|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Indyref2
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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?
But in general, this has to be true. EU members can't negotiate their own trade deals.
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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
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?
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.
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.
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?
I thought that this was the dividing line between soft and hard. Possibly the UK will strive for some kind of intermediate solution, but the right wing are saying 'we will walk away', or we will trade on WTO terms, and so on. What, without any conformity with EU regs? The queue of trucks at Dover would stretch back to Birmingham.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
My gut feeling is that Nicky could catch a cold over the one.
All the talk of broken Britain bashing itself in bollocks over Brexit has so far failed to produce the bread queues.
Also there is the Donald factor which was not a consideration at the last Scottish Referendum. Add in the ominous creaking sounds coming from the EU and you may find previous Nationalistic fervour to have become significantly more sober.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
As pointed out above, this wouldn't really fulfill the 'taking back control' mantra.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
So in a way, Sturgeon is using the hard Brexit bluff as a wall to bounce off, figuring that plenty of people will be frightened by it. Well, yeah, it is frightening, and nobody knows how much May is trapped by the headbangers.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
Also there is the Donald factor which was not a consideration at the last Scottish Referendum.
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.
So, yes Trump wasn't part of the picture last time round. Now it's yet another boost to the Yes to Independence side.
quote:
Add in the ominous creaking sounds coming from the EU and you may find previous Nationalistic fervour to have become significantly more sober.
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.
Scottish nationalism has been a very sober assessment of the options for a long time. Last time round we had a well thought through and detailed white paper, and I'm sure there'll be something similar this time around. Certainly a much more sober document than the Brexit version, which looks more like something scrawled on the back of a beer mat down the pub, after a few too many.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Things started pally enough with Labour in power at Westminster and Holyrood, but it was obvious to anyone that if the Tories ever came to power in London, and the SNP in Edinburgh, it would be a recipe for constitutional conflict stirred up by the SNP in pursuit of its goal. This came to a head in the 2014 referendum in which Alex came close to pulling it off. But he lost and the situation was about to be buried for 25 years. Until 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. 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.
The idea that Scotland could stay in the EU or the Single Market while England leaves is utter nonsense without independence. So what "compromise" was Nicola asking for? The level of access the UK can retain depends of our European neighbours, not on Mrs May. If she goes into negotiations offering tariff free access to the UK market, which she will, it's up to Juncker, Barnier and others. What promises or assurances could the PM give to the First Minister? Nicola claims that she wants continued free movement as well as membership of the Single Market. This, even in the Norwegian model is not Brexit. It's the worst of all worlds and the PM could never sell it to English voters. Nicola knows this and always has. Her requests for "compromise" were nothing but a ruse. Ask the impossible so you can oppose the answer.
I hope enough Scottish voters can see through this. The political case for independence is better than it was in 2014, but the economic case is far worse. If tariffs are to be erected between the UK and the EU, Scotland would be far better off in the UK single market in terms of trade. We are all concerned at the prospect of a hard border in Ireland. Do we want one in Britain, which would be quite likely if customs and immigration issues arise between England and Scotland? Probably the hard liners in the SNP would want the maximum fracture with the Auld Enemy.
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.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
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.
The sequencing of events is critical here, is it not?
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?"
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Interesting and informative post Paul.
One question, and pardon my naivety, but how will Scotland know for sure it has guaranteed future EU membership before it actually votes to spilt from England? I mean won't Nichola S. need a document signed in blood from EU bosses in order to convince her supporters that a vote for Independence is a wise decision?
It all sounds a bit Cameron-like with his Remain campaign box of vague promises from the EU which few seemed convinced by.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Of course, I fully expect Theresa May to may a similarly disingenuous strategy and then walk away blaming the Europeans.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Two things seem to be being ignored currently with regard to Scotland.
First, a significant number of SNP supporters (including, it seems, SNP parliamentarians) voted Leave. Voting for an Independent Scotland doesn't mean voting for the EU. Indeed, given the choppy nature of the current political waters, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that there was a Indyref2 which then led at some point in the future to an SNP administration that decided it wasn't in their interest to try to join the EU.
Second, there is no certainty that Scotland would be admitted to the EU any time soon anyway. The UK is a net contributor, Scotland would not be. Given the extra pinch that the other EU states would be feeling minus a major contributing country, I'm not sure there would be political will to offer membership to Scotland ahead, for example, of Turkey.
I'm now thinking the EU is doomed. If Scotland ties itself to a post-Brexit EU, they might be tying themselves to a sinking ship.
[ 13. March 2017, 20:07: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Presumably, Mrs May cannot accept a regime for compliance and dispute regulation, as she will get eaten alive by the headbangers. That is not hard Brexit, but getting softer and softer.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
That's literally the opposite of taking back control.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
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.
I think the EU is in a very difficult position and the ra-ra-ing from Tory backbenchers is not assisting much. On the one hand, post-Brexit the EU will have a very large UK-sized hole in it's finances. So it would seem that any deal that they can agree with the UK which results in a net-contribution would be a result compared to the UK walking away.
On the other hand, offering the UK too much, letting UK OAPs stay in the EU without too much cost would (and I'm thinking almost inevitably will) be the death knell of the EU. There is no point in anyone following EU Directives if states can get all the cookies without needing to follow the rules.
I can see some kind of new arrangement between France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands - with labour access arrangements for cheaper labour from elsewhere but far lower structural payments - from the ashes of the EU. The way that the thing is currently arranged means that the majority of states who are not net contributors are currently able to put pressure on those that are, whilst barely following the EU norms and regulations. In future, I think that's going to be increasingly untenable in Germany.
[ 13. March 2017, 20:30: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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.
The sequencing of events is critical here, is it not?
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?"
Potentially more convoluted. Something like:
1. Brexit
2. Scexit from the UK.
3. Scotland and rUK negotiate an extremely messy divorce. I'm no constitional law expert, but I can't see the EU agreeing to Scotland joining anything until they"ve sorted out terms with the UK. Which could take awhile. Scotland will also need to set up the mechanics that enable them to function independently as a state. And fund them out of their own pockets.
4. Scotland applies to join either the EU or the EEA.
5. Scotland goes through due process and does whatever is necessary to meet the criteria.
6. Scotland either accepted (Yay!) or rejected (oh shit).
The EU said that they will only negotiate with the UK as a whole and any deal has to apply to all of us. They have also said that Scotland won't be able to go in through the door as the UK exits, it has to apply like anyone else. That's the EU. Not the Tories. Or the English. The Nats can spin it all they like, and they will, but this is way more complicated than they're making it sound
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
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.
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?
But in general, this has to be true. EU members can't negotiate their own trade deals.
That's what I would have thought, yes. quote:
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.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
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?
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.
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.
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?
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".
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I don't really see that rejoining the EU is going to be a fast process. Whereas I can imagine leaving the UK might not be quite so hard to achieve for Scotland.
The main sticking point might be agreeing which assets belong to the independent Scotland, but one might think that wouldn't be all that difficult to agree.
The reality is that with a basically destroyed North Sea oilfield, the economic case for an Indie Scotland is much weaker - and waving bye-bye to Scotland from Westminster looks like less of a big deal. If the Scots want to walk into an uncertain future with little to sell and without an EU market to sell to, then good luck. The Tories might put up a bit of a show at wanting to keep the union together, but I think they'd secretly be quite pleased to be shot of the annoying place north of all the good stuff.
More of an issue for the rUK is Northern Ireland, IMO.
Interesting times.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
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".
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.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
I don't quite know what is worse - our PM being a racist bastard, or that she's a puppet being worked by racist bastards behind the scenes. Either way, Scotland is better off cutting the strings that connect us to a shambolic government.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Given that Scotland is quite unlikely to be able to remain in the EU anyway, what's the point of calling a referendum on this issue? This shows the SNP for what it is. Breaking the union and separating itself from the Auld Enemy is what this is about. Don't believe it's about the Single Market.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
[ 13. March 2017, 21:22: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Moreover skin colour and cultural differences are factors that can't be ignored.
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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.
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.
Well, quite. If you don't want brown people in the UK, the obvious solution would've been to vote Remain.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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.
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.
That may matter for you, but I see no evidence that it cuts it for a large percentage of Brexiteers.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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.
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.
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
raising their families here only to find the government finding pretexts to send them packing.
We have had an extended propaganda campaign for many years trying, and in many cases succeeding, to sell us a load of lies that immigrants are a problem. Since restricting immigration has no economic benefits (quite the opposite, more immigrants = stronger economy, more jobs etc), nor any impact on the health/care services (again, quite the opposite as more immigrants = stronger health services), nor any other detrimental impact on the UK the only possible reason for such propaganda is an irrational dislike of people who are different - OK, so I've been a bit facetious talking about brown skin and Polish voices, as the criteria for different are wider than that.
Independence would give Scotland a chance to get ourselves clear of the filth of racism that has polluted politics in Westminster. Being able to stand apart as an open, welcoming country would be good for Scotland regardless of any other arguments for independence - and, being able to take advantage of the benefits of immigration will help to strengthen the Scottish economy.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
Scotland has no power to declare a unilateral referendum.
BUT perhaps they could organise a non-binding vote which would be difficult for Westminster to ignore.
As things stand, I don't think an independent Scotland should take re-entry to the EU for granted. Spain will be particularly reluctant to see this happen.
BUT, should Le Pen be elected in France (which God forbid), the future of the EU may look so shaky that negotiating positions may soften.
This is also the only way I can see Britain getting anywhere with its "hardball" EU negotiations. So much so that I fear some Brexiteers (not too many, I sincerely hope) will be secretly or not-so-secretly rooting for le FN.
I would hate to see Scotland become independent, just as I would hate to see the EU break up. Instability in the shakedown. Lots of potential for bad blood and conflict (who gets the oil? what about N. Ireland?). What did Rifkind say? Putin must be dancing in the Kremlin!
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
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.
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.
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
quote:
Moreover skin colour and cultural differences are factors that can't be ignored.
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.
Cultural differences can be more stubborn, but, for example, Chinese heritage people are largely accepted in British society compared with, say, South Asian people, despite an equally strong cultural identity. Which suggests that there is some media manipulation going on.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
I wasn't citing what is true, but what Leave voters believed to be true. Apologies for lack of clarity, but that is what I meant!
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I've been thinking about all this and I really believe Scotland has nothing to lose. I do favour Scottish independence, but that's been mainly from the point of view of a Brexit brake and a shake up of the UK's increasing leaning to insular politics. In effect it always served a good purpose as a bit of sporran rattling to make Westminster behave itself, but perhaps a little like Scotland itself, 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. 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 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'?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
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'?
Again, I would be very wary of this kind of thinking.
It seems to me to display the same naive optimism prevalent in the UK that if they experience Brexiteers' remorse they can simply press ctrl + alt + delete and the EU-27 will bend over backwards to put everything back the way it was.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
It might be a reasonable gamble to think that you are better alone than as part of Brexit-Britain, but it isn't true to say there is nothing to lose.
quote:
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
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.
quote:
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'?
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Incidentally, there is a lot of excited talk about an independence campaign for Wales this morning. I suggest that there is very very little evidence that Wales would be better off outside of the UK even compared to Brexit-Britain-minus-Scotland.
The only possible way that Wales would be better off would be if it could somehow rejoin the EU and keep getting structural funds. IMO that's never going to happen.
Personally, not that it is much of my business having only lived here a while, I'd quite like to see an Independent Wales - but I very much doubt it would be in any sense prosperous (probably more like Portugal than Luxembourg) and rejoining the EU is even less likely than Scotland being allowed in.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
I have have mixed feelings on what the outcome may be, but no one can say that the economic situation hasn't changed since 2014
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Erm.. I think I'm correct in thinking that the last ref economic case was based on (a) there being a North Sea oil revenue and (b) the price per barrel being twice the current levels.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Do people vote based on economic arguments?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The economic case in 2014 was never very strong. Independence will always be an economic gamble, and with a poor hand. The economic case has changed in the last few years - oil prices have collapsed and Brexit makes any economic prediction almost impossible. But, I'm not sure it's fundamentally different - there was a lot of discussion in 2014 about the Scottish economy post-oil (largely led by the Greens, making a case for an independent Scotland that doesn't rely on fossil fuels) showing how lower oil revenue was not going to impoverish Scotland. Those arguments are actually stronger now, since Scotland clearly can't rely on oil revenue.
The strongest arguments for independence were, and still are, political. And, those arguments get stronger by the day. In 2014 Cameron bought off the Scots by political concessions, a last minute promise to deliver more political power to Holyrood. Most of those powers have been delivered, but in the last few years we have seen more and more examples of Westminster legislation adversely impacting Scotland. Brexit is but one example. Westminster legislation re: immigration is another - we have seen examples of the Scottish government working hard to get young families to settle and work in remote communities (because those communities will die without new people moving in) only to have those efforts torpedoed by Westminster changing the rules on immigration. We have seen people in Scotland dragged from their homes and put on planes to countries they barely know, and the Scottish Government powerless to stop these human rights abuses because immigration is controlled from Westminster. We have seen plans to dump Trump on us to avoid the disruption the inevitable protests will cause in London. Much of the stupid austerity measures of the current government have been enacted in Scotland against the will of the Scottish people and government, because those are not devolved powers.
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).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
And there have been some amusing replies to the British govt argument that we can't have Indyref2 until the details of the Brexit deal are known. To wit, we had the EU referendum without knowing anything!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
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?
My prediction: same result, similar or greater margin.
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
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.
Do people vote based on economic arguments?
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
kingsfold
Shipmate
# 1726
|
Posted
quote:
posted by Boogie:
Do people vote based on economic arguments?
Yes. My Indyref1 vote was almost entirely economically driven.
Posts: 4473 | From: land of the wee midgie | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Do people vote based on economic arguments?
I would think that some people do
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).
Most people are unable or unwilling to examine economic arguments in detail and form their own opinions. What they get are two sides giving a summary - which are mutually contradictory (eg: Better Together saying Scottish independence will result in economic recession, pro-independence saying it will result in economic boom). So, people largely decide on the economic arguments on grounds of which side they trust the more (which is founded on factors entirely different from economics), or they base their decision on factors other than economics.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kingsfold:
quote:
posted by Boogie:
Do people vote based on economic arguments?
Yes. My Indyref1 vote was almost entirely economically driven.
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.
But, it was only a part of the campaign. And, other factors were (and are) very much stronger. Factors like the political gulf between Scotland and the rest of the UK (only widened as the Tories have lurched to the right and Labour have collapsed), the different priorities of the different nations with the interests of the south of England almost always given priority, differences in culture and history, a general prioritising political autonomy at the smallest practical level - coupled to the need for political cooperation at larger levels (so, independence for Scotland, within the larger European Union).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
