeking EEA membership then if Scotland can obtain EEA or EU membership the trade issue is effectively eliminated. But, her published plan is much less sane than that.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:OF course - but the relationship between the UK and the EU might be relevant for Scotland's decision. If Scotland joined the EU, then it must trade with the UK on the same terms as the other EU members. If Scotland is outside the EU, it can negotiate different terms.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That does not, in anyway, depend on whatever arrangement the rUK has with the EU - if Scotland is independent and the rUK outside the EU, the UK government has not basis to tell either Scotland or the EU what they should do.
So it might become a question of whether getting better terms for trade with the EU is worth getting worse terms for trade with the UK.
quote:So does the SNP's latest position. The FM wants to call an independence referendum because Scotland risks being taken out of the EU against its will. Nothing in what she says explains how holding this vote will achieve the aim of keeping Scotland in. In fact she's now conceding that she may have to apply to EFTA. That's something which requires the agreement of all EFTA countries as well as the EU 27. It would at least allow control over agriculture and fisheries, but there's no indication that it's achievable. The only transparently obvious reason for this vote is to get rid of the English, because it's a stab in the dark whether or not independence will achieve what she says is her motive for seeking it.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The biggest problem with devo-max federalism at this time is that it still denies the wishes of 62% of the Scottish electorate who voted to stay in the EU back in June
quote:I expect they will resort to the ABE position (Anyone But (the) English) which works in most circumstances, especially after so many Scots felt that the "better together" campaign ratted on the promise to give Holyrood more powers.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
PS Probably the SNP's task is among the burghers of Corstorphine and Morningside, who need to be convinced that they can vote "yes" to independence without necessarily endorsing the party's centre-left political position.
quote:The one I hear more often than those is a shrug and "I think they'd be making a mistake." I don't claim my friends and family are typical, though. They are mostly of the opinion that, even with Brexit, it would be a bad idea for the Scots to leave the UK, but they recognize the right of the Scots to have a different opinion.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
The two opinions that seem to be aired most are "they've no right to leave, the traitors, how dare they" and "good riddance, I'd be glad to see the back of them". Neither of these builds up the Union much.
quote:That’s pretty much what I’ve heard as well. And as some sections of Scotland don’t seem to value the Union much either as they’re always wanting to leave, why bother getting in their way. They’re getting a good deal, much better than the rest of the UK, and they’re still not happy.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:The one I hear more often than those is a shrug and "I think they'd be making a mistake." I don't claim my friends and family are typical, though. They are mostly of the opinion that, even with Brexit, it would be a bad idea for the Scots to leave the UK, but they recognize the right of the Scots to have a different opinion.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
The two opinions that seem to be aired most are "they've no right to leave, the traitors, how dare they" and "good riddance, I'd be glad to see the back of them". Neither of these builds up the Union much.
They'll be sad if the UK breaks up, but tend to feel that the Scots have a generous deal from the UK at the moment (subsidy by English taxpayers, extra MPs in Westminster) and aren't interested in offering them any more goodies to stay. They tend to oppose further devolution without a removal of the northward-flowing tax subsidy.
quote:I disagree. I think a vote is being forced on them by the SNP. They originally claimed to be calling a referendum because of Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will. Now they acknowledge that independent or not, Scotland will be leaving the EU anyway. They haven't even promised that Scotland will apply for EU membership. This is because they know that some 400,000 SNP voters voted for Brexit. So the whole basis for calling the vote is spurious. Although the SNP put it in their manifesto last year, they are a minority government. The Greens, who will support the SNP in tomorrow's vote in the Scottish Parliament, only said that they'd support if they believed that it's what the Scottish people want. The polls indicate that it isn't the case. So there is no clear mandate to call another referendum and the basis on which the SNP want to call it is complete fiction. It's just another bite at the independence cherry and nothing to do with the EU. I hope Nicola gets the same dollop of egg on her face as Alex Salmond did in 2014. Though I suspect she'll win.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I'm sure that the majority of Scots don't want another vote so soon after the last, but many (most?) feel this is a situation foisted on us by the Brexit vote.
quote:So because 40% of SNP voters voted for Brexit, the 60% who did not should be denied their aspirations, yet when 48% of voters in the whole UK voted to remain in the EU, there was a clear and unequivocal majority to leave? Dual standards, much?
This is because they know that some 400,000 SNP voters voted for Brexit. So the whole basis for calling the vote is spurious.
quote:It is simply untrue that a the PM's Brexit has minority support. A poll shows that although 90% want to retain free trade with the EU after Brexit, 82% of Leave voters and 58% of Remain voters think EU migrants should be treated the same as non-EU. This is the problem which faces the UK negotiating team. These requirements are conflicting, given that the EU insists on the four freedoms as the basis of a trade deal. This is why hard Brexit will come from the EU, not from the UK.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
and then for an English government to inflict a Brexit that has only minority support in the UK upon Scotland.
quote:... a lot of people are misinformed.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
A poll shows that ...
quote:No, it will come because the UK government wants to make a symbolic break with freedom of movement, which will have no significant "benefit" (even to those who have objections to immigration beyond pure racism). Hard Brexit, a break-up of the UK, and all the economic damage of WTO trade with the EU ... it's a big price to pay for a mere symbolic statement that only really benefits those who don't want to see dark skins and hear Polish voices in Britain.
This is why hard Brexit will come from the EU, not from the UK.