Brexit - what will happen next

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Why is everything connected with the Tories described as 'ideological' is some sort of negative term? Is every politician of any colour not 'idealogical' and would those still wishing to remain tied to the EU not be just as 'idealogical' despite the rather obvious evidence that in the Euro zone at least it has done nothing for the vast majority of its population...

Massive bugbear of mine.

Everything the SNP do is ideologically driven. Everything corbyn does is ideologically driven.

New labour maybe not so much...

[Geo_1875]

Massive bugbear of mine.

Everything the SNP do is ideologically driven. Everything corbyn does is ideologically driven.

New labour maybe not so much...

Tory ideology?

[GlesgaeHibby]

The Tory attack on foreigners is just disgusting.

Our NHS wouldn't function without foreign Doctors, Surgeons, Nurses etc.

Where do the Tories think we're going to get all the home grown doctors to fill the gaps? Dumb down entry requirements so we're no longer getting the best?

[Moulin Yarns]

The Tory attack on foreigners is just disgusting.

Our NHS wouldn't function without foreign Doctors, Surgeons, Nurses etc.

Where do the Tories think we're going to get all the home grown doctors to fill the gaps? Dumb down entry requirements so we're no longer getting the best?

All courses are over subscribed already, the only way would be to increase the places for nurses, doctors and other health professionals, and that isn't possible without creating more colleges. Totally impossible to see where they are heading with this.

[degenerated]

:agree: Johnny Foreigner is on the run. Foreign doctors told they're "Allowed" to stay just now, or at least until the Tories get some "Brits" trained up. Firms having to list Foreigners on their books. It's getting all 1930's.

17507 17508

Alternatively we could have this.

17510

This is the Tories taking back control, it's British Nationalism just warming up.
James o'brien nails it here


http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-amber-rudds-speech-echoes-mein-kampf/


Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

James o'brien nails it here


http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-amber-rudds-speech-echoes-mein-kampf/


Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

That was my first thoughts too when I heard the Home Secretary giving her speech. It's absolutely mental that passages out of Hitler's Mein Kampf are being used as party policy in the UK's ruling party. The world's gone mad!

[RyeSloan]

That was my first thoughts too when I heard the Home Secretary giving her speech. It's absolutely mental that passages out of Hitler's Mein Kampf are being used as party policy in the UK's ruling party. The world's gone mad!

Im a touch confused...where in her speech did she use passages out of Mein Kampf?

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/full-text-amber-rudds-conference-speech/

[ronaldo7]

I knew I'd seen it before.

17515 17516

[Holmesdale Hibs]

I knew I'd seen it before.

17515 17516

It was also said by Gordon Brown, maybe he's BNP as well? And Nicola Sturgeon prioritising Scottish best interests, I guess that makes her a facist too?

Some over the top arguments on here. I don't think May said to much wrong myself but that's just my opinion. If people disagree then fair enough but no need to make silly analogies to support your view.

[johnbc70]

I knew I'd seen it before.

17515 17516

So when Sturgeon stepped in and saved the steel works and saved 'Scottish jobs' for yes Scottish workers that is a bad thing, I thought you said it was a good thing. Make up your mind.

P.S. still waiting on those reduced P1 to P3 class sizes SNP promised me many years ago.

[Hibrandenburg]

Im a touch confused...where in her speech did she use passages out of Mein Kampf?

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/full-text-amber-rudds-conference-speech/

I'm confused, where did I say passages of Mein Kampf were used in her speech?

[ronaldo7]

So when Sturgeon stepped in and saved the steel works and saved 'Scottish jobs' for yes Scottish workers that is a bad thing, I thought you said it was a good thing. Make up your mind.

P.S. still waiting on those reduced P1 to P3 class sizes SNP promised me many years ago.

When the Scottish government stepped in to save the steel works, they didn't say that workers needed to be "Scottish". Or that anyone working there could stay for a wee while until they got "Scottish" workers trained up.

You need to take the Tory blinkers off.

[Peevemor]

So when Sturgeon stepped in and saved the steel works and saved 'Scottish jobs' for yes Scottish workers that is a bad thing, I thought you said it was a good thing. Make up your mind.

P.S. still waiting on those reduced P1 to P3 class sizes SNP promised me many years ago.
The SNP are very clear on this. They want the best for the people of Scotland, not just Scottish people. There's a big difference.

[johnbc70]

When the Scottish government stepped in to save the steel works, they didn't say that workers needed to be "Scottish". Or that anyone working there could stay for a wee while until they got "Scottish" workers trained up.

You need to take the Tory blinkers off.
You have to admit it's somewhat ironic you telling someone to take any kind of political 'blinkers' off.

Care to comment on my frequently mentioned observation on class Sizes? Or happy to ignore again.

[ronaldo7]

It was also said by Gordon Brown, maybe he's BNP as well? And Nicola Sturgeon prioritising Scottish best interests, I guess that makes her a facist too?

Some over the top arguments on here. I don't think May said to much wrong myself but that's just my opinion. If people disagree then fair enough but no need to make silly analogies to support your view.

The build up all week at Tory party conf has been divisive and quite simply Toxic. They are fuelling the xenophobia which is rife in the towns and cities of England. If you're happy to let that build up and boil over then that's up to you.

I just don't want that to happen in Scotland thanks.

[ronaldo7]

You have to admit it's somewhat ironic you telling someone to take any kind of political 'blinkers' off.

Care to comment on my frequently mentioned observation on class Sizes? Or happy to ignore again.

Are you condoning the rhetoric from the Tories in the last few days?

Do you accept that Sturgeon is happy that a person of any nationality works within the Steel works? Unlike the Tories who want Doctors deported.

On class sizes, it looks like they might have failed to make their targets. Which manifesto was it in?

[stoneyburn hibs]

The build up all week at Tory party conf has been divisive and quite simply Toxic. They are fuelling the xenophobia which is rife in the towns and cities of England. If you're happy to let that build up and boil over then that's up to you.

I just don't want that to happen in Scotland thanks.

Your'e just saying "divisive" cause your'e a divisive nationalist :greengrin
I agree that it did seem a rather toxic pulling up the drawbridge and walking the streets with a British bulldog type of Tory conference, but I was calmed a little when Maggie May said that they were the party for the workers.

[#FromTheCapital]

You have to admit it's somewhat ironic you telling someone to take any kind of political 'blinkers' off.

Care to comment on my frequently mentioned observation on class Sizes? Or happy to ignore again.

😂😂

I have him on ignore for this very reason, I suggest you do the same. It makes reading this part of the forum slightly more enjoyable.

[Holmesdale Hibs]

The build up all week at Tory party conf has been divisive and quite simply Toxic. They are fuelling the xenophobia which is rife in the towns and cities of England. If you're happy to let that build up and boil over then that's up to you.

I just don't want that to happen in Scotland thanks.

I don't consider prioritising British jobs as being xenophobic. You could argue she's pandering and positioning herself politically but that's quite different.

The post I quoted is fairly devisive and maybe you should exercise some tolerance towards people that have different political views than you. Your statement that xenophobia is rife in cities in England is untrue and far more ignorant and devisive than anything I saw May say on the news.

If we want to make the atmosphere less toxic, remain voters need to firstly accept the Brexit result and then accept that the people that voted for it are not stupid and/or racist. Insulting and condescending them isn't going to change anything and it will only make for more serious divisions.

[ronaldo7]

Your'e just saying "divisive" cause your'e a divisive nationalist :greengrin
I agree that it did seem a rather toxic pulling up the drawbridge and walking the streets with a British bulldog type of Tory conference, but I was calmed a little when Maggie May said that they were the party for the workers.

The Tories, the party of the workers. :tee hee: They've sold you a pup mate.:greengrin

[ronaldo7]

I don't consider prioritising British jobs as being xenophobic. You could argue she's pandering and positioning herself politically but that's quite different.

The post I quoted is fairly devisive and maybe you should exercise some tolerance towards people that have different political views than you. Your statement that xenophobia is rife in cities in England is untrue and far more ignorant and devisive than anything I saw May say on the news.

If we want to make the atmosphere less toxic, remain voters need to firstly accept the Brexit result and then accept that the people that voted for it are not stupid and/or racist. Insulting and condescending them isn't going to change anything and it will only make for more serious divisions.

Try telling that to the eastern European workers all over England. Sweeping it under your living room carpet won't work bud. I'd suggest broadening your news outlets, as it's out there, Polish workers killed, others attacked. It's not nice

[Mibbes Aye]

Are you condoning the rhetoric from the Tories in the last few days?

Do you accept that Sturgeon is happy that a person of any nationality works within the Steel works? Unlike the Tories who want Doctors deported.

On class sizes, it looks like they might have failed to make their targets. Which manifesto was it in?

They campaigned off the back of it in the 2011 manifesto. So basically they promised to reduce class sizes over the last five years.

But class sizes have never gone down since then, they've just gone up.

What were you saying about being sold a pup?

[ronaldo7]

They campaigned off the back of it in the 2011 manifesto. So basically they promised to reduce class sizes over the last five years.

But class sizes have never gone down since then, they've just gone up.

What were you saying about being sold a pup?

Thanks for that. Looks like they tried and failed in that policy then. It must really have affected the result on future elections though.

[Mibbes Aye]

Thanks for that. Looks like tried and failed in that policy then. It must really have affected the result on future elections though.

It's the result for our nation's children you should be worried about :rolleyes:

[johnbc70]

Try telling that to the eastern European workers all over England. Sweeping it under your living room carpet won't work bud. I'd suggest broadening your news outlets, as it's out there, Polish workers killed, others attacked. It's not nice

Again the irony of you of all people telling someone else to broaden their news outlets. Not seen a Wings link for a while......

[johnbc70]

They campaigned off the back of it in the 2011 manifesto. So basically they promised to reduce class sizes over the last five years.

But class sizes have never gone down since then, they've just gone up.

What were you saying about being sold a pup?

I think it was in the 2007 manifesto, so nearly 10 years of failure.

[ronaldo7]

Again the irony of you of all people telling someone else to broaden their news outlets. Not seen a Wings link for a while......

If you're just going to chuck brickbats about then I'm out. Try dealing with the argument for a while. See ye.:aok:

[ronaldo7]

It's the result for our nation's children you should be worried about :rolleyes:

When we start doing this, then I'll worry.

https://t.co/zIspW6m5Ba

[johnbc70]

If you're just going to chuck brickbats about then I'm out. Try dealing with the argument for a while. See ye.:aok:

Bye, your not someone that can have a reasoned and balanced discussion as your SNP blinkers get in the way.

[Mibbes Aye]

When we start doing this, then I'll worry.

https://t.co/zIspW6m5Ba

All you've got is posting links and slogans.

I don't think I've ever seen you engage with a point and post some of your own, thought-out views. Yet you accuse others of failing to deal with arguments.......

It's like a combination of Trump and the most reactionary of the Brexiters.

[ronaldo7]

All you've got is posting links and slogans.

I don't think I've ever seen you engage with a point and post some of your own, thought-out views. Yet you accuse others of failing to deal with arguments.......

It's like a combination of Trump and the most reactionary of the Brexiters.

Useful things links.

Unlike the combo of Blair and Bluster Broon.

[Mr Grieves]

I'm confused as to why Ronaldo's post has resulted in a load of SNP bashing, some people just can't help themselves.

[RyeSloan]

I'm confused, where did I say passages of Mein Kampf were used in her speech?

You said that was your first thoughts when hearing her speech...

You then said passages from Mein Kampf were being used in UK policy...her speech was laying out that policy so unless you have other policy documents from her since becoming Home Secretary that are quoting Mein Kampf I'm unsure what you were referring to.

[Mr Grieves]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/06/hard-brexit-could-see-scotland-lose-80000-jobs-and-cost-2000-a-head?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=193547&subid=20005396&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

Hard Brexit could cost Scotland 80000 jobs and £2000 per head with an even worse outcome down south.

[marinello59]

I'm confused as to why Ronaldo's post has resulted in a load of SNP bashing, some people just can't help themselves.

Criticising SNP policy and failures is still allowed. Well as long as you aren't a Party member it is.

[#FromTheCapital]

I'm confused as to why Ronaldo's post has resulted in a load of SNP bashing, some people just can't help themselves.

The issue is more to do with that particular poster and his inability to see negatives in anything SNP related. It's pretty straightforward really.

[Mr Grieves]

Criticising SNP policy and failures is still allowed. Well as long as you aren't a Party member it is.

Do you mind pointing out where I or anyone else said it wasn't allowed?

It just seems strange that a post about brexit on a thread about brexit resulted in a queue of people sticking the boot in.

[Mr Grieves]

The issue is more to do with that particular poster and his inability to see negatives in anything SNP related. It's pretty straightforward really.

there's a number of posters that only see the positives in the party they support/negatives in a party they don't support, I guess you have an issue with them too?

[marinello59]

Do you mind pointing out where I or anyone else said it wasn't allowed?

It just seems strange that a post about brexit on a thread about brexit resulted in a queue of people sticking the boot in.

Just to be clear I agree with pretty much everything R7 has said about the Tories on here. They have had a real kicking. There's posts on here giving it to Labour as well. Yet when it comes to suggesting the SNP are less than perfect some cry foul.

[ronaldo7]

I'm confused as to why Ronaldo's post has resulted in a load of SNP bashing, some people just can't help themselves.

It's seems you're critised these days for linking to stories which in turn link to the OP. I've had posters on here in the last few days critised my use of WOS, and others asking why I've not linked to the site for a wee while. You can please some of the people some of the time eh.:rolleyes:

Looking back over the posters responses to one of my posts, I have one who has me on Ignore and he's more happy for it(I'm happy for him). He's brought much to the debate recently. :rolleyes: #Post 268

Another, when I've answered his question, and then posed three questions for him, has decided to answer the one he's happy to respond to, and I'm still waiting on his response regarding the Tory rhetoric this week, and his "Scottish workers" jibe. #Post 266

The last questions my ability to form my own words on any subject. :yawn:

[ronaldo7]

The issue is more to do with that particular poster and his inability to see negatives in anything SNP related. It's pretty straightforward really.

Bollocks

[ronaldo7]

Just to be clear I agree with pretty much everything R7 has said about the Tories on here. They have had a real kicking. There's posts on here giving it to Labour as well. Yet when it comes to suggesting the SNP are less than perfect some cry foul.

It's more to do with fighting your corner J. No ones perfect.:greengrin


#Land reform and class sizes.:aok:

[ronaldo7]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/06/hard-brexit-could-see-scotland-lose-80000-jobs-and-cost-2000-a-head?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=193547&subid=20005396&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

Hard Brexit could cost Scotland 80000 jobs and £2000 per head with an even worse outcome down south.

Sterling crashes to a 31 year low, and nobody seems to blink.

[AndyM_1875]

Just to be clear I agree with pretty much everything R7 has said about the Tories on here. They have had a real kicking. There's posts on here giving it to Labour as well. Yet when it comes to suggesting the SNP are less than perfect some cry foul.

As do I.
But I think Labour & SNP supporters should drop the posturing for a bit and realise what's happening here. This stuff coming out of the Tory conference is deeply sinister and the racist overtones to it are awful. The Tories are morphing into UKIP and it's been given a seal of endorsement by Farage. That should worry anyone.

I'm not an SNP supporter but it's now obvious that politically Scotland and England are set on two very different courses.

[Hibrandenburg]

You said that was your first thoughts when hearing her speech...

You then said passages from Mein Kampf were being used in UK policy...her speech was laying out that policy so unless you have other policy documents from her since becoming Home Secretary that are quoting Mein Kampf I'm unsure what you were referring to.

Pratling on about jailing people who harbour "illegals" like these poor sods are plotting to bring down civilisation as we know it.

Special checks and extra bureaucracy for people who are foreign born when they apply for work.

Distinctions made between citizens born here and those of foreign birth.

More hoops for foreigners to jump through if they want a bank account (something that's essential to actually live in the UK).

Employers will have to seek authority to employ non British born workers.

Policies designed to give British born people advantages over not British born people.

Government control over who is allowed to study.

Johnny Foreigner is the cause of all our economic woes.

Harsher treatment of foreign criminals compared to our own lovely cuddly ones.

Homeless people and vagrants won't be tolerated.

Protecting OUR way of life.

Increasing government agencies powers and funding to deal with undesirables.

Hysterical babbling about the threat from the "enemy within".

More powers for our intelligence agencies to spy on undesirables.

Britain's interest First, Britain First Britain First Britain First Britain First and on and on.

Of course she's dressed it up in some nice flowery language, but it's all in there.

[Hibrandenburg]

As do I.
But I think Labour & SNP supporters should drop the posturing for a bit and realise what's happening here. This stuff coming out of the Tory conference is deeply sinister and the racist overtones to it are awful. The Tories are morphing into UKIP and it's been given a seal of endorsement by Farage. That should worry anyone.

I'm not an SNP supporter but it's now obvious that politically Scotland and England are set on two very different courses.

:agree:

You have to be blind to not be disturbed by the events of the last few days.

[stoneyburn hibs]

:agree:

You have to be blind to not be disturbed by the events of the last few days.

Which now places the political argument of Scottish Independence ahead of the economic argument imo.

[Bristolhibby]

Which now places the political argument of Scottish Independence ahead of the economic argument imo.

And added to that we now know that with the right media support, people (The English) will vote fore something that will hit them economically.

Not saying for a second that Scotland will be down the swanny come independence, but clearly the economic debate this year was drowned out by the "they tek er jebs" Immigration debate.

And all this and we haven't even Brexited yet!
J

[Mr Grieves]

As do I.
But I think Labour & SNP supporters should drop the posturing for a bit and realise what's happening here. This stuff coming out of the Tory conference is deeply sinister and the racist overtones to it are awful. The Tories are morphing into UKIP and it's been given a seal of endorsement by Farage. That should worry anyone.

I'm not an SNP supporter but it's now obvious that politically Scotland and England are set on two very different courses.

A very sensible post.

[JeMeSouviens]

As do I.
But I think Labour & SNP supporters should drop the posturing for a bit and realise what's happening here. This stuff coming out of the Tory conference is deeply sinister and the racist overtones to it are awful. The Tories are morphing into UKIP and it's been given a seal of endorsement by Farage. That should worry anyone.

I'm not an SNP supporter but it's now obvious that politically Scotland and England are set on two very different courses.

:agree:

Totally agree. When Brexit stuff isn't deeply worrying it's deeply depressing. It seems pretty clear that Theresa May's reluctance to campaign for Remain was hiding a pretty dark, hardline anti-immigrant position. I suppose we should have known with the "Go Home" vans. :rolleyes: I must admit I thought they'd try and salvage a Norway style compromise out of it but they are seemingly hell bent on maximum self harm.

I think it's simultaneously made the economic case for Scottish independence significantly worse in the short term but significantly better in the long term. In purely political terms it's surely now a slam dunk.

I hope to **** our people (by which I mean everyone who has made their life in Scotland regardless of where they started) have the fortitude to make the jump before Brexit is finalised. Hard times ahead whatever.

[#FromTheCapital]

there's a number of posters that only see the positives in the party they support/negatives in a party they don't support, I guess you have an issue with them too?

Yes. What is your point?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The build up all week at Tory party conf has been divisive and quite simply Toxic. They are fuelling the xenophobia which is rife in the towns and cities of England. If you're happy to let that build up and boil over then that's up to you.

I just don't want that to happen in Scotland thanks.

If its already rife, maybe they are simply reflecting society's views?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Pratling on about jailing people who harbour "illegals" like these poor sods are plotting to bring down civilisation as we know it.

Special checks and extra bureaucracy for people who are foreign born when they apply for work.

Distinctions made between citizens born here and those of foreign birth.

More hoops for foreigners to jump through if they want a bank account (something that's essential to actually live in the UK).

Employers will have to seek authority to employ non British born workers.

Policies designed to give British born people advantages over not British born people.

Government control over who is allowed to study.

Johnny Foreigner is the cause of all our economic woes.

Harsher treatment of foreign criminals compared to our own lovely cuddly ones.

Homeless people and vagrants won't be tolerated.

Protecting OUR way of life.

Increasing government agencies powers and funding to deal with undesirables.

Hysterical babbling about the threat from the "enemy within".

More powers for our intelligence agencies to spy on undesirables.

Britain's interest First, Britain First Britain First Britain First Britain First and on and on.

Of course she's dressed it up in some nice flowery language, but it's all in there.

Whats wrong with protecting 'our way of life'?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Which now places the political argument of Scottish Independence ahead of the economic argument imo.

That remains to be seen, but i doubt it.

Scots are no different to anywhere else in the rest of the uk when it comes to money in our pocket. The snp know this, hence their refusal to use our tax powers to shield scots from 'westminsters cuts'

[JeMeSouviens]

That remains to be seen, but i doubt it.

Scots are no different to anywhere else in the rest of the uk when it comes to money in our pocket. The snp know this, hence their refusal to use our tax powers to shield scots from 'westminsters cuts'

I think you're right but it's probably worth pointing out that "our" powers don't extend to the full vow setting of income tax yet, we're still at Calman, ie. +/- 10p across all bands.

[Hibrandenburg]

Whats wrong with protecting 'our way of life'?

I suppose that would definitely depend on who you're asking? There is no one size fits all "our way of life".

[steakbake]

Whats wrong with protecting 'our way of life'?

What is 'our way' of life? What makes that distinct?

[AndyM_1875]

:agree:

Totally agree. When Brexit stuff isn't deeply worrying it's deeply depressing. It seems pretty clear that Theresa May's reluctance to campaign for Remain was hiding a pretty dark, hardline anti-immigrant position. I suppose we should have known with the "Go Home" vans. :rolleyes: I must admit I thought they'd try and salvage a Norway style compromise out of it but they are seemingly hell bent on maximum self harm.


:agree:
It's economic insanity basically. Every industry will be harmed. Not even going down the Norway route is just madness.

I work for a French company with bases all over Europe and if Scottish independence doesn't happen then I am seriously going to look to get out and take a move to a European base. I have transferable skills and no real wish to live my life in an insular, xenophobic country that is rapidly becoming an international joke.

[steakbake]

:agree:
It's economic insanity basically. Every industry will be harmed. Not even going down the Norway route is just madness.

I work for a French company with bases all over Europe and if Scottish independence doesn't happen then I am seriously going to look to get out and take a move to a European base. I have transferable skills and no real wish to live my life in an insular, xenophobic country that is rapidly becoming an international joke.

Agree with you here, Andy. Really a useless situation.

I also cannot see the currently explained bargaining position going anywhere.

[Hibrandenburg]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/06/ukip-leadership-favourite-steven-woolfe--in-serious-condition-af/

"Clearing the air" UKIP style. I sincerely hope that he gets the very best medical care that an EU citizen is entitled to without fear or prejudice...

[RyeSloan]

Pratling on about jailing people who harbour "illegals" like these poor sods are plotting to bring down civilisation as we know it.

Special checks and extra bureaucracy for people who are foreign born when they apply for work.

Distinctions made between citizens born here and those of foreign birth.

More hoops for foreigners to jump through if they want a bank account (something that's essential to actually live in the UK).

Employers will have to seek authority to employ non British born workers.

Policies designed to give British born people advantages over not British born people.

Government control over who is allowed to study.

Johnny Foreigner is the cause of all our economic woes.

Harsher treatment of foreign criminals compared to our own lovely cuddly ones.

Homeless people and vagrants won't be tolerated.

Protecting OUR way of life.

Increasing government agencies powers and funding to deal with undesirables.

Hysterical babbling about the threat from the "enemy within".

More powers for our intelligence agencies to spy on undesirables.

Britain's interest First, Britain First Britain First Britain First Britain First and on and on.

Of course she's dressed it up in some nice flowery language, but it's all in there.

So there was no passages from Mein Kampf in her speech or in UK policy then.

As for hysterical babbling I think some of your interpretation of her speech above meets that criteria quite easily...not sure Mein Kampf has too many references to developing policies to reducing domestic violence, child abuse, FMG, rape support centres or modern slavery. Nor do I see her blaming all economic woes on 'Johnny Foreigner' (a term I assume you have used to try and make your point rather than actual quotes from her speech).

As for homeless people and vagrants not being tolerated...again where did she say that? There was sections specifically referring to the housing and paying of benefits to illegal immigrants...I'm not sure where therefore you have got this rather sweeping statement from.

As for immigration the general concept of making it more difficult for people who are living in the UK ILLEGALLY to get banking services and increasing punishment on businesses that employ these people (often exploiting the situation for their own benefit in terms of lower pay and no legal protection of those workers) doesn't seem such a ridiculous concept to me.

The UK state is after all by it's very nature an institution that is there to serve it's citizens therefore the fact that it is taking measures to ensure people who are resident and working in the country actually have the right to be here in the first place would seem a rather natural thing for it to do.

You have started off by saying there is passages of Mein Kampf being used in UK policy, that her speech immediately brought Mein Kampf to mind and then listed a rather long list of items that she either didn't say or you have exaggerated and extrapolated to make your point. It seems then that you are rather more concerned for the people who are here illegally or those that have gained the right of entry but have repeatedly been convicted of breaking the laws of the land compared to those that live and work here and suffer the consequences of these peoples actions.

To be clear I'm not supporting everything she said, has done or will do but hyperbolic responses and the demonising of a government that dares to put it's citizens and those that have correctly applied and been granted the right to live and work in the UK before those that haven't just strikes me as rather odd.

[Moulin Yarns]

That doesn't sound good for him. Regardless of his views I wish him a full recovery...


then he can stand down from being a member of an institution he doesn't believe in.

[Moulin Yarns]

What is 'our way' of life? What makes that distinct?

We are so much stronger for the diversity that shapes us. We are home to those who choose to live here. That is 'Our Way of Life', and it is what makes Scotland distinct from England.

[#FromTheCapital]

We are so much stronger for the diversity that shapes us. We are home to those who choose to live here. That is 'Our Way of Life', and it is what makes Scotland distinct from England.

What also makes Scotland different from England is that there are not as many immigrants living here as there are down south. Perhaps if we seen an increase in immigration up here then attitudes may change as they have in England?

[Hibrandenburg]

So there was no passages from Mein Kampf in her speech or in UK policy then.

As for hysterical babbling I think some of your interpretation of her speech above meets that criteria quite easily...not sure Mein Kampf has too many references to developing policies to reducing domestic violence, child abuse, FMG, rape support centres or modern slavery. Nor do I see her blaming all economic woes on 'Johnny Foreigner' (a term I assume you have used to try and make your point rather than actual quotes from her speech).

As for homeless people and vagrants not being tolerated...again where did she say that? There was sections specifically referring to the housing and paying of benefits to illegal immigrants...I'm not sure where therefore you have got this rather sweeping statement from.

As for immigration the general concept of making it more difficult for people who are living in the UK ILLEGALLY to get banking services and increasing punishment on businesses that employ these people (often exploiting the situation for their own benefit in terms of lower pay and no legal protection of those workers) doesn't seem such a ridiculous concept to me.

The UK state is after all by it's very nature an institution that is there to serve it's citizens therefore the fact that it is taking measures to ensure people who are resident and working in the country actually have the right to be here in the first place would seem a rather natural thing for it to do.

You have started off by saying there is passages of Mein Kampf being used in UK policy, that her speech immediately brought Mein Kampf to mind and then listed a rather long list of items that she either didn't say or you have exaggerated and extrapolated to make your point. It seems then that you are rather more concerned for the people who are here illegally or those that have gained the right of entry but have repeatedly been convicted of breaking the laws of the land compared to those that live and work here and suffer the consequences of these peoples actions.

To be clear I'm not supporting everything she said, has done or will do but hyperbolic responses and the demonising of a government that dares to put it's citizens and those that have correctly applied and been granted the right to live and work in the UK before those that haven't just strikes me as rather odd.

If you can't read between the lines of that speech or see the underlying lurch to the right aimed at pandering to the wishes of extreme right political activists, then I can't help you. It's a sorry state of affairs and a good indication of how far right the middle ground in our society has moved when a speech like that doesn't attract universal condemnation.

It's not made up of direct quotes from Mein Kampf (I never said it was) but together with the recently announced tory policies it has exactly the same dark undertones. It's madness to think that strengthening the security agencies powers to monitor our society for internal and external threats will bring anything other than more invasions in ordinary citizens lives and breeches to their human rights. History has shown that this type of control and interference on its citizens is divisive and downright dangerous for the people that live in such societies. Once brought into being these state agencies ultimately have to justify their own existence by widening the spectrum of what's considered a threat and if need be creating more imaginary threats. It always starts with fear of outside threats but will eventually start looking inwards at minority groups like homosexuals, socialists, trade unionists and any other group they deem to be subversive towards "our way of life".

The ball's already rolling and at some point the momentum will be too great to stop, if it isn't already.

[JeMeSouviens]

Following the Fraser of Allander gloominess for Scotland posted above, here's some UK post-Brexit gloominess:

http://www.omfif.org/analysis/commentary/2016/october/on-the-road-to-a-sterling-crisis/

The potential silver lining for an Independent Scotland would be potential relocation of economic activity from rUK to iScotland if we were within the single market and still had financial passporting rights.

[steakbake]

What also makes Scotland different from England is that there are not as many immigrants living here as there are down south. Perhaps if we seen an increase in immigration up here then attitudes may change as they have in England?

Would they? Is immigration always a bad thing in your view? Does it always have to end up with bad blood and angry locals?

[#FromTheCapital]

Would they? Is immigration always a bad thing in your view? Does it always have to end up with bad blood and angry locals?

I'm just suggesting the possibility. Many Scots seem to have this belief that we are better people than the English and we're more tolerant than them when it comes to matters like immigration. Perhaps it seems like that but I'm just pointing out that life is different up here than it is for many down south. And no, immigration is not always a bad thing but neither is having more control over it.

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm just suggesting the possibility. Many Scots seem to have this belief that we are better people than the English and we're more tolerant than them when it comes to matters like immigration. Perhaps it seems like that but I'm just pointing out that life is different up here than it is for many down south. And no, immigration is not always a bad thing but neither is having more control over it.

Otoh, London has a huge and diverse immigrant population and voted strongly to Remain.

Scotland has an ageing population and a low birth rate. We already need more immigrants, that need will only grow and we have no control* over the fact that the UK government is hell bent on stopping any more coming and demonising those that are already here.

* other than a Yes in Indyref2.

[steakbake]

I'm just suggesting the possibility. Many Scots seem to have this belief that we are better people than the English and we're more tolerant than them when it comes to matters like immigration. Perhaps it seems like that but I'm just pointing out that life is different up here than it is for many down south. And no, immigration is not always a bad thing but neither is having more control over it.

I wouldn't say that we're better people - I'll leave that to the cultural relativists to argue. I would say we are more tolerant - again, on a variety of issues and this has been empirically studied and proved to be the case. Only a few days ago, social attitudes surveys found Scots were more tolerant and accepting of LGBTi issues, equal marriage and immigration. Therefore, the many Scots who 'seem to have this belief' are not wide of the mark - though I think to call us 'better people' for it is totally subjective. The fact is, yes, people do think differently on a range of issues between Scotland and England - not forgetting of course, that a good number of us (just under half a million) were born south of the Border.

Anecdotally, I would not say that my friends and colleagues who are born in England are any different in terms of their views on social liberalism and in some cases, I would say, they are more liberal than quite a few Scots I know might be. It's not by coincidence that the main political battlefield in Scotland is the centre-centre left, whereas in England we can see that it's on the right. Maybe there's something in the water here... anyway...

However, JMS has pulled the rug from under my feet on Brexit.

London and other metropolitan areas with higher levels of immigration generally, went the way of remain.

https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-areas-with-low-immigration-voted-mainly-for-brexit-62138 is an article about an interesting academic study on the outcome.

It's important to challenge the idea that it was some kind of resentment from an 'indigenous' population being squeezed by migrants living alongside them, when it was in fact, no such thing.

Other studies showed the fear of immigration was actually far more motivating for people to vote to Leave than the reality lived by people who reside in high migration areas. Fear was an important aspect in this referendum. Turkey joining the EU, the famous Farage poster all played to that fear.

The fact is, Turkey is a very long way off joining the EU and the UK would have had a veto anyway - as we're often told, Spain might veto Scottish membership (which, as an aside, I would doubt).

Anyway, it might be countered that well of course, areas with high migration voted Remain because that is how the migrants voted. However, the vote was only given to people who qualify to vote in UK General Elections - this excludes EU nationals and the vast majority of non-EU nationals, regardless of their status in the UK.

The remain vote was higher in higher migration areas by 'British' voters.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I suppose that would definitely depend on who you're asking? There is no one size fits all "our way of life".

True, and its not an easy question to answer. Which is why i find those taking issue with it strange. What exactly are you taking issue with?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

What is 'our way' of life? What makes that distinct?

As above, i dont know the answer. So what are you taking issue with?

[steakbake]

As above, i dont know the answer. So what are you taking issue with?

Thought it was a legit question rather than taking issue?

So if we don't know what our way of life is, how do we know people are changing it?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

We are so much stronger for the diversity that shapes us. We are home to those who choose to live here. That is 'Our Way of Life', and it is what makes Scotland distinct from England.

I agree with the first part, but not the second.

Mass immigration is rarely a good thing, and scotland is a very good example. Mass irish immigration to scotland didny exactly have the distinct scots rollinh out the welcome mats did it?

I dont really care about immigration because its not a big deal in scotland, whereas whole areas have been chamged beyond recognition in a very short time in england.

How would edinburgh react if our city became majority indian, for example?

And we know how glasgow and other parts of scotland reacted when their cities became changed by mass immigration.

Lets not get too sanctimonious about attitudes to immigrants.

Just to clarify, i dont mean immigration is bad, but that huge numbers in short spaces of time is usually not good. Im actually pro immigration, but i can also see where those who are not are coming from

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Thought it was a legit question rather than taking issue?

So if we don't know what our way of life is, how do we know people are changing it?

This could get rather silly! How do we know they are not?

Sorry, im not trying to be trite. And i absolutely dont mind ripping into any political party, but equally a load of anti-tories arent likely to find much in a tory conference speech to like are they?

Its interesting that they are being castigated on here for lurching to the right, when what i have heard and what the general consensus seems to be is that this conference has seen a grab for the political centre ground.

This board is quite left-leaning i would say.

[Holmesdale Hibs]

I agree with the first part, but not the second.

Mass immigration is rarely a good thing, and scotland is a very good example. Mass irish immigration to scotland didny exactly have the distinct scots rollinh out the welcome mats did it?

I dont really care about immigration because its not a big deal in scotland, whereas whole areas have been chamged beyond recognition in a very short time in england.

How would edinburgh react if our city became majority indian, for example?

And we know how glasgow and other parts of scotland reacted when their cities became changed by mass immigration.

Lets not get too sanctimonious about attitudes to immigrants.

Just to clarify, i dont mean immigration is bad, but that huge numbers in short spaces of time is usually not good. Im actually pro immigration, but i can also see where those who are not are coming from

Good post, I agree.

[mmmmhibby]

Pratling on about jailing people who harbour "illegals" like these poor sods are plotting to bring down civilisation as we know it.

Special checks and extra bureaucracy for people who are foreign born when they apply for work.

Distinctions made between citizens born here and those of foreign birth.

More hoops for foreigners to jump through if they want a bank account (something that's essential to actually live in the UK).

Employers will have to seek authority to employ non British born workers.

Policies designed to give British born people advantages over not British born people.

Government control over who is allowed to study.

Johnny Foreigner is the cause of all our economic woes.

Harsher treatment of foreign criminals compared to our own lovely cuddly ones.

Homeless people and vagrants won't be tolerated.

Protecting OUR way of life.

Increasing government agencies powers and funding to deal with undesirables.

Hysterical babbling about the threat from the "enemy within".

More powers for our intelligence agencies to spy on undesirables.

Britain's interest First, Britain First Britain First Britain First Britain First and on and on.

Of course she's dressed it up in some nice flowery language, but it's all in there.

Are you drunk?

[#FromTheCapital]

I agree with the first part, but not the second.

Mass immigration is rarely a good thing, and scotland is a very good example. Mass irish immigration to scotland didny exactly have the distinct scots rollinh out the welcome mats did it?

I dont really care about immigration because its not a big deal in scotland, whereas whole areas have been chamged beyond recognition in a very short time in england.

How would edinburgh react if our city became majority indian, for example?

And we know how glasgow and other parts of scotland reacted when their cities became changed by mass immigration.

Lets not get too sanctimonious about attitudes to immigrants.

Just to clarify, i dont mean immigration is bad, but that huge numbers in short spaces of time is usually not good. Im actually pro immigration, but i can also see where those who are not are coming from

Agreed. Exactly what I was getting at in my previous post.

[mmmmhibby]

Thought it was a legit question rather than taking issue?

So if we don't know what our way of life is, how do we know people are changing it?

Your choking to get offended. Unreal.

[mmmmhibby]

This could get rather silly! How do we know they are not?

Sorry, im not trying to be trite. And i absolutely dont mind ripping into any political party, but equally a load of anti-tories arent likely to find much in a tory conference speech to like are they?

Its interesting that they are being castigated on here for lurching to the right, when what i have heard and what the general consensus seems to be is that this conference has seen a grab for the political centre ground.

This board is quite left-leaning i would say.

Doom merchants mate, they should perhaps embrace positive thinking techniques.

[Hibrandenburg]

True, and its not an easy question to answer. Which is why i find those taking issue with it strange. What exactly are you taking issue with?

I'm taking issue with the fact that someone in government is making decisions to protect "our way of life" when there is no such thing. I presume that if "our way of life" is to be protected then that will come at a cost to those who have "another way of life". Do my family belong to "our way of life" or are we excluded from this club. What about non church goers, homosexuals, British born ethnic minorities, socialists, British born muslims, Scottish nationalists, atheists, disabled people and any group of people you'd like to name. Once you start prioritising one group you've already started discriminating against another. I can't understand why so many people don't get this.

[Hibrandenburg]

Are you drunk?

Don't want to stoop to his/her/its level.

[steakbake]

Your choking to get offended. Unreal.

Only one getting excited and personal is you.

I just don't believe that there is such a thing as 'our way of life'.

I don't get offended easily and not looking for offence.

[Mon Dieu4]

I agree with the first part, but not the second.

Mass immigration is rarely a good thing, and scotland is a very good example. Mass irish immigration to scotland didny exactly have the distinct scots rollinh out the welcome mats did it?

I dont really care about immigration because its not a big deal in scotland, whereas whole areas have been chamged beyond recognition in a very short time in england.

How would edinburgh react if our city became majority indian, for example?

And we know how glasgow and other parts of scotland reacted when their cities became changed by mass immigration.

Lets not get too sanctimonious about attitudes to immigrants.

Just to clarify, i dont mean immigration is bad, but that huge numbers in short spaces of time is usually not good. Im actually pro immigration, but i can also see where those who are not are coming from

I went to Bonnington primary in the middle of Leith, a good 30 or 40% of my class were of Indian descent and we all got on just fine, where I stay in Leith just now has lots of Eastern Europeans who came in on mass and again we get on just fine

[hibsbollah]

Mass immigration is rarely a good thing, and scotland is a very good example. Mass irish immigration to scotland didny exactly have the distinct scots rollinh out the welcome mats did it?



Untrue.

'Mass' immigration is almost always a very good thing, as history as proved. In the 1950s immigration from the Caribbean and the Asian subcontinent powered British postwar rebuilding. We would have been on our knees for decades after WW2 without the Windrush generation. The National Health Service, public transport and the construction industry just would not have been possible otherwise. Late industrial revolution immigration from Ireland was the single biggest reason why Scotland stopped being an industrially backward nation. 20th Century American hegemony as a global superpower? completely driven by mass immigration
from every conceivable corner of the Earth in mass numbers. In all three examples, the 'immigrant' other group were victims of some resistance and hostility, but in none of the cases could you make any serious argument that this conflict damaged the fabric of society in any meaningful long term way.

By contrast, economic basket cases? those countries that turn inwards and don't have open labour markets. North Korea. pre-Meiji Japan.

More immigration please. Spread that gene pool.

[ronaldo7]

It was great to see all parties in the Parly tear into the Tories today. Long may it continue.

[Hibrandenburg]

Untrue.

'Mass' immigration is almost always a very good thing, as history as proved. In the 1950s immigration from the Caribbean and the Asian subcontinent powered British postwar rebuilding. We would have been on our knees for decades after WW2 without the Windrush generation. The National Health Service, public transport and the construction industry just would not have been possible otherwise. Late industrial revolution immigration from Ireland was the single biggest reason why Scotland stopped being an industrially backward nation. 20th Century American hegemony as a global superpower? completely driven by mass immigration
from every conceivable corner of the Earth in mass numbers. In all three examples, the 'immigrant' other group were victims of some resistance and hostility, but in none of the cases could you make any serious argument that this conflict damaged the fabric of society in any meaningful long term way.

By contrast, economic basket cases? those countries that turn inwards and don't have open labour markets. North Korea. pre-Meiji Japan.

More immigration please. Spread that gene pool.

Great post!

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I'm taking issue with the fact that someone in government is making decisions to protect "our way of life" when there is no such thing. I presume that if "our way of life" is to be protected then that will come at a cost to those who have "another way of life". Do my family belong to "our way of life" or are we excluded from this club. What about non church goers, homosexuals, British born ethnic minorities, socialists, British born muslims, Scottish nationalists, atheists, disabled people and any group of people you'd like to name. Once you start prioritising one group you've already started discriminating against another. I can't understand why so many people don't get this.

Because prioritising one group over another is the most human of all actions. We all do it, everyday, why is it so hard to make the leap to a country doing it?

I suspect it was being used as rhetorical device, precisely because its hard (imposible?) to pin its meaning, but equally its a great phase because everyone can agree with it (and make their own meaning).

None of us know whether may will or will not be a good pm. But her early talk is promising, and despite what 'tory haters' say, it draws on a one mation toryism that is overwhelmingly popular to the uk, and i include scots in that.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Untrue.

'Mass' immigration is almost always a very good thing, as history as proved. In the 1950s immigration from the Caribbean and the Asian subcontinent powered British postwar rebuilding. We would have been on our knees for decades after WW2 without the Windrush generation. The National Health Service, public transport and the construction industry just would not have been possible otherwise. Late industrial revolution immigration from Ireland was the single biggest reason why Scotland stopped being an industrially backward nation. 20th Century American hegemony as a global superpower? completely driven by mass immigration
from every conceivable corner of the Earth in mass numbers. In all three examples, the 'immigrant' other group were victims of some resistance and hostility, but in none of the cases could you make any serious argument that this conflict damaged the fabric of society in any meaningful long term way.

By contrast, economic basket cases? those countries that turn inwards and don't have open labour markets. North Korea. pre-Meiji Japan.

More immigration please. Spread that gene pool.

I was meaning socially, and while i agree with your points re economy, i was deliberately not going down that road as i think that is the whole point of the brexit vote.

Im not sure i agree with the point about the fabric of society - i would guess many, many people dont agree with that.

Re the USA, i agree with tou completely but that has a very different culture and so i dont thinkn immigration is the same issue.

[Hibrandenburg]

Because prioritising one group over another is the most human of all actions. We all do it, everyday, why is it so hard to make the leap to a country doing it?

I suspect it was being used as rhetorical device, precisely because its hard (imposible?) to pin its meaning, but equally its a great phase because everyone can agree with it (and make their own meaning).

None of us know whether may will or will not be a good pm. But her early talk is promising, and despite what 'tory haters' say, it draws on a one mation toryism that is overwhelmingly popular to the uk, and i include scots in that.

Phrases like "our way of life" have been used as a means of binding one group of people to a perverse ideology of supremism for centuries. Some of the more well known ones include "dem deutschen Volke", "Rule Britannia" or "We are the people". When countries leaders start using nationalistic sound bites like that, then it's time to start stockpiling rations in the air-raid shelter and seriously considering what's next on the agenda.

[steakbake]

Because prioritising one group over another is the most human of all actions. We all do it, everyday, why is it so hard to make the leap to a country doing it?

I suspect it was being used as rhetorical device, precisely because its hard (imposible?) to pin its meaning, but equally its a great phase because everyone can agree with it (and make their own meaning).

None of us know whether may will or will not be a good pm. But her early talk is promising, and despite what 'tory haters' say, it draws on a one mation toryism that is overwhelmingly popular to the uk, and i include scots in that.

There was an interesting by-election tonight in Glasgow. Only about 1.4k voters.

However, in 2012, Labour won it with 64% of the vote. Tonight, the SNP won it very convincingly with a swing of 16%. The Tories upped their share from 2% to 10% - again, not much in the way of numbers, but a healthy rise.

I think Labour will be squeezed further, their vote breaking to the SNP and to the Tories. They did win one in Coatbridge recently, but the SNP were up 8 and the Tories up 5. Labour lost 11% of their vote. Greens were up 6.

The line is being drawn between SNP and the Tories. I think Labour could struggle in the local elections coming up as people break further along union/independence lines.

That doesn't necessarily translate into Yes or No votes: slightly more SNP voters voted No in 2014 as Tory voters who voted Yes (I think it was around 8% each way) but I think that the issue of Scotland's status will only further define politics for quite a long time to come until it is resolved and either the union or independence is decisively defeated either at the ballot box or .... to use an apparently controversial word, ideologically.

Interesting times ahead. Who knows if there will be another indyref or if it will come down to something else but Brexit will be interesting. If push comes to shove and as Brexit unfolds, it's worth considering that Remain got over 60% in Scotland and polls from last week showed that 2/3 Leave voters in Scotland support a soft Brexit while its closer to 50-50 in Eng/Wales... also controversially, Scottish voters see things slightly differently.

For the Tories, I can see Ruth Davidson's mainstream appeal, but she's the tank driving, buffalo riding cheeky face of the Tories. As we saw this week, there really aren't many like her in her party where the big decisions are made.

[Moulin Yarns]

I agree with the first part, but not the second.

Mass immigration is rarely a good thing, and scotland is a very good example. Mass irish immigration to scotland didny exactly have the distinct scots rollinh out the welcome mats did it?

I dont really care about immigration because its not a big deal in scotland, whereas whole areas have been chamged beyond recognition in a very short time in england.

How would edinburgh react if our city became majority indian, for example?

And we know how glasgow and other parts of scotland reacted when their cities became changed by mass immigration.

Lets not get too sanctimonious about attitudes to immigrants.

Just to clarify, i dont mean immigration is bad, but that huge numbers in short spaces of time is usually not good. Im actually pro immigration, but i can also see where those who are not are coming from

Where did I say anything about mass migration? You go onto say immigration isn't a big deal in Scotland, so why mention it? Tell me how "Glasgow and other parts of Scotland reacted when their cities became changed by mass immigration". If you are still referring to the influx of Irish around 160 years ago then that is history, there are no other cases of mass migration to Scotland, unless you mean the Romans,and we know what they didforus.

Scotland needs immigrants to replace the aging workforce. What we don't need is the register of foreign workers the Tories are planning.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Where did I say anything about mass migration? You go onto say immigration isn't a big deal in Scotland, so why mention it? Tell me how "Glasgow and other parts of Scotland reacted when their cities became changed by mass immigration". If you are still referring to the influx of Irish around 160 years ago then that is history, there are no other cases of mass migration to Scotland, unless you mean the Romans,and we know what they didforus.

Scotland needs immigrants to replace the aging workforce. What we don't need is the register of foreign workers the Tories are planning.

I dont believe you are unaware of the continuing problems associayed with mass irish immigration, and the fact it still goes on tells you that.

Im not anti immigration as ive said, what i am is anti-hysterical nonsense amd this imcreasing sense of scottish exceptionalism being spouted by many, irnoically, scottish nationalists.

People comparing this situatiob to the nazis are being daft.

Also, genuine questiob becausr i dont know, but what do other countries have in relation to foreign workers? I would expect a government to have some note of my presence, when i worked in australia i needed to apply fpr a work visa and show it to potential employers.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Phrases like "our way of life" have been used as a means of binding one group of people to a perverse ideology of supremism for centuries. Some of the more well known ones include "dem deutschen Volke", "Rule Britannia" or "We are the people". When countries leaders start using nationalistic sound bites like that, then it's time to start stockpiling rations in the air-raid shelter and seriously considering what's next on the agenda.

I think this is all a bit hysterical.

Where would signing a song like scots whae hae come on your radar? I believe the snp collectively do that every conference.

[Moulin Yarns]

I dont believe you are unaware of the continuing problems associayed with mass irish immigration, and the fact it still goes on tells you that.

Im not anti immigration as ive said, what i am is anti-hysterical nonsense amd this imcreasing sense of scottish exceptionalism being spouted by many, irnoically, scottish nationalists.

People comparing this situatiob to the nazis are being daft.

Also, genuine questiob becausr i dont know, but what do other countries have in relation to foreign workers? I would expect a government to have some note of my presence, when i worked in australia i needed to apply fpr a work visa and show it to potential employers.

I'll leave people like Hibrandeburg or Peevemore to answer your last sentence as they are in the ideal situation.

[steakbake]

Also, genuine questiob becausr i dont know, but what do other countries have in relation to foreign workers? I would expect a government to have some note of my presence, when i worked in australia i needed to apply fpr a work visa and show it to potential employers.

I don't think there's that many people apart from complete idealists who don't believe in some kind of control. However, EU migration is part of the deal with a common market which has the 4 freedoms. Also important is that those 4 freedoms work either way.

Yes, some form of control and process is entirely necessary and appropriate. I just don't think the system and rhetoric coming from UK Government is the right way to go about it. We don't live in the 50s anymore - it's a globalised world where the population is, has to be and should able to be transitory.

You can accuse the SNP and their followers of many things, but blood and soil nationalism like we saw this week is not the argument that has won through with them. Yes, there's a few in amongst them but that's a very marginal view. Even conservative commentators have drawn that distinction this week.

[Hibrandenburg]

I think this is all a bit hysterical.

Where would signing a song like scots whae hae come on your radar? I believe the snp collectively do that every conference.

I'm glad you found it hysterical, I only intended to raise a wee smile with the air-raid shelter thing, but hysterical is good.

As for singing songs, well I do sing in a folk band and even though "scots whae hae" isn't in our programme, I'd have no problem singing a song penned by our national bard and one of Scotland's greatest humanists. He also penned a few songs dedicated to peace and reconciliation like "Ye Jacobites by name" and "Auld lang syne". Songs are a bit like flags, it's not them that are really offensive, it's how they're used or perceived but that's a debate that's been done to death on here.

You may not think that speeches like the Home Secretary's have anything sinister in them but that's probably because (like I mentioned in a previous post) the political middle ground has made a massive lurch to the right and what is today acceptable would have received universal condemnation only a few years ago. I don't understand how anybody can't see that, the fact that there has been a 57% rise in xenophobic abuse and racial hatred reported backs me up on this.

[Hibrandenburg]

I dont believe you are unaware of the continuing problems associayed with mass irish immigration, and the fact it still goes on tells you that.

Im not anti immigration as ive said, what i am is anti-hysterical nonsense amd this imcreasing sense of scottish exceptionalism being spouted by many, irnoically, scottish nationalists.

People comparing this situatiob to the nazis are being daft.

Also, genuine questiob becausr i dont know, but what do other countries have in relation to foreign workers? I would expect a government to have some note of my presence, when i worked in australia i needed to apply fpr a work visa and show it to potential employers.

I have to register my place of residence like any other German citizen. The only difference between me and German born citizen is that I have a requirement to carry my passport instead of a German ID card but that makes sense in a country where all citizens have to be able to identify themselves.

[RyeSloan]

I don't think there's that many people apart from complete idealists who don't believe in some kind of control. However, EU migration is part of the deal with a common market which has the 4 freedoms. Also important is that those 4 freedoms work either way.

Yes, some form of control and process is entirely necessary and appropriate. I just don't think the system and rhetoric coming from UK Government is the right way to go about it. We don't live in the 50s anymore - it's a globalised world where the population is, has to be and should able to be transitory.

You can accuse the SNP and their followers of many things, but blood and soil nationalism like we saw this week is not the argument that has won through with them. Yes, there's a few in amongst them but that's a very marginal view. Even conservative commentators have drawn that distinction this week.

What I don't quite understand is why the unfettered immigration of Europeans has become somewhat sacrosanct but people are happy to control and limit immigration from the rest of the world.

Why have open borders for Romanians but not Canadians?

[Hibrandenburg]

What I don't quite understand is why the unfettered immigration of Europeans has become somewhat sacrosanct but people are happy to control and limit immigration from the rest of the world.

Why have open borders for Romanians but not Canadians?

Because we have no agreement with the Canadian government on this.

[GreenLake]

Looks like there has been another wee fall in the GBP which will help reduce my yearly expenditure on PG Tips and Hibs jerseys.

[Hibrandenburg]

Looks like there has been another wee fall in the GBP which will help reduce my yearly expenditure on PG Tips and Hibs jerseys.

£1 = €1.11 Booking my next UK cheap shopping trip tonight.

[Bristolhibby]

Looks like there has been another wee fall in the GBP which will help reduce my yearly expenditure on PG Tips and Hibs jerseys.

Off to Slovakia on Monday, nearly has a heart attack in Sainsbury's getting my Euros. £1 = £1.1 Euros, and that was with a nectar card! €1.09 without!
Thanks May!

Decided to wait until Sunday as there will be a wee bit of a recovery I'm sure.

J

[RyeSloan]

Because we have no agreement with the Canadian government on this.

Clearly I was asking about the concept of open borders and how we are in a position where some are suggesting proposed controls over Europeans are nothing less that xenophobic but controls over non Europeans are completely 100% acceptable...

[Hibrandenburg]

Clearly I was asking about the concept of open borders and how we are in a position where some are suggesting proposed controls over Europeans are nothing less that xenophobic but controls over non Europeans are completely 100% acceptable...

Not sure I've seen anyone suggest that, I certainly haven't.

[steakbake]

Clearly I was asking about the concept of open borders and how we are in a position where some are suggesting proposed controls over Europeans are nothing less that xenophobic but controls over non Europeans are completely 100% acceptable...

I would agree in some ways, but no-one is arguing for that. However, freedom of movement with new found partner countries is simply not what we're going to see. As it is, I'm more concerned with UK citizen's right than bringing up the drawbridge on others.

With anything between 3.5 to 4.9 mil UK citizens in other parts of the EU (depending on who you believe), it's clearly not all one-way traffic.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I have to register my place of residence like any other German citizen. The only difference between me and German born citizen is that I have a requirement to carry my passport instead of a German ID card but that makes sense in a country where all citizens have to be able to identify themselves.

Ok, so fair enough. That is in keeping with their 'way of life'...!

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I would agree in some ways, but no-one is arguing for that. However, freedom of movement with new found partner countries is simply not what we're going to see. As it is, I'm more concerned with UK citizen's right than bringing up the drawbridge on others.

With anything between 3.5 to 4.9 mil UK citizens in other parts of the EU (depending on who you believe), it's clearly not all one-way traffic.

Personally, i think it will be unfortunate to lose freedom of movement, but its just not a die in the ditch issue for me. If some uk pensioners can't retire to the costas, then thats unfortunate but tough luck.

I do agree with simar that certain issueshabe become totemic fpr pro/anti brexiters. I dont belive the uk leaving a, at best, debateable political union, represents xenophobia, the rise of nazism or any other of the issues raised. I think there is too much wailing and gnashing of teeth over issues that we do not yet know how they will turn out

[steakbake]

Personally, i think it will be unfortunate to lose freedom of movement, but its just not a die in the ditch issue for me. If some uk pensioners can't retire to the costas, then thats unfortunate but tough luck.

I do agree with simar that certain issueshabe become totemic fpr pro/anti brexiters. I dont belive the uk leaving a, at best, debateable political union, represents xenophobia, the rise of nazism or any other of the issues raised. I think there is too much wailing and gnashing of teeth over issues that we do not yet know how they will turn out

I'm thinking more about my UK citizen brother who lives and works in Portugal with his wife. Or my narrowing opportunities to live elsewhere in the EU with my Polish partner.

[Hibrandenburg]

Personally, i think it will be unfortunate to lose freedom of movement, but its just not a die in the ditch issue for me. If some uk pensioners can't retire to the costas, then thats unfortunate but tough luck.

I do agree with simar that certain issueshabe become totemic fpr pro/anti brexiters. I dont belive the uk leaving a, at best, debateable political union, represents xenophobia, the rise of nazism or any other of the issues raised. I think there is too much wailing and gnashing of teeth over issues that we do not yet know how they will turn out

History shows us how it will turn out when we go down the route of isolation and xenophobia. Or do you think we're clever now than we were in the last century? There's no arguing whether we're more xenophobic now than 10 years ago, the huge increase in racially motivated incidents prove that.

[RyeSloan]

I'm thinking more about my UK citizen brother who lives and works in Portugal with his wife. Or my narrowing opportunities to live elsewhere in the EU with my Polish partner.

But people lived and worked in these countries before the freedom of movement was introduced...just as I know people who live and work in the States, Oman, Singapore etc.

No one is suggesting that such a life choice will no longer be possible. Maybe not quite as straight forward as now that's for sure but it seems like this debate has somehow morphed into an all or nothing which is certainly not going to be the case as it never was and never will be.

[steakbake]

But people lived and worked in these countries before the freedom of movement was introduced...just as I know people who live and work in the States, Oman, Singapore etc.

No one is suggesting that such a life choice will no longer be possible. Maybe not quite as straight forward as now that's for sure but it seems like this debate has somehow morphed into an all or nothing which is certainly not going to be the case as it never was and never will be.

No, but it is a massive backwards step to a time when the world was far less globalised. I have no sympathy with that agenda.

The debate as to whether that will or won't happen remains to be seen. From the speeches at the Tory party conference, I have very little faith.

As we've seen today, they're retracting into basic nativism as LSE are asked to drop non-UK nationals from contributing to policy advice. This pulls the rug from under the feet of an argument that Brexit is about openness to a wider world. Their leading expert is Canadian.

We'll not convince one another. Anyway, can we bring back the calendar signing thread?

[SHODAN]

As we've seen today, they're retracting into basic nativism as LSE are asked to drop non-UK nationals from contributing to policy advice. This pulls the rug from under the feet of an argument that Brexit is about openness to a wider world. Their leading expert is Canadian.

I'm an academic in a relationship with an EU national non-British academic and I find this news absolutely astonishing. This is openly racist.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I'm thinking more about my UK citizen brother who lives and works in Portugal with his wife. Or my narrowing opportunities to live elsewhere in the EU with my Polish partner.

Like i say, nobody knows it will work out for you / them. Unfortunately policy camt be made just to suit you and your family in a country of 65m people. Although im sure you would vote fpr it if it could be!

[steakbake]

Like i say, nobody knows it will work out for you / them. Unfortunately policy camt be made just to suit you and your family in a country of 65m people. Although im sure you would vote fpr it if it could be!

Really goes without saying, that was not what I was making a case for though I very much doubt it is just me and my family among 65mil who value our freedom of movement.

[Hibrandenburg]

No, but it is a massive backwards step to a time when the world was far less globalised. I have no sympathy with that agenda.

The debate as to whether that will or won't happen remains to be seen. From the speeches at the Tory party conference, I have very little faith.

As we've seen today, they're retracting into basic nativism as LSE are asked to drop non-UK nationals from contributing to policy advice. This pulls the rug from under the feet of an argument that Brexit is about openness to a wider world. Their leading expert is Canadian.

We'll not convince one another. Anyway, can we bring back the calendar signing thread?

Just read that in the press. Supposedly the government is concerned that non British citizens would leak sensitive information about British Brexit strategy to the EU. Absolutely nuts!

[steakbake]

Just read that in the press. Supposedly the government is concerned that non British citizens would leak sensitive information about British Brexit strategy to the EU. Absolutely nuts!

Maybe they should check that the UK citizens on it voted Leave, just to ensure there's no enemies within? Insurgents, if you will. Ideological screening for inappropriate beliefs? They are London-based ABs so chances are they're at least 70/30 for Remain.

[Hibrandenburg]

Maybe they should check that the UK citizens on it voted Leave, just to ensure there's no enemies within? Insurgents, if you will. Ideological screening for inappropriate beliefs? They are London-based ABs so chances are they're at least 70/30 for Remain.

:greengrin

[steakbake]

:greengrin

We can but hope!

[jacomo]

But people lived and worked in these countries before the freedom of movement was introduced...just as I know people who live and work in the States, Oman, Singapore etc.

No one is suggesting that such a life choice will no longer be possible. Maybe not quite as straight forward as now that's for sure but it seems like this debate has somehow morphed into an all or nothing which is certainly not going to be the case as it never was and never will be.

I'd love to know how many Brits worked in Portugal pre: 1973!

I'll bet it wasn't many.

[steakbake]

I'd love to know how many Brits worked in Portugal pre: 1973!

I'll bet it wasn't many.

If it was fine in the 70s, then it'll be fine now... or something like that.

[RyeSloan]

I'd love to know how many Brits worked in Portugal pre: 1973!

I'll bet it wasn't many.

Fair point but I'm not sure there is that many there now...Wiki suggests there was 13,000 in 1999 and a mighty 23,000 in 2007 so probably not the biggest of concerns [emoji6]

I said before the Brexit vote I was a supporter of the freedom of movement in Europe and my preference would be for it to be retained.

All I'm trying to say I suppose is that a revision to the rules might not be the Armageddon some are predicting it might be and that I'm reasonably confident that if someone wants to live and work in Europe after Brexit that it will still be possible to do so...so in other words the right to do so will have been removed but the ability to do so won't be.

I've also been a repeated supporter of immigration on economic grounds...the need for a country like the UK to continue to attract workers is pretty clear to me. Again though Im not wedded to a concept that discriminates Europeans over the rest of the world and I'm open to see and hear alternatives that might actually be more beneficial in the type and numbers of people that are attracted.

Just because something is the status quo doesn't always mean it should remain as such. I get the proof is in the pudding and all that but change is not always automatically bad.

[Hibbyradge]

More so called "experts" to be ignored.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/pound-value-brexit-dollar-euro-hsbc-prediction-currency-exchange-flash-crash-a7350051.html

[JeMeSouviens]

Just in case anyone wasn't depressed enough by Brexit gloom, here's a Scotland specific analysis:

http://www.europeanfutures.ed.ac.uk/article-4110

The thought of being stuck in Greater Little Tory Britain is frankly appalling. And if a hard Brexit is as economically masochistic as I expect it to be, you can bet your bottom, rapidly-devaluing-£ that the effects will hit peripheral regions like good old quasi-Federal North Britain the hardest. Temporary economic hardship for a chance to build a better outward looking country ready to take its place in Europe and the world is one thing. Long term economic hardship in an isolationist, xenophobic outpost of narrow mindedness is quite another. :rolleyes:

****. :no way:

[Hibrandenburg]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-results-latest-nicola-sturgeon-second-scottish-independence-referendum-eu-referendum-a7100466.html

Here we go again!

[Peevemor]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-results-latest-nicola-sturgeon-second-scottish-independence-referendum-eu-referendum-a7100466.html

Here we go again!

Friday 24th June?

[Geo_1875]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37634338

The comments are filling up rapidly. Absolutely priceless.

[Hibrandenburg]

Friday 24th June?

April 16th should make the difference.

[Hibrandenburg]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37634338

The comments are filling up rapidly. Absolutely priceless.

Ding Ding, round 2 aaaaaaand box!

[GlesgaeHibby]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37634338

The comments are filling up rapidly. Absolutely priceless.

My favourite so far:

Immediately remove all SNP MPs from Westminster as they're not interested in democratic results so therefore don't deserve a place at the centre of democracy.

Westminster as the centre of democracy :faf::faf::faf: Aye, so that'll be why we have a majority Tory government elected with 36.9% of the vote. That's before laughing at the irony of removing MPs who have a different agenda to this chap fitting in with democracy.

[Hibrandenburg]

My favourite so far:

Immediately remove all SNP MPs from Westminster as they're not interested in democratic results so therefore don't deserve a place at the centre of democracy.

Westminster as the centre of democracy :faf::faf::faf: Aye, so that'll be why we have a majority Tory government elected with 36.9% of the vote. That's before laughing at the irony of removing MPs who have a different agenda to this chap fitting in with democracy.






UK nationalism good, scottish nationalists bad!

[#FromTheCapital]

Be interesting to see how Sturgeon goes about trying to get another referendum. As much as I can't be bothered with another one so soon, a similar result to 2014 would put it to bed for the foreseeable future and would call an end to Sturgeons short lived time as first minister.

[johnbc70]

So when we vote in the referendum are we voting for a definite Scotland will be part of the EU, a definite it won't be or, as I suspect, we have no idea.

I would want to know before I voted, a maybe aye with some promises is not good enough.

[RyeSloan]

So when we vote in the referendum are we voting for a definite Scotland will be part of the EU, a definite it won't be or, as I suspect, we have no idea.

I would want to know before I voted, a maybe aye with some promises is not good enough.

That's as good as you will get though...

Sturgeon is playing this for all its worth, not surprisingly, however it's a high stakes game and I can't help feeling she is painting herself into a corner. Will the Tories are all evil argument really win her more votes and support than the play already has or merely firm up opposition to her Indy First agenda?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

So when we vote in the referendum are we voting for a definite Scotland will be part of the EU, a definite it won't be or, as I suspect, we have no idea.

I would want to know before I voted, a maybe aye with some promises is not good enough.

As we are finding out with brexit referendum, they are usually simple choices to complex questions - indyfer 2 will offer less certainty than the eu ref i fear.

I dread going through it all again - i voted yes last time but really dont know now.

Also, just bringimg the bill doesn't mean it will defo happen.

I do also feel quote aggrieved that our government refuses to govern amd focus on that job.

[Geo_1875]

As we are finding out with brexit referendum, they are usually simple choices to complex questions - indyfer 2 will offer less certainty than the eu ref i fear.

I dread going through it all again - i voted yes last time but really dont know now.

Also, just bringimg the bill doesn't mean it will defo happen.

I do also feel quote aggrieved that our government refuses to govern amd focus on that job.

The government is governing, that's why they are concerned about Brexit and looking at the options for Scotland. The job at hand should not be to meekly accept what could be disastrous for the country.

[grunt]

I do also feel quote aggrieved that our government refuses to govern amd focus on that job.On the other hand I'm pleased that the Scottish Government is addressing what is probably the single most significant decision which may impact all our lives for the foreseeable future.

[steakbake]

I think it is a reasonably good position to be in but I think it's got two intended audiences. First, committed yes people and those within the 'movement' obviously. But it may be more about adding to the UK-wide pressure against a hard Brexit. Timing is everything but I think it's a calculated move that if the government doesn't soften its hard line, if there's no real scrutiny offered at WM and if it seems that we are headed for a calamitous exit which would significantly damage Scotland, then it would seem remiss of a Scottish Government not to offer at least an escape ladder, especially that the EU exit was against the will of the voters in Scotland.

Whether people go for it or not, I don't know. It will all come down to what the situation is around the time of any referendum.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The government is governing, that's why they are concerned about Brexit and looking at the options for Scotland. The job at hand should not be to meekly accept what could be disastrous for the country.

We could argue abouy this until the cows come home, but the facts are that the eu and foreign affaris, as well as constituional matters are not even in the scottish government's competency.

Meanwhile we have myriad other issues which need looking at.

But i know you wont accept that, amd i accept that we are where we are, in a real politik sense.

Anyway apologies to the thread, i think we are veering off topic - im sue there will be ample threads to discusd any second referendum.

[JeMeSouviens]

So when we vote in the referendum are we voting for a definite Scotland will be part of the EU, a definite it won't be or, as I suspect, we have no idea.

I would want to know before I voted, a maybe aye with some promises is not good enough.

If you vote "No", yes. (he said, less than helpfully)

[RyeSloan]

I think it is a reasonably good position to be in but I think it's got two intended audiences. First, committed yes people and those within the 'movement' obviously. But it may be more about adding to the UK-wide pressure against a hard Brexit. Timing is everything but I think it's a calculated move that if the government doesn't soften its hard line, if there's no real scrutiny offered at WM and if it seems that we are headed for a calamitous exit which would significantly damage Scotland, then it would seem remiss of a Scottish Government not to offer at least an escape ladder, especially that the EU exit was against the will of the voters in Scotland.

Whether people go for it or not, I don't know. It will all come down to what the situation is around the time of any referendum.

But it not everyone's option that a hard Brexit will automatically be calamitous. Clearly those that wanted to remain will see it that way but stating such things as fact even before Article 50 has been invoked is simply guess work.

Personally I find it rather ironic that those whose are most vocal for Scottish independence are those that seem most vocal against a full fat UK independence from the EU.

Then again I've never, despite many people's effort on here and otherwise, quite fully understood how the concept of independence for Scotland in Europe actually stacks up (in any true sense of the word independent) so probably no surprise there either [emoji23]

[JeMeSouviens]

We could argue abouy this until the cows come home, but the facts are that the eu and foreign affaris, as well as constituional matters are not even in the scottish government's competency.

Meanwhile we have myriad other issues which need looking at.

But i know you wont accept that, amd i accept that we are where we are, in a real politik sense.

Anyway apologies to the thread, i think we are veering off topic - im sue there will be ample threads to discusd any second referendum.

Today she is speaking at her party conference as leader of the SNP, a party with almost all of Scotland's representatives in the parliament that does have that competency.

Although obviously I'm not trying to claim she ignores these things while acting as FM. (But frankly, thank **** she is, it's our only way out of this nightmare* .)

* and even the way out of the nightmare will probably be a short term nightmare.

[Iain G]

If you vote "No", yes. (he said, less than helpfully)

Would need to be complex question:

1) Do you want Scotland to remain part of the UK? Yes / No
2) If you answered no, do you want to be an independent Scotland: (i) as part of the EU or (ii) independently?

[JeMeSouviens]

But it not everyone's option that a hard Brexit will automatically be calamitous. Clearly those that wanted to remain will see it that way but stating such things as fact even before Article 50 has been invoked is simply guess work.

Personally I find it rather ironic that those whose are most vocal for Scottish independence are those that seem most vocal against a full fat UK independence from the EU.

Then again I've never, despite many people's effort on here and otherwise, quite fully understood how the concept of independence for Scotland in Europe actually stacks up (in any true sense of the word independent) so probably no surprise there either [emoji23]

Even if the raw numbers in terms of tax take, growth, gdp etc all turn out fine* , the negative impacts of letting a bunch of right wing xenophobes have unfettered control of building new arrangements based on an exceptionalist British nationalism are already starting to be felt. Lists of foreign workers ffs.

* they won't.

[steakbake]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37646408

I think this is a good summary. On the table is not a new referendum with a date or time, but the legislation towards it. She's not called a referendum nor has she said it will happen. Merely, that the mechanisms will be carried forward to ensuring that one can be called.

It's a bargaining position to ensure that Scotland is heard in Westminster. May needs to rethink her decision.

In terms of the age-old conundrum: how are you independent in Europe? I don't really understand. Is Germany not an independent country? Is France? Denmark, the Netherlands?

There are 28 independent countries with their own constitutions (with exception of the UK), own legislatures, some with their own currencies, own processes, legal systems and so on. They are however, interconnected and interdependent. It's a long way from isolation to independence and I think on balance, I'd prefer independence within the EU than isolation within the UK.

[JeMeSouviens]

Would need to be complex question:

1) Do you want Scotland to remain part of the UK? Yes / No
2) If you answered no, do you want to be an independent Scotland: (i) as part of the EU or (ii) independently?

There was some polling on that recently (panelbase) and the numbers were:

1. out UK in EU - 35%
2. out UK out EU - 12%
3. in UK in EU - 29%
4. in UK out EU - 24%

So given that option 2 is no longer possible (barring a sudden reverse Greenland miracle u-turn by the Tories) and the popular support for option 2 is so low and it is not supported by any political party, we can boil the choice down to a straight:

out UK, in EU*

vs

in UK out EU


* I think it's basically uncontested apart from by a few loonies that Scotland would be blocked from membership but the timing might see us having to leave with the UK and then be readmitted. I personally think that post a Yes vote but pre Brexit they would find a special status to keep us in but I very much doubt we'll be given that certainty before any vote.

[JeMeSouviens]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37646408

I think this is a good summary. On the table is not a new referendum with a date or time, but the legislation towards it. She's not called a referendum nor has she said it will happen. Merely, that the mechanisms will be carried forward to ensuring that one can be called.

It's a bargaining position to ensure that Scotland is heard in Westminster. May needs to rethink her decision.

In terms of the age-old conundrum: how are you independent in Europe? I don't really understand. Is Germany not an independent country? Is France? Denmark, the Netherlands?

There are 28 independent countries with their own constitutions (with exception of the UK), own legislatures, some with their own currencies, own processes, legal systems and so on. They are however, interconnected and interdependent. It's a long way from isolation to independence and I think on balance, I'd prefer independence within the EU than isolation within the UK.

Good summary of the good summary.

The opposite of independence is not interdependence, it's dependence.

[grunt]

Personally I find it rather ironic that those whose are most vocal for Scottish independence are those that seem most vocal against a full fat UK independence from the EU. I too have asked this question.

The answer I was given that the two types of independence are not the same. The crux of it is equality. Small countries in the EU have an equal voice, and therefore are genuinely empowered within a large framework which can work for them in terms of security and trade.This is not the case within the UK now, apparently. Teresa May recently spelled that out loud and clear.

Also, the EU takes a fee and a small amount of sovereignty (around 7%), and in return gives grants and trade deals.It doesn't force countries to enter into illegal wars against their will, for example. It doesn't force them to host weapons of mass destruction next to their major populations against their will.

In the UK, all Scotland's wealth and taxes go to Westminster in return for a handout. Teresa May said recently that the authority of Scotland's parliament counts for nothing, and is in fact 'divisive'. ("Divisive nationalists").

It's basically going to come down to a question of 'which union do you want to be a part of?'

[grunt]

In terms of the age-old conundrum: how are you independent in Europe? I don't really understand. Is Germany not an independent country? Is France? Denmark, the Netherlands?

There are 28 independent countries with their own constitutions (with exception of the UK), own legislatures, some with their own currencies, own processes, legal systems and so on. They are however, interconnected and interdependent. It's a long way from isolation to independence and I think on balance, I'd prefer independence within the EU than isolation within the UK.This is a good description I think.

[RyeSloan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37646408

I think this is a good summary. On the table is not a new referendum with a date or time, but the legislation towards it. She's not called a referendum nor has she said it will happen. Merely, that the mechanisms will be carried forward to ensuring that one can be called.

It's a bargaining position to ensure that Scotland is heard in Westminster. May needs to rethink her decision.

In terms of the age-old conundrum: how are you independent in Europe? I don't really understand. Is Germany not an independent country? Is France? Denmark, the Netherlands?

There are 28 independent countries with their own constitutions (with exception of the UK), own legislatures, some with their own currencies, own processes, legal systems and so on. They are however, interconnected and interdependent. It's a long way from isolation to independence and I think on balance, I'd prefer independence within the EU than isolation within the UK.

Hmm I'm not sure I buy that entirely especially for the Euro zone. There is a multitude of rules and regulations that remove sovereignty not least the centralisation of monetary policy and a stated aim for further integration.

There is a lot of sabre rattling about all the things that the Tories are desperate to change once we are out of the EU but your argument suggests that being in the EU doesn't actually impact the independence of a country that much..if it's such a benign organisation then how come we have ended up in the circumstance that people are so depressed about changes that can only be made once you leave?

You could I suppose make the opposite argument...if interconnection and interdependence is the aim why tie yourself to only one club? And why does being outside the EU automatically mean isolationism?

[RyeSloan]

Good summary of the good summary.

The opposite of independence is not interdependence, it's dependence.

Thanks but the suggestion that small countries in the EU have the same voice as Germany or France is just a wee bit silly.

As I said I get the arguments but I don't quite believe them. That's not to say the EU might not actually be where we want to be but the suggestion that an Independent Scotland would be able to shape and move the EU to our likening is fanciful, especially if we are outside the Euro club.

Look at the economic performance of the Eurozone and tell me it benefits the smaller countries...then look at the wider EU and tell me that the Eurozone countries are not setting the agenda.

I'm sure we will never agree so probably not worth rehashing old arguments but let's just say I'm no fan of the EU and think it's benefits are hugely overstated and its negatives conveniently forgotten.

[steakbake]

Hmm I'm not sure I buy that entirely especially for the Euro zone. There is a multitude of rules and regulations that remove sovereignty not least the centralisation of monetary policy and a stated aim for further integration.

There is a lot of sabre rattling about all the things that the Tories are desperate to change once we are out of the EU but your argument suggests that being in the EU doesn't actually impact the independence of a country that much..if it's such a benign organisation then how come we have ended up in the circumstance that people are so depressed about changes that can only be made once you leave?

You could I suppose make the opposite argument...if interconnection and interdependence is the aim why tie yourself to only one club? And why does being outside the EU automatically mean isolationism?

I'm never going to convince you, let's be honest. Events will prove one of us right or wrong.

In terms of a say: all countries have a veto. All 27 (now) must agree.

Why people felt motivated to leave: £350mil a week to the NHS, Turkey might join (we have a veto on that - as we are often reminded that Spain have),"immigrants" - though the evidence shows that it was high migration areas that voted to remain.

The U.K will find itself in no club at all, negotiating from a position of weakness, with only WTO rules to fall back on. We could set up new clubs, but where? Will our family of commonwealth nations give us preferential treatment? We could already trade with the vast majority as part of the EU. I don't think we will be in a position to be fussy with the deals that come our way. Plus we've a triumvirate of Davies, Fox and Johnson managing probably the most definitive era in the last 70 years.

[RyeSloan]

I'm never going to convince you, let's be honest. Events will prove one of us right or wrong.

In terms of a say: all countries have a veto. All 27 (now) must agree.

Why people felt motivated to leave: £350mil a week to the NHS, Turkey might join (we have a veto on that - as we are often reminded that Spain have),"immigrants" - though the evidence shows that it was high migration areas that voted to remain.

The U.K will find itself in no club at all, negotiating from a position of weakness, with only WTO rules to fall back on. We could set up new clubs, but where? Will our family of commonwealth nations give us preferential treatment? We could already trade with the vast majority as part of the EU. I don't think we will be in a position to be fussy with the deals that come our way. Plus we've a triumvirate of Davies, Fox and Johnson managing probably the most definitive era in the last 70 years.

Ha ha yeah I'm not sure either of us will move much and as you say history will be our arbiter! [emoji38]

Buuut are the WTO rules really that bad? Was the EU really that good and even if it was where is it going now...monetary policy even crazier than Carney and the Fed (takes some doing) and Germany already primed to change or bend the rules for its banks, economic stagnation and rife unemployment in many of its members states, Greece (remember them and how well their membership of the club has worked out!) the list goes on. I read some narrative that projects the EU as the land of milk and honey but it's far far removed from that.

Basically as ever I'm open to change and coming from a perspective that I see the EU as really a political project that will go to any length to protect that project no matter what misery that heaps on its inhabitants I'm not scared about an economy the size of the U.K. Looking to change its relationship with the EU and the world. It's a risk for sure and it will be a huge upheaval but there is plenty scope for upside as well as downside.

We can agree on David, Fox and Johnson tho....hardly an inspiring line up that! [emoji33]

[Jonnyboy]

The Tory attack on foreigners is just disgusting.

Our NHS wouldn't function without foreign Doctors, Surgeons, Nurses etc.

Where do the Tories think we're going to get all the home grown doctors to fill the gaps? Dumb down entry requirements so we're no longer getting the best?

That's easy, they'll just employ more junior doctors .......... oh wait

[steakbake]

We can agree on David, Fox and Johnson tho....hardly an inspiring line up that! [emoji33]

The Hibs.net term, I reckon, is "underwhelmed"!

[Iain G]

There was some polling on that recently (panelbase) and the numbers were:

1. out UK in EU - 35%
2. out UK out EU - 12%
3. in UK in EU - 29%
4. in UK out EU - 24%

So given that option 2 is no longer possible (barring a sudden reverse Greenland miracle u-turn by the Tories) and the popular support for option 2 is so low and it is not supported by any political party, we can boil the choice down to a straight:

out UK, in EU*

vs

in UK out EU


* I think it's basically uncontested apart from by a few loonies that Scotland would be blocked from membership but the timing might see us having to leave with the UK and then be readmitted. I personally think that post a Yes vote but pre Brexit they would find a special status to keep us in but I very much doubt we'll be given that certainty before any vote.

Is there not an option 3 that's called "Shake it All About"? :wink:

[JeMeSouviens]

Is there not an option 3 that's called "Shake it All About"? :wink:

:not worth

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Heard a few senior nats speaking on brexit in the last few days, and i have to say i was impressed.

What struck me is that they are really pushing, and think they might be able to pull off, some sort of special status whereby scotland, still in the uk, can remain in the eu (with NI) when england and wales leave.

It would be tricly obviously, but we are in uncharted waters and so making it up as they go (which the eu is good at) might not be as fanciful as one might think.

Definitely some food for thought.

[Hibrandenburg]

http://www.thenational.scot/politics/nicola-sturgeon-to-bypass-westminster-by-opening-mini-scottish-embassy-in-berlin.23605

Might have to pop along and have a wee gander!

[ronaldo7]

17536

So this is what taking back control meant. It seems the Tories will be looking after their friends in the city. As long as the rest of us get the same deals to stay in the single market then bring it on.

We could have saved ourselves a few quid though.

[GlesgaeHibby]

David Coburn ready to throw his name into the hat to become next UKIP leader :greengrin:greengrin

[Colr]

Boglioli overcoat from Italy - 495euros online on Italian site; £595 online on their UK portal.

Have to be Crombie, then!!

[Just Alf]

Wallonia scuppering the EU - Canada trade deal..... That doesn't bode well for the prospects of a successful UK - EU one

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37735968



On the other hand it does put to bed somewhat the argument that a small country can't have any influence within the EU.

Quick edit!
I know Wallon is "just" a region, but the Belgum government have given them more powers at a European level than Scotland have.

[steakbake]

Hang on a moment, I thought we had "the most powerful devolved parliament anywhere in the world"?

Sounds like we've been done...

[Hibbyradge]

I was speaking to a senior guy in Scottish Enterprise last week.

He told me that on average, it takes about 7 years to broker a trade agreement.

And we need dozens of them.

[HiBremian]

Wallonia scuppering the EU - Canada trade deal..... That doesn't bode well for the prospects of a successful UK - EU one

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37735968



On the other hand it does put to bed somewhat the argument that a small country can't have any influence within the EU.

Quick edit!
I know Wallon is "just" a region, but the Belgum government have given them more powers at a European level than Scotland have.

As I understand it, it's double-level federalism at work. Under Belgian laws, all five regional governments must approve trade deals like CETA before the federal government can give consent. And of course all 27/28 EU countries must approve any deal too. As you say, kind of different to how Unionism works.

[RyeSloan]

Does indeed show how difficult a Brexit deal will be..

But on the flip side shows just what a strange beast the EU is...held to ransom by the Walloons ffs.

[RyeSloan]

As I understand it, it's double-level federalism at work. Under Belgian laws, all five regional governments must approve trade deals like CETA before the federal government can give consent. And of course all 27/28 EU countries must approve any deal too. As you say, kind of different to how Unionism works.

Juncker might care a wee bit more now..

[After backing down on A 'fast track'] Juncker will reportedly propose a mixed agreement - one that requires both the approval of the European parliament and national legislatures - at an European Commission meeting on Tuesday.

Last week he was reported saying he "personally couldn't care less" whether lawmakers get to vote on the deal.

[lord bunberry]

Juncker might care a wee bit more now..

[After backing down on A 'fast track'] Juncker will reportedly propose a mixed agreement - one that requires both the approval of the European parliament and national legislatures - at an European Commission meeting on Tuesday.

Last week he was reported saying he "personally couldn't care less" whether lawmakers get to vote on the deal.
He's a clown who becomes less relevant by the day. He was more than happy to trumpet the position of the British government during the independence referendum, but now the goal posts have been moved he's finding himself being out thought and out manouvered by the politicians of the country's he's supposed to represent . Scotland will be welcomed with open arms into the EU and Junker knows it. He is a career politician who will somehow find it within his pay packet to see the light.

[Hibbyradge]

He's a clown who becomes less relevant by the day. He was more than happy to trumpet the position of the British government during the independence referendum, but now the goal posts have been moved he's finding himself being out thought and out manouvered by the politicians of the country's he's supposed to represent . Scotland will be welcomed with open arms into the EU and Junker knows it. He is a career politician who will somehow find it within his pay packet to see the light.

You're calling a senior European politician a "clown"?

I don't know much about Junker and I have no allegiance to him, but I'm sure that being a "clown" isn't what got him to where he is.

[goosano]

Scotland will be welcomed with open arms into the EU and Junker knows it. He is a career politician who will somehow find it within his pay packet to see the light.

Spain will vote against Scotland joining the EU for obvious reasons and all 27 countries have to agree for Scotland to join-a major stumbling block

[lord bunberry]

You're calling a senior European politician a "clown"?

I don't know much about Junker and I have no allegiance to him, but I'm sure that being a "clown" isn't what got him to where he is.
Donald Trump is in with a chance of being president of the US, Boris Johnson is a senior politician in this country. Being a clown doesn't seem to be a barrier to success in the political world.

[Just Alf]

Spain will vote against Scotland joining the EU for obvious reasons and all 27 countries have to agree for Scotland to join-a major stumbling block

They'll find a way to get us (back?) in. Their fishing fleet, 4th or 5th largest in the world does almost all of its industrial scale fishing in Scottish fishing waters.

They didn't take the UK to court all those years ago to win their multi million compensation package for nowt.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[SHODAN]

Spain will vote against Scotland joining the EU for obvious reasons and all 27 countries have to agree for Scotland to join-a major stumbling block

Spain is not opposed to Scotland joining the EU if it splits from the UK legally. It's illegal succession (ala Catalonia) that it's against.

http://www.thenational.scot/comment/wee-ginger-dug-dont-be-misled-spain-has-never-vowed-to-veto-scottish-membership-of-the-eu.19493

[goosano]

Spain is not opposed to Scotland joining the EU if it splits from the UK legally. It's illegal succession (ala Catalonia) that it's against.

http://www.thenational.scot/comment/wee-ginger-dug-dont-be-misled-spain-has-never-vowed-to-veto-scottish-membership-of-the-eu.19493

Yes of course Catalonia is different-the article you quote is not at all balanced. To be clear on my position I would favour independence if I thought there was a good economic case.

Rajoy when pressed has refused to say yes or no on how he would vote. What he has actually said about Scottish independence

"Everyone in Europe thinks that these processes are tremendously negative because they generate economic recessions and more poverty for everyone," he said. Scottish secession would be a "torpedo to the vulnerabilities of the EU, which was created to integrate states, not to fragment them. Strong states are what's needed today." Of course this doesn't say yes or no but you also have to look at Spains lack of recognition of other places like Kosovo to see how they are likely to vote

[danhibees1875]

Yes of course Catalonia is different-the article you quote is not at all balanced. To be clear on my position I would favour independence if I thought there was a good economic case.

Rajoy when pressed has refused to say yes or no on how he would vote. What he has actually said about Scottish independence

"Everyone in Europe thinks that these processes are tremendously negative because they generate economic recessions and more poverty for everyone," he said. Scottish secession would be a "torpedo to the vulnerabilities of the EU, which was created to integrate states, not to fragment them. Strong states are what's needed today." Of course this doesn't say yes or no but you also have to look at Spains lack of recognition of other places like Kosovo to see how they are likely to vote

Has it been confirmed that we would need to apply as a new member as opposed to being able to continue our part of the UK membership?

This should be quite a straight forward question and answer of the EU and would put the question of a second referendum to bed allowing us to move on and try to make the best of the situation.

[goosano]

Has it been confirmed that we would need to apply as a new member as opposed to being able to continue our part of the UK membership?

This should be quite a straight forward question and answer of the EU and would put the question of a second referendum to bed allowing us to move on and try to make the best of the situation.

Yes we would need to apply as a new member

[Moulin Yarns]

Yes we would need to apply as a new member

Source?

[steakbake]

Yes we would need to apply as a new member

I think there's enough uncertainty in the situation about what happens to the UK's place at the table. Have a read of article 49. No one knows for certain how the EU would handle a successor state - it simply hasn't happened before. They're pragmatists - I'm pretty sure they'd find some way. The alternative is however, that we are definitely out.

Also before we get into it: Schengen and Euro is not compulsory though in the light of watching the £ head towards € parity, I'm not sure there's much of a big deal anymore.

[goosano]

Source?

House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee sought a clarification about how Scottish independence might affect its EU membership from the then European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso. In his response, Barroso wrote:
"Although there is no certainty, it appears an independent Scotland would not automatically become a member of the EU but would instead have to re-apply and complete a process of accession... A new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the EU and the Treaties would no longer apply on its territory."
Mr Barroso added that an independent Scotland would be able to apply to become a member and the application would be treated in the usual way. This would mean that, if the other member countries accepted the application unanimously, an agreement between Scotland and the EU would be negotiated, the EU Treaties adjusted and, finally, ratified by all member states.The

To be honest it isn't 100% clear and there has been debate about whether this might be changed for the situation where Scotland is an existing member

[Hibrandenburg]

House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee sought a clarification about how Scottish independence might affect its EU membership from the then European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso. In his response, Barroso wrote:
"Although there is no certainty, it appears an independent Scotland would not automatically become a member of the EU but would instead have to re-apply and complete a process of accession... A new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the EU and the Treaties would no longer apply on its territory."
Mr Barroso added that an independent Scotland would be able to apply to become a member and the application would be treated in the usual way. This would mean that, if the other member countries accepted the application unanimously, an agreement between Scotland and the EU would be negotiated, the EU Treaties adjusted and, finally, ratified by all member states.The

To be honest it isn't 100% clear and there has been debate about whether this might be changed for the situation where Scotland is an existing member

So 1 guy's opinion then.

[Moulin Yarns]

So 1 guy's opinion then.

Not only that, but the same guy has no say in it, anymore.

[CropleyWasGod]

House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee sought a clarification about how Scottish independence might affect its EU membership from the then European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso. In his response, Barroso wrote:
"Although there is no certainty, it appears an independent Scotland would not automatically become a member of the EU but would instead have to re-apply and complete a process of accession... A new independent state would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the EU and the Treaties would no longer apply on its territory."
Mr Barroso added that an independent Scotland would be able to apply to become a member and the application would be treated in the usual way. This would mean that, if the other member countries accepted the application unanimously, an agreement between Scotland and the EU would be negotiated, the EU Treaties adjusted and, finally, ratified by all member states.The

To be honest it isn't 100% clear and there has been debate about whether this might be changed for the situation where Scotland is an existing member

Those words are key, IMO.

The fact is, no-one knows. There is no precedent for this situation. That was clear during the first Indy referendum, where everyone who voiced an opinion had a vested interest.

[RyeSloan]

I honestly think that if anyone thinks the EU will give automatic entry to an Indy Scotland using the UK's returned membership ticket they are kidding themselves.

Just my opinion of course!

[Hibbyradge]

I honestly think that if anyone thinks the EU will give automatic entry to an Indy Scotland using the UK's returned membership ticket they are kidding themselves.

Just my opinion of course!

There doesn't seem to be an obvious answer to anything, these days, Simar. All the old rules and maxims seem to have been abandoned.

A year ago or less, I would have said that there was no way that a Tory government would allow City of London banks to leave the UK, but that is happening already.

Madness abounds.

[High-On-Hibs]

Is there a good economic case for remaining in the UK?

And before somebody says "they're our largest importers of goods", that's with a UK within the EU with access to the single market.

[Hibbyradge]

Is there a good economic case for remaining in the UK?

And before somebody says "they're our largest importers of goods", that's with a UK within the EU with access to the single market.

:hijack:

[High-On-Hibs]

:hijack:

Good response. Now back to your building blocks.

[RyeSloan]

There doesn't seem to be an obvious answer to anything, these days, Simar. All the old rules and maxims seem to have been abandoned.

A year ago or less, I would have said that there was no way that a Tory government would allow City of London banks to leave the UK, but that is happening already.

Madness abounds.

Well there never is with the EU on such things...their CETA nonsense shows that quite clearly.

But in general I agree...there seems to be so many vested interests trying to pull this way and that we have ended up in a situation that no one can clarify nor explain the implications of be that Indy or Brexit.

[Hibbyradge]

Good response. Now back to your building blocks.

Anything you say, Wolfie. :thumbsup:

[RyeSloan]

Is there a good economic case for remaining in the UK?

And before somebody says "they're our largest importers of goods", that's with a UK within the EU with access to the single market.

And a UK without the single market access would still trade with the EU. There seems to be a rather bizarre assumption that not being in he single market = no trade with the EU.

I think the economic case is pretty clear...rUK is our largest trading partner, we share a land border thus a free flow of goods, services and people using the same currency, language and (largely) laws and regulations. That's not to say alternatives might not better not that there will not be negatives to the status quo just that such synergies would normally be considered beneficial to an economy.

You would be best to flip the question around though...what would be the economic benefits of NOT being in the UK and being a member of the EU. As this appears to be the preferred position of the Scottish Government I would hope that such analysis would be easily accessible.

[Hibbyradge]

Well there never is with the EU on such things...their CETA nonsense shows that quite clearly.

But in general I agree...there seems to be so many vested interests trying to pull this way and that we have ended up in a situation that no one can clarify nor explain the implications of be that Indy or Brexit.

I've never known such a change in politics and at every level.

Labour are now the third party in Scotland, when they used to be first by miles.

The UK Labour Party is almost terminal and nearly everything that comes out of the leadership seems designed to ensure its death is as swift, and painful, as possible.

The Liberals and Greens are the only UK parties actively opposed to Brexit. Labour could prosper massively if they took a strongrr pro EU position, but popularity with the electorate is no longer important.

Putin is sailing warships in the English Channel and no one seems concerned.

Police in the Philippines are routinely executing drug users and pushers and the world just watches unconcerned.

And then there's Trump.

It's like we've woken in a parallel universe.

It really does feel like something very bad is going to happen. Hopefully I'm just being overly sensitive/paranoid. :paranoid:

[High-On-Hibs]

And a UK without the single market access would still trade with the EU. There seems to be a rather bizarre assumption that not being in he single market = no trade with the EU.

I think the economic case is pretty clear...rUK is our largest trading partner, we share a land border thus a free flow of goods, services and people using the same currency, language and (largely) laws and regulations. That's not to say alternatives might not better not that there will not be negatives to the status quo just that such synergies would normally be considered beneficial to an economy.

You would be best to flip the question around though...what would be the economic benefits of NOT being in the UK and being a member of the EU. As this appears to be the preferred position of the Scottish Government I would hope that such analysis would be easily accessible.

The UK is our largest trading partner, because most of the goods that are imported from the EU come to the UK and are then traded with Scotland. There is absolutely no reason why Scotland couldn't have this kind of trade deal with the EU directly. We would still trade with the UK over British goods, but imported goods would come directly to Scotland from EU members without any free trade barriers. If we trade with the EU through the UK route, imported goods are going to cost considerably more.

It's because of the EU that the UK is our largest trading partner, because under the current set up, everything has to go through them in order to get to us.

[Hibbyradge]

The UK is our largest trading partner, because most of the goods that are imported from the EU come to the UK and are then traded with Scotland. There is absolutely no reason why Scotland couldn't have this kind of trade deal with the EU directly. We would still trade with the UK over British goods, but imported goods would come directly to Scotland from EU members without any free trade barriers. If we trade with the EU through the UK route, imported goods are going to cost considerably more.

It's because of the EU that the UK is our largest trading partner, because under the current set up, everything has to go through them in order to get to us.

Even if that wasn't the case, if push came to shove, I'd happily forgo a trade deal with rUK for a trade deal with the EU.

The challenge is securing EU membership for an independent Scotland. If Sturgeon can achieve that, indy is a stick on certainty.

[Hibbyradge]

And a UK without the single market access would still trade with the EU. There seems to be a rather bizarre assumption that not being in he single market = no trade with the EU.



Trade with the EU may be posdible, but it's not a certainty and the terms of any agreements are unknown.

It only takes one objection ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37749236

[One Day Soon]

The UK is our largest trading partner, because most of the goods that are imported from the EU come to the UK and are then traded with Scotland. There is absolutely no reason why Scotland couldn't have this kind of trade deal with the EU directly. We would still trade with the UK over British goods, but imported goods would come directly to Scotland from EU members without any free trade barriers. If we trade with the EU through the UK route, imported goods are going to cost considerably more.

It's because of the EU that the UK is our largest trading partner, because under the current set up, everything has to go through them in order to get to us.


I'm not sure I understand this correctly. Surely Scotland - the businesses and consumers that make up Scotland - can buy directly from anywhere they like in the EU? Are you saying that because goods from eg France have to pass through rUK geographically then that somehow artificially inflates our trade figures with rUK? What is your source for this?

[RyeSloan]

Trade with the EU may be posdible, but it's not a certainty and the terms of any agreements are unknown.

It only takes one objection ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37749236

Not my understanding...I understood that in the absence of any specific trade agreement the automatic fall back would be WTO rules.

[RyeSloan]

The UK is our largest trading partner, because most of the goods that are imported from the EU come to the UK and are then traded with Scotland. There is absolutely no reason why Scotland couldn't have this kind of trade deal with the EU directly. We would still trade with the UK over British goods, but imported goods would come directly to Scotland from EU members without any free trade barriers. If we trade with the EU through the UK route, imported goods are going to cost considerably more.

It's because of the EU that the UK is our largest trading partner, because under the current set up, everything has to go through them in order to get to us.

I'm not sure this makes too much sense if you look at services in terms of trade...not sure they need to be transported through England!

But taking the approx 65% of exports that Scotland produces that go to rUK how much of that are you saying is then being forward sold by a third party into the EU?

And it's an interesting concept to think that Scotland would import goods directly...assuming that these physical goods would literally need to circumnavigate rUK then what would the logistics and costs be on that?

Finally access to the single market is not free...how much would it cost compared to using WTO tariffs instead and would any benefit of being in be single market outweigh the costs associated with the trade that would now be outside of any agreement with rUK.

Answer some of those points and you might start to get to an answer to your original question but let's be honest I doubt there is any significant research that places any values on this that can be relied upon. Hasn't stopped some people from taking absolute positions on such things already though!

[PeeJay]

Not my understanding...I understood that in the absence of any specific trade agreement the automatic fall back would be WTO rules.

Not sure there will be anything "automatic" about falling back to WTO rules as you suggest? Think the UK joined the WTO (1995) as part of the EU and as far as I know the UK will consequently have to renegotiate any trade deals it has with the WTO on its own terms, after it leaves the EU, as it will be a country outwith the EU. Therefore, I'd be very wary of any reasoning that assumes the UK will simply be able to retain the agreements reached as part of the EU, I might add that the same seems to me to apply to SNP Scotland's claim that an independent Scotland can simply adopt the agreements with the EU as reached previously by the UK.

I think the road to trading with the EU will not be as simple as some claim it will be ... (Only 161 countries in the WTO to reach agreement with by the way ... )

[RyeSloan]

Not sure there will be anything "automatic" about falling back to WTO rules as you suggest? Think the UK joined the WTO (1995) as part of the EU and as far as I know the UK will consequently have to renegotiate any trade deals it has with the WTO on its own terms, after it leaves the EU, as it will be a country outwith the EU. Therefore, I'd be very wary of any reasoning that assumes the UK will simply be able to retain the agreements reached as part of the EU, I might add that the same seems to me to apply to SNP Scotland's claim that an independent Scotland can simply adopt the agreements with the EU as reached previously by the UK.

I think the road to trading with the EU will not be as simple as some claim it will be ... (Only 161 countries in the WTO to reach agreement with by the way ... )

Yeah but there is no Walloon's in the WTO so there is always hope!

It's an interesting suggestion that the UK will not be covered by WTO rules either...that really is quite interesting and I wonder why it has not been highlighted more. I've read plenty of comments suggesting trade with the EU would be on WTO terms but not too much on the fact that those terms might not be applicable!

[JeMeSouviens]

Trade with the EU may be posdible, but it's not a certainty and the terms of any agreements are unknown.

It only takes one objection ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37749236

It is a certainty in the sense that there will 100% be an exchange of goods and services between the UK and the EU post-Brexit. In the absence of the Canadian deal in your link, I can still buy maple syrup in Tescos!

It is the associated costs of import/export without a deal and what that means for the viability of the companies that import/export that's the issue.

[JeMeSouviens]

And a UK without the single market access would still trade with the EU. There seems to be a rather bizarre assumption that not being in he single market = no trade with the EU.

I think the economic case is pretty clear...rUK is our largest trading partner, we share a land border thus a free flow of goods, services and people using the same currency, language and (largely) laws and regulations. That's not to say alternatives might not better not that there will not be negatives to the status quo just that such synergies would normally be considered beneficial to an economy.

You would be best to flip the question around though...what would be the economic benefits of NOT being in the UK and being a member of the EU. As this appears to be the preferred position of the Scottish Government I would hope that such analysis would be easily accessible.

An iScotland in the EU next to a hard Brexited-UK would be very competitive in terms of inward investment. Lower costs buying/selling from the EU market and access to its large labour market. Throw in an at least as well educated and skilled local workforce and no language difficulties, so much the better. Along with Ireland we'd stand a good chance of attracting relocation from rUK.

No financial passporting rights for the city of London would open up opportunities for Edinburgh.

[Hibbyradge]

Not my understanding...I understood that in the absence of any specific trade agreement the automatic fall back would be WTO rules.

You may be right, I'll try to check it out.

Getting deals done elsewhere will not be plain sailing, though. Will countries be prepared to jettison their existing agreements for the honour of trading with Britian?

Not unless it's worth their while which likely means us having to under cut other countries whose costs are much lower than the UKs.

It's a real mess, and it backs up your earlier point that no one is clear about the implications of Brexit.

[ronaldo7]

Not my understanding...I understood that in the absence of any specific trade agreement the automatic fall back would be WTO rules.

I'm not sure the Scottish Government will want to go as far down that road. They may be seeking a deal within EFTA for our trade. I'm not sure they'll be allowed to though.

[RyeSloan]

You may be right, I'll try to check it out.

Getting deals done elsewhere will not be plain sailing, though. Will countries be prepared to jettison their existing agreements for the honour of trading with Britian?

Not unless it's worth their while which likely means us having to under cut other countries whose costs are much lower than the UKs.

It's a real mess, and it backs up your earlier point that no one is clear about the implications of Brexit.

It's a mess alright! Chuck in huge government debt and deficits alongside wonky interest rates and you have a right pea souper...

The problem is an Indy Scotland will face just as many hurdles (if not more) so I'm not seeing much chance of the fog lifting anytime soon.

[RyeSloan]

I'm not sure the Scottish Government will want to go as far down that road. They may be seeking a deal within EFTA for our trade. I'm not sure they'll be allowed to though.

I'm all ears as to what the Scottish government is thinking...they are certainly not alone but so far it's been a lot of rhetoric and very little detail.

Lack of detail seems the way these days though...Indy1 was the same, Brexit even more so and now we have competing politicians saying this and that while no one really seems to have much of a clue what any of it would actually mean in reality.

[ronaldo7]

I'm all ears as to what the Scottish government is thinking...they are certainly not alone but so far it's been a lot of rhetoric and very little detail.

Lack of detail seems the way these days though...Indy1 was the same, Brexit even more so and now we have competing politicians saying this and that while no one really seems to have much of a clue what any of it would actually mean in reality.

You're not expecting them to give a running commentary are you?:wink:

The bit in bold...I'm afraid we've been handed a pup by the Tories which we didn't want. Trying to set out a Scottish Government position on Brexit before the UK gov have given even a hint of what they want is a non starter.

[One Day Soon]

You're not expecting them to give a running commentary are you?:wink:

The bit in bold...I'm afraid we've been handed a pup by the Tories which we didn't want. Trying to set out a Scottish Government position on Brexit before the UK gov have given even a hint of what they want is a non starter.

Why?

[ronaldo7]

Why?

It would be undermined/Slapped down, depending on which newspaper you read.

The Uk Gov are in the driving seat, they need to come out and give a clear steer to where we're going, and until then the Scottish Gov will keep their powder dry. We're supposed to be an "Equal partner" in this union, although it doesn't seem so.

http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Joint-Ministerial-Committee-on-EU-referendum-2d9c.aspx

As other posters have said, we're in uncharted waters, however at least we know the Scottish Gov does want to stay in the single market, and the EU family of nations.

Can you clarify the UK position on Brexit?

[ronaldo7]

It seems Theresa Maybe, might just agree with our First Minister about Brexit. I wonder when she'll get onside and stop trying to obstruct Scotlands wishes to stay in the single market.

https://t.co/zrDPOJvrFR

In other news, banks are on the brink of moving.

https://t.co/uDUA6sL33H.

£84Billion Brexit black hole.

http://files.heraldscotland.com/news/14822963.UK_Government__faces___84bn_Brexit_relate d_black_hole_/

There will be more to come, so we better buckle in, and get ready for the fight ahead.

[Hibrandenburg]

There will be more to come, so we better buckle in, and get ready for the fight ahead.

I've got beer and popcorn hoarded for this particular extravaganza.

[steakbake]

It looks messy. Very very messy. Brexit is a pandora'a box.

[RyeSloan]

It seems Theresa Maybe, might just agree with our First Minister about Brexit. I wonder when she'll get onside and stop trying to obstruct Scotlands wishes to stay in the single market.

https://t.co/zrDPOJvrFR

In other news, banks are on the brink of moving.

https://t.co/uDUA6sL33H.

£84Billion Brexit black hole.

http://files.heraldscotland.com/news/14822963.UK_Government__faces___84bn_Brexit_relate d_black_hole_/

There will be more to come, so we better buckle in, and get ready for the fight ahead.

Well a few less investment bankers won't make many people cry I would imagine. I find it hard to concern myself over the capital costs of Morgan Stanley and the like. And anyway they will save plenty in the UK by not having to meet the infuriatingly opaque MIfiD II rules... So as ever while there will be some businesses that find they have to adjust there will be plenty of opportunity the other way.

As for predicted black holes...aside from the fact that these figures are almost always nonsense the Tories have been battered for years for too far too fast and to borrow more so a few extra £BN should not be a problem now [emoji13]

Naa seriously there will clearly be a rather large adjustment required...quite if it will be worth it or not is impossible to tell but one thing is for sure the EU was becoming Hotel California and if not making the move now Britain would have been going where Europe was going whether we liked it or not.

So in other words we were dammed if we did and dammed if we didn't!

[Mikey]

I wonder when she'll get onside and stop trying to obstruct Scotlands wishes to stay in the single market.



She's too busy standing up for the 55% :wink:

[ronaldo7]

Brexit ministers hot line, not very hot at all.:greengrin

https://t.co/Q5xTo2zy2L

[Moulin Yarns]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785


Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the European Union, the High Court has ruled.
This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - beginning formal discussions with the EU - on its own.

[Ryan69]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785


Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the European Union, the High Court has ruled.
This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - beginning formal discussions with the EU - on its own.

Really cant understand why these overpayed idiot have to decide on something that the people they are serving chose todo.

Big delays coming up then !

[Aalborg Hibs]

Really cant understand why these overpayed idiot have to decide on something that the people they are serving chose todo.

Big delays coming up then !

Because the UK is a Parliamentary Democracy.
The referendum was advisory and not legally binding, as was explained in detail before the vote.

Allow a sitting Government to enact a change in constitutional matters using Royal Prerogative without consulting Parliament is setting a dangerous precedent.

Especially as the Tories are going to use 'Brexit' as a means of destroying workers' rights in the UK.

[Future17]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785


Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the European Union, the High Court has ruled.
This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - beginning formal discussions with the EU - on its own.

This should make things interesting. Vote your conscience/personal beliefs, or support the outcome of the referendum. I can see abstentions galore.

[Mon Dieu4]

Really cant understand why these overpayed idiot have to decide on something that the people they are serving chose todo.

Big delays coming up then !

Wouldn't imagine many delays to be honest, every MP who constituency voted out will have to do the same otherwise they will be out of a job come the next election, the likes of the London MPs will likely also have to tow the line, That leaves the SNP and a few stragglers who will vote against it, they will have more than enough to vote it through

[Moulin Yarns]

Wouldn't imagine many delays to be honest, every MP who constituency voted out will have to do the same otherwise they will be out of a job come the next election, the likes of the London MPs will likely also have to tow the line, That leaves the SNP and a few stragglers who will vote against it, they will have more than enough to vote it through


Can't be bothered going through it all


http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/electorate-and-count-information

[Mon Dieu4]

Can't be bothered going through it all


http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/electorate-and-count-information

382 areas with about 120 voting to remain, of those 120 Scotland made up 32 of them

[steakbake]

Because the UK is a Parliamentary Democracy.
The referendum was advisory and not legally binding, as was explained in detail before the vote.

Allow a sitting Government to enact a change in constitutional matters using Royal Prerogative without consulting Parliament is setting a dangerous precedent.

Especially as the Tories are going to use 'Brexit' as a means of destroying workers' rights in the UK.

It's more about the method of legislation being used. Until now, May would have been using her execute powers to make Brexit Brexit and not an act of parliament.

Many folks pissed off but they were the same ones moaning about the EU being undemocratic.

We owe this person a lot for having taken the issue up.

[wpj]

It's more about the method of legislation being used. Until now, May would have been using her execute powers to make Brexit Brexit and not an act of parliament.

Many folks pissed off but they were the same ones moaning about the EU being undemocratic.

We owe this person a lot for having taken the issue up.

She has received death threats apparantly and the seethe from the right wing press is shocking even by their low standards

[matty_f]

Really cant understand why these overpayed idiot have to decide on something that the people they are serving chose todo.

Big delays coming up then !
MP's duty is to act in the best interests of the country rather than doing what they're told.

Should be an interesting vote!

[snooky]

Check out today's headlines in The Express, Telegraph and The Daily Mail.

Oh and BTW, while we're talking about democracy......

[Future17]

MP's duty is to act in the best interests of the country rather than doing what they're told.

Should be an interesting vote!

More specifically, the role of an MP is to act in the best interests of the people who elected them (i.e. their constituency, not the nation).

[JimBHibees]

Check out today's headlines in The Express, Telegraph and The Daily Mail.

Oh and BTW, while we're talking about democracy......

Saw one of them in a supermarket earlier. We genuinely must have the worst print media on the planet. Incredibly right wing and xenophobic. Maybe the Mail will get to run another Hooray for the blackshirts headline the way it is going.

[overdrive]

Check out today's headlines in The Express, Telegraph and The Daily Mail.

Oh and BTW, while we're talking about democracy......

It has been suggested the Sun have altered the photo on their front page of the lady who brought the case so that she appears darker skinned than she is and so play up to the racist element of its readership. She certainly seems to be darker in the Sun compared to in the exact same photo in its sister paper The Times.

[RyeSloan]

It has been suggested the Sun have altered the photo on their front page of the lady who brought the case so that she appears darker skinned than she is and so play up to the racist element of its readership. She certainly seems to be darker in the Sun compared to in the exact same photo in its sister paper The Times.

Everything is possible but she has pretty dark skin already so doubt there is much need and the i has a very similar photo. If anything it's the Times photo that looks out of balance compared to the rest.

[Sir David Gray]

Huge blow for democracy.

What's the point in asking the people of this country how they want to shape the future of this country, when their decision is not taken as final?

The vote of 326 MPs could potentially overrule the wishes of almost 17.5 million members of the British public - that cannot be right.

[RyeSloan]

Huge blow for democracy.

What's the point in asking the people of this country how they want to shape the future of this country, when their decision is not taken as final?

The vote of 326 MPs could potentially overrule the wishes of almost 17.5 million members of the British public - that cannot be right.

I think it's being blown out of proportion. It's not much more than a legal technicality brought about by he fact we don't have a written constitution.

The government should simply put the motion to parliament asking them to give the PM the authorisation to enact the publics vote.

[Moulin Yarns]

Huge blow for democracy.

What's the point in asking the people of this country how they want to shape the future of this country, when their decision is not taken as final?

The vote of 326 MPs could potentially overrule the wishes of almost 17.5 million members of the British public - that cannot be right.

Unlike 2014 where there was a legal agreement that the result was binding the European referendum was only advisory not binding.

[Mon Dieu4]

Huge blow for democracy.

What's the point in asking the people of this country how they want to shape the future of this country, when their decision is not taken as final?

The vote of 326 MPs could potentially overrule the wishes of almost 17.5 million members of the British public - that cannot be right.

If it's the law it's the law, The Tories should have double checked all this stuff before the referendum took place

[lucky]

It's Parliament that makes the laws of this country, the independent judiciary interprets them. No government is allowed a free hand on issues effecting the lives of the citizens without authority of parliament. I would expect the parliamentarians to respect the wishes of the people and trigger article 50 but it's only right and proper our elected representatives get an opportunity to scrutinise the governments plans on this.

As for the right wing press and some MPs to attack the judges and whose who went to court over this issue they should hang their heads in shame.

[CropleyWasGod]

If people ...both pro and anti-Brexit...are going to rail about democracy, just wait until the House of Lords has its say on Article 50.

I hear there's more than a few openly-gay fencers amongst that lot. 😈

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[GlesgaeHibby]

Huge blow for democracy.

What's the point in asking the people of this country how they want to shape the future of this country, when their decision is not taken as final?

The vote of 326 MPs could potentially overrule the wishes of almost 17.5 million members of the British public - that cannot be right.

Not at all. It's only right and proper that parliament should be given the right to scrutinise the terms of the Brexit deal. Brexit is still going to happen, this ruling doesn't change that (unless we end up with a snap election and a party winning on a remain ticket).

Also worth remembering Theresa May said 'Brexit means Brexit'. The trouble with that is Brexit meant a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

The reaction from Farage is amusing - when he thought it may be 52% to 48% in favour of remain prior to the referendum he argued that would be grounds for a second referendum as it wouldn't be a decisive victory. Boot on the other foot now though....

[lord bunberry]

If people ...both pro and anti-Brexit...are going to rail about democracy, just wait until the House of Lords has its say on Article 50.

I hear there's more than a few openly-gay fencers amongst that lot. 😈

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
I don't know what a gay fencer is but I've got an image in my head that won't go away :greengrin

[snooky]

Anybody think that the recent selected headlines sail close to the wind of incitement?

[CropleyWasGod]

Anybody think that the recent selected headlines sail close to the wind of incitement?
Certainly homophobic in the Mail's case


Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Colr]

I see Oswald Farage want to raise a mob to protest outside the Court when the government appealmagainst having to account to parliament is heard.

[RyeSloan]

Well well Trump trumps Brexit!

Next up is Italy on the 5th Dec...a win for the opposition there will likely lead to a vote on their membership of the Euro

2016 may well become seen as the year the 'establishment' was given a right kicking.

Quite what it will all mean in the end is anyone's guess...

[Colr]

Huge blow for democracy.

What's the point in asking the people of this country how they want to shape the future of this country, when their decision is not taken as final?

The vote of 326 MPs could potentially overrule the wishes of almost 17.5 million members of the British public - that cannot be right.

The vote was to leave the EU not to give crate blanche to Teresa May and her 3 Brexiteers to negotiate whatever they feel without recourse to parliament. The deal must be struck for the benefit of the whole country and parliament represents the whole country (for better or worse).

[pontius pilate]

The vote was to leave the EU not to give crate blanche to Teresa May and her 3 Brexiteers to negotiate whatever they feel without recourse to parliament. The deal must be struck for the benefit of the whole country and parliament represents the whole country (for better or worse).



So if the vote was to leave the e.u why then are people going on about a hard/soft brexit when there is no such thing? Britain voted to leave the e.u and that is what it means it never voted to take the good bits and leave the bad bits as some are suggesting ( soft brexit) it really means leave. The referendum result gives the government the right to start the ball rolling by triggering article 50 and in some way giving them carte blanch they can then come back to parliament and give a vote on what they have achieved in negotiations. Unlike successiv governments since 1973 who have continued to give more and more and let the e.u expand without asking the people. Our parents voted for a common market not the quango that we have now

[Hibrandenburg]

Well well Trump trumps Brexit!

Next up is Italy on the 5th Dec...a win for the opposition there will likely lead to a vote on their membership of the Euro

2016 may well become seen as the year the 'establishment' was given a right kicking.



Quite what it will all mean in the end is anyone's guess...

.

[cabbageandribs1875]

there may be trouble ahead

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37944473

Liberal Democrat, Labour and SDLP MPs have told the BBC they are prepared to vote against triggering Article 50.
Lib Dem leader Tim Farron said his party would oppose it, unless they were promised a second referendum on the UK's Brexit deal with EU leaders.


Mr Farron, whose party has eight MPs in the Commons, told BBC Radio 4's Today: "Article 50 would proceed but only if there is a referendum on the terms of the deal and if the British people are not respected then, yes, that is a red line and we would vote against the government."


lol

[HappyAsHellas]

After Clegg the tea boy, I really didn't think the liberal party could sink any further but it seems I underestimated them.

[pontius pilate]

It wouldnt matter if they tried to block it the tories have the majority im sure it would pass

[Hibrandenburg]

It wouldnt matter if they tried to block it the tories have the majority im sure it would pass

There's a few tories have an invested interest in the EU. I wouldn't bet that they'll all tow the party line.

[pontius pilate]

There's a few tories have an invested interest in the EU. I wouldn't bet that they'll all tow the party line.

True but that can be said of any the opposition parties who are anti E.I who would be willin to pass the motion to trigger article 50