|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Indyref2
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I think economics are or should be important - it's got to 'work', ultimately.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
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.
You may be the exception. Most people don't. If they did, Remain would have won.
Tubbs
--------------------
"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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Economic arguments are important, just for most people not the most important.
--------------------
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
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
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).
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).
Tubbs
[ 14. March 2017, 11:54: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
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.
You may be the exception. Most people don't. If they did, Remain would have won.
Tubbs
Most Scots did vote Remain.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Of course, there are interests in Brexit other than just England and Scotland. But, from what I've seen 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). I've not heard much about Gibralter, but there is a contested border with Spain that becomes even more of a problem in the event of a hard Brexit.
Which is the point. The UK government is supposed to be governing the whole of the UK and looking after the best interests of the whole of the UK. When it can't seem to see beyond the concerns of a few thousand Conservative Party members then there is a big problem - not just for Scotland, but for NI, Wales, Gibralter the North of England, the SW of England and places like the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands (who didn't even get a vote in June).
The Scottish government only needs to be concerned about the people living in Scotland. The UK government doesn't have the luxury or the right to only concern itself about the people of England.
--------------------
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
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
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.
You may be the exception. Most people don't. If they did, Remain would have won.
Tubbs
Most Scots did vote Remain.
I was talking about the whole of the UK. If economic arguments swayed people then Cornwall, Wales etc would have voted Remain as well.
Tubbs
--------------------
"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
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by quetzacoatl:
quote:
But I often think of Ireland, which was a poor country before independence and after, for quite a time.
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.
Posted by Alan;
quote:
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)
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!).
In any case, I will hold out for a United Celtic Nations. Scotland will be in it because they will settle the fears of the paranoia suffering Unionists in NI; Cornwall can come if it likes and the Isle of Man can join us too. We'd accept the Faroe Islands because they look pretty and I'm sure some Irish saint set a foot on them at some point. Maybe a bit of northern France if we're pushed. But Wales? No; Wales cannot come.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
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.
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.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
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.
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.
Some charts showing the economic impact of Scottish independence. But they are from the Telegraph. And Spain has stirred the pot.
Tubbs
--------------------
"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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
And Spain has stirred the pot.
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.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
we all know Spain has issues with its own separatists.
And it treats them a hell of a lot worse than Britain treats the Scots, too.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Marvin the Martian quote:
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.
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.
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. In short, the SNP is even more brainless and inimical to the interests of most Scots that UKIP is to the UK, and that's saying something!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
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.
For more detail see Edinburgh's University's European Futures blog where their academics share their research.
The EEA would still be a great improvement on the Brexit conditions and it's very unlikely that Spain would intervene in that - EEA membership
(blog by Professor of EU and Human Rights Law at the University of Essex, Steve Peers)
[ 15. March 2017, 01:22: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Second, Scotland is only compliant with EU rules whilst the UK is in the EU, and one would assume that it can't actually discuss membership until such time as it is both outside of the EU and is independent, by which point it will presumably not be fully compliant any longer.
Next, Finland Austria and Sweden are net contributors to the EU, and presumably were even when members of the EEA. There is no plausible scenario whereby Scotland would be a net contributor any time soon.
The political decision is then whether to enlarge the union by taking on another net beneficiary state. Whilst one can point to EU enlargement to the East as a model for this, clearly the economic landscape has changed and the position of Scotland is quite different strategically to that of Eastern Europe.
My bet is that a Scotland application would be kicked into the long grass. A swift process would be disastrous for the EU - how would it pay for the additional costs?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Yes, Scottish independence is, by definition, set against government from London.
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. Second, what little sovereignty is surrendered to the EU is a very small price for the benefits of EU membership.
--------------------
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:
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.
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.
Either you are being disingenuous our you are simply talking shite for effect. Which is it?
quote:
Second, what little sovereignty is surrendered to the EU is a very small price for the benefits of EU membership.
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.
You want all the sweeties that are going, even when those sweeties aren't actually on the table.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
quote:
Second, what little sovereignty is surrendered to the EU is a very small price for the benefits of EU membership.
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.
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.
--------------------
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
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.
--------------------
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
I also note that there are reports that the SNP might drop the plan to rejoin the EU because of significant Euroscepticism amongst core voters.
If you think you are voting for the EU by voting for Scottish Independence, then I say you are naive. You could easily be voting yourself into a corner, outwith of the EU and outwith of the rest of the UK.
Of course, that's your choice. But don't pretend that all those who are voting independence are supporters of the EU or want the same things you do.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
And once again you are talking as if there is some privilege that Scotland has to join the EU outwith of the effect on everyone else in the Union. It is highly unlikely that the EU would benefit as much from Scotland joining as Scotland would benefit from the EU.
There is precious little financial incentive for the EU to allow Scotland to join - a relatively small market, away from the main continental land mass, not contributing anything financially to the EU coffers, with 700 miles of non-EU country in the way, expecting one-way traffic in terms of the balance of payments and ultimately being a poor substitute for a star player in terms of paying the bills.
Vote independence if you want. But don't think this is going to lead inevitably to EU membership.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Scotland already has a lot of EU structural payments because parts are considered some of the poorest in Europe.
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.
quote:
There is no scenario put out by anyone that suggests Scotland would be a net contributor any time soon.
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.
quote:
Vote independence if you want. But don't think this is going to lead inevitably to EU membership.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Yes you 'know nothing' but academics who are experts on the subject for a living obviously don't know what they're talking about.
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.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Scotland already has a lot of EU structural payments because parts are considered some of the poorest in Europe.
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.
quote:
There is no scenario put out by anyone that suggests Scotland would be a net contributor any time soon.
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.
quote:
Vote independence if you want. But don't think this is going to lead inevitably to EU membership.
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.
How would Scotland replace the money lost from Westminster?
Tubbs
--------------------
"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
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
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.
Yes you 'know nothing' but academics who are experts on the subject for a living obviously don't know what they're talking about.
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.
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.)
Tubbs
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
|
DonLogan2
Shipmate
# 15608
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
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.
You may be the exception. Most people don't. If they did, Remain would have won.
Tubbs
Most Scots did vote Remain.
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.
Next vote will be to decide on who rules over us, not anything about independence.
--------------------
“I have of late, but wherefore I know not, lost all my mirth... "
Posts: 359 | From: the very depths | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
A pity that isn't the way our democracy works. Nice try though.
quote:
Next vote will be to decide on who rules over us, not anything about independence.
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?
--------------------
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
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
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.
Yes you 'know nothing' but academics who are experts on the subject for a living obviously don't know what they're talking about.
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.
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.)
Tubbs
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.
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
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
TurquoiseTastic quote:
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?
A short question that requires a very extensive answer, but let me try to summarise the issues.
Two of the most formative factors in shaping electoral choice in this context are (a) cultural identity and (b) social class. Around 1950 these were expressed in Scotland by the Unionist Party on the centre-right and Labour on the centre-left. These coalitions both reached their peak in attracting popular support in the general elections of 1950 & 1951, expressed as a percentage of the registered electorate. Subsequently, the Unionists, who became the Conservatives in the late 1960s suffered a steady decline over 50 years, Labour less so. The fragmentation of the Unionist votes into Conservative, Liberal and SNP disguised the lesser decline in underlying Labour support due to the electoral system. The point to emphasise is that the changes that took place were less a function of switches from one party to another but of generational change, each tranche of new voters being less Conservative/ Labour than the electors they replaced. Let’s me suggest what was going on.
(a)The centre-right. Traditionally, the establishment party in Scotland were the Whigs/ Liberals, who inherited the Presbyterian Reformation and shaped the Treat of Union, 1707. They defined Scottish culture, what it was to be a Scot, and benefitted greatly from the common market with England and the emerging British Empire. Britain secured the Presbyterian Reformation against its opponents and opened opporutnities for enterprising Scots. This culture was challenged by massive Irish Catholic immigration in the late 19th century, and the Liberals split over Irish Home Rule after 1884. The establishment branch of Liberalism made common cause with the Conservatives, and eventually the two parties merged to form the Unionist Party. Similar developments took place in Ireland and England. The threat of Labour post-1918 enabled this Unionist coalition to emerge as the defender of a dominant Presbyterian culture and of broad-based anti-socialist sentiment.
From the 1950s Presbyterianism went into steady decline so that today it has little cultural purchase. Indeed, Knox is seen today as having been a negative influence on the Scottish psyche. Consequently, Protestantism, has ceased to be the major cultural bulwark of the Union that it was half a century ago. Additionally, the British-based and public school-educated upper and upper middle class elite underpinned by social deference that led the Unionist/ Conservative Party have lost their kudos, not only amongst the electorate but within its own party organisation. The new dispensation on the right has seen the emergence of lower middle class leadership and sentiment that is less British in its focus, and more concerned with the narrower national components. During the 1970s, the emergence of Mrs. Thatcher, marked the arrival of a more consciously English nationalism, not to mention the creation of UKIP, which is essentially an English nationalist party. Similarly, in Northern Ireland the Democratic Unionist Party emerged to oppose the Unionist Party. Thus, the emergence of the Scottish National Party was part of a trans-British loss of confidence in the old elite that was seen as betraying England to the European Union, Presbyterian Northern Ireland to the South, and Scotland to England. Betrayal by the old ruling elites of Britain’s national components was and is a common theme of these new political forces on the right. Plaid Cymru in Wales also fits this model.
(b) The centre-left. In Scotland working class institutions linked the local working class both affectively and instrumentally in a common cause with like-minded groups in the rest of Britain. Indeed, the development of the Labour Party and Trade Unions across the UK had owed much to the contribution of Scots. The class character of Catholic Irish immigration and the fear of Presbyterian rule in Scotland, like that at Stormont, meant that Scotland’s Catholic vote was hostile to Scottish Home Rule and, of course, independence. In Scotland the Labour Party’s organisational existence relied more heavily on trade union structures than elsewhere. The de-industrialisation of Britain, therefore, had a great impact on Scottish Labour because from the 1980s its electoral and organisational base in the unions was progresssively hollowed out, as is evident today. Moreover, the decline of Roman Catholicism amongst the Scots-Irish has removed a second critical strand of Labour strength, so that its secularised descendants no longer see Scottish nationalism as a cultural threat.
Thus, de-industrialisation and secularisation have eroded the bases of the grand electoral coalitions of the early post-war decade. Nationalism has long been recognised as a consequence of the loss of religious identity in Europe, and Scotland is no exception. The SNP, at least in its modern form is characterised by its lack of association with the largely defunct religious communities, as is evident amongst younger voters.
If the definition of Scottish identity has changed, and the affective consequences have replaced a sense of Britishness with a more assertive Scottishness, it should be no surprise that the possibility of Scottish independence has assumed a much greater importance. So why has it not happened (yet)? The reason, I would suggest, is that while the traditional link between cultural identity and economic interests has been broken, there is a critical disjunction between the two. Scotland's economy is inextricably linked to the UK. Four fifths of its trade is with England, and its most successful industry, financial services, is part of a British-based enterprise underpinned by the Bank of England, (note the banking crisis: RSB and all that). In terms of public spending Scotland receives significantly more than it generates in taxation, and its demography suggest that will become greater. In the last referendum questions relating to economic questions and currency greatly embarrassed the independence position, and the terms of trade since they have significantly worsened for the leave camp as the precarious prospects for the oil industry have been revealed. Scotland, therefore, is divided into two camps: Scottish cultural national identity versus British economic reality. Thus far the wallet has prevailed, but economic rationality, as Brexit has demonstrated, does not always prove “it’s the economy, stupid.”
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
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.
Yes you 'know nothing' but academics who are experts on the subject for a living obviously don't know what they're talking about.
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.
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.)
Tubbs
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.
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
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”.
Academia isn’t the same as politics. If Scotland leaves and applies to join the EU, it won’t be academic arguments that decide what happens next but political realities. Scotland’s hope is them joining the EU or one of the related institutions is politically expedient for everyone else.
Tubbs
[ 15. March 2017, 16:14: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Alan Cresswell
quote:
For a start, the EU and institutions don't have any significant impact on the sovereignty of nation states
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.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
It seems to me to be remarkably cut-and-dried. The vote is between a Tory Government for a long time caused exclusively by English votes, or for a centre-left government that they choose. It's not a hard decision to make, even if it means some sacrifices. The No vote was hugely boosted by the fact that the Tories in coalition was not nearly as bad for Scotland as the Tories are on their own. Theresa May has shown she has no interest in looking after Scotland, so most of my Scottish friends (most of whom voted No previously) have already indicated their support for Yes this time around because they loathe her.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
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
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.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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
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.
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.
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.
Ireland may get some of the business, but others have selected places like Luxembourg. The criteria they're using isn't just familiar culture or language, but stability, commitment to the EU, ease of access to the rest of Europe, tax regimes, employment law, availability of staff with the relevant skills, willingness to give them time to move operations etc.
If there is a yes vote, Scotland might pick up some new market entrants who are looking for a base and prefer an English speaking one. But the rUK business will be long gone.
Tubbs
--------------------
"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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
How would Scotland replace the money lost from Westminster?
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.
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.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack the Lass
Ship's airhead
# 3415
|
Posted
The Scottish Social Attitudes Survey was published today, so as usual Prof John Curtice was all over the place discussing it. The main take-home points seem to be that support for independence is at its highest ever (twice what it was at the start of the campaign for Indyref1, 46% as opposed to 23%), but that Euroscepticism is higher than you might think from the headlines so rejoining Europe might not be the best hook on which to hang hopes of independence. See here.
As was pointed out above, a not insignificant portion of Euroscepticism comes from within the SNP, with (IIRC from figures last year after the Brexit referendum) nearly 25% of their core voters voting to Leave (this was fairly similar, IIRC, to the proportion of Labour voters who voted Leave). Very few parliamentarians voted to Leave - none of the SNP Westminster MPs, and from what I can gather around 6 MSPs (most notably among them Alex Neil, the former Cabinet Secretary for Health).
Actually a (maybe semi-)serious question: Alan, have you considered standing for election?
--------------------
"My body is a temple - it's big and doesn't move." (Jo Brand)
wiblog blipfoto blog
Posts: 5767 | From: the land of the deep-fried Mars Bar | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
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. Given that they are now considering the possibility that independence may not automatically include EU membership, this shows The SNP's position for the sham it is. It's far more about Braveheart than it is about the EU.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
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,
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.
Separating from England is good because it gets away from the Tories. Staying in the EU is good because it dilutes the effect of the Tories.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Also of course it seems a bit disingenuous to claim that the SNP doesn't like the English when the Conservatives are apparently so utterly contemptuous of the expressed wishes of the Scottish.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
Actually a (maybe semi-)serious question: Alan, have you considered standing for election?
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).
I am trying to work out whether I should join the SNP or the Greens to express my support for Independence.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Jack the Lass quote:
As was pointed out above, a not insignificant portion of Euroscepticism comes from within the SNP
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.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
How would Scotland replace the money lost from Westminster?
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.
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.
Sad but true. They really are a shower of shite.
In other news, Iceland has said that only sovereign nations can apply for EEFTA membership. They may allow Scotland to start negotiations before that. Or they could do an EU and announce that there will be no negotiations without sovereignty. Depending on what makes the most political sense at the time. (This is from the Torygraph though and I didn't have time to see who else had picked the story up).
Tubbs
--------------------
"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
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
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.
However I cannot see any way that Scotland can achieve that. The EU has made clear that Brexit means Scotland too. Scotland could then only join by unanimous consent and Spain will always block that.
So independence doesn't make sense.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Why do you think so?
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)?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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?
[ 16. March 2017, 14:23: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
