Brexit - what will happen next

[Hibbyradge]

This was posted on my FB wall.

The astute among you will have noticed that I declined to become involved in most of the hand wringing and wailing yesterday. I'm not going to start today, but I did realise yesterday that there is a need to clear the air.

I don't have many friends who voted Leave. The ones who did had slightly elevated reasons for their vote - they were genuinely concerned about democratic concepts. My posts were public, however, so like most people who publicly stated we should Remain, throughout the campaign I saw a litany of threats, abuse and claims that I was either some sort of elitist schill planting lies and deception or just speaking only for myself and should have my swimming pool privilege curtailed.

The campaign is now concluded and Leave has won. I accept the result, and have no intention of arguing that it was unfair, should be run again, or that despite the vote we should do anything else other than Leave.

Can I therefore ask those of you that made those accusations during this campaign to read the following in the frank and honest way it is written. I engaged with two posts yesterday, and despite the end of the campaign the accusations and abuse continue. So please let's put this to bed and move on:

1) The £350 million actually is a lie. It really doesn't exist. All the people who told you that, me included, weren't lying to you, it really isn't there. You can't therefore spend it, no matter how many 38 degrees petitions you sign. The reason Brexit leaders have suddenly gone quiet on it is because they were lying.

2) Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is a real thing, and to leave the EU we are actually going to have to invoke it. It actually is a very punitive piece of law meant to discourage countries from leaving. We cannot renegotiate it. The reason Cameron wouldn't invoke it yesterday, and now Johnson, Redwood and Hannan are saying we need time today is because it's absolutely terrible for the British economy. When Gove, Farage and Johnson told you repeatedly that we would get an even better deal out of the EU they were lying. We don't get to negotiate and the EU is going to offer us something much worse and we will have to accept it. We already had the best deal available. Honestly.

3) We do honestly need those immigrants. We need their work and their tax. Hannan last night was claiming this referendum was never about immigration. Johnson yesterday was saying that we couldn't really have a cap on immigration. Large employers were on the phone to their MPs yesterday telling them that no immigration caps are going to be acceptable. Because, and I really respectfully understand that some of you really won't like this, our immigration 'challenge' isn't going to be solved by leaving the EU. On balance, the vote itself will have no impact at all. Honestly. Judging by social media, though, many EU citizens might leave because they are worried by the campaign and the atmosphere. They are also worried that the money they are earning just got effectively cut by 11%. If you see a fall in the immigration numbers, that will be the reason; that we're seen as a less hospitable nation that isn't a great place to earn money. You won't see huge cuts to immigration because of your vote. Honestly.

4) those warnings you heard about the economy that were labelled 'Project Fear'. Inflation will rise - you will see this at the garage this week. The pound has lost 11% of its value. If you have a private pension plan it is worth less today - as much as 27% less. Billions of pounds have already been lost out of the U.K. Economy. More will go in the next seven years before we even get close to where we already were. We might, on balance, avoid a full blown recession. This will be achieved by gifting banks in excess of £250 billion we won't ever get back. People are going to lose their jobs. Areas of the country like Cornwall, the North East, East Anglia that relied on EU subsidies are in very deep trouble. Some of it got hyped up - Osborne's fake budget was stupid, it's why I didn't post it, but your taxes will have to rise to pay for all the fall out. We will have to borrow more money or shut more services. Economically, things will be much worse in the short term and slightly worse in the long term. And when you see a bounce in the value of sterling and the stock market next week and it's hailed as the world realising Britain is great; that's not true either. We are holding a garage sale of our assets and just announced a two for one offer. Economists and experts were right. Michael Gove was wrong.

I know you genuinely believed I and others were lying or seeking to serve our own interests, but I honestly wasn't.

I'm not a genius or a psychic. I read a lot and try and get information from good sources. That doesn't make me better than you or cleverer than you, and offering you my opinion after I've done that isn't meant to be patronising. I completely understand that sometimes it reads like it is, because I get frustrated when things I know to be correct are answered by comments like "never heard of article 50, this vote isn't about that'.

I honestly hope you can make this work. I genuinely find the back pedalling from Brexit deeply distasteful and dishonest; people voted to Leave and the U.K. should leave. But let's never have another vote held in an atmosphere like this ever again.

There, I've said everything I have to say about it.

Now, about those music venues.......

[Kavinho]

This was posted on my FB wall.

The astute among you will have noticed that I declined to become involved in most of the hand wringing and wailing yesterday. I'm not going to start today, but I did realise yesterday that there is a need to clear the air.

I don't have many friends who voted Leave. The ones who did had slightly elevated reasons for their vote - they were genuinely concerned about democratic concepts. My posts were public, however, so like most people who publicly stated we should Remain, throughout the campaign I saw a litany of threats, abuse and claims that I was either some sort of elitist schill planting lies and deception or just speaking only for myself and should have my swimming pool privilege curtailed.

The campaign is now concluded and Leave has won. I accept the result, and have no intention of arguing that it was unfair, should be run again, or that despite the vote we should do anything else other than Leave.

Can I therefore ask those of you that made those accusations during this campaign to read the following in the frank and honest way it is written. I engaged with two posts yesterday, and despite the end of the campaign the accusations and abuse continue. So please let's put this to bed and move on:

1) The £350 million actually is a lie. It really doesn't exist. All the people who told you that, me included, weren't lying to you, it really isn't there. You can't therefore spend it, no matter how many 38 degrees petitions you sign. The reason Brexit leaders have suddenly gone quiet on it is because they were lying.

2) Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is a real thing, and to leave the EU we are actually going to have to invoke it. It actually is a very punitive piece of law meant to discourage countries from leaving. We cannot renegotiate it. The reason Cameron wouldn't invoke it yesterday, and now Johnson, Redwood and Hannan are saying we need time today is because it's absolutely terrible for the British economy. When Gove, Farage and Johnson told you repeatedly that we would get an even better deal out of the EU they were lying. We don't get to negotiate and the EU is going to offer us something much worse and we will have to accept it. We already had the best deal available. Honestly.

3) We do honestly need those immigrants. We need their work and their tax. Hannan last night was claiming this referendum was never about immigration. Johnson yesterday was saying that we couldn't really have a cap on immigration. Large employers were on the phone to their MPs yesterday telling them that no immigration caps are going to be acceptable. Because, and I really respectfully understand that some of you really won't like this, our immigration 'challenge' isn't going to be solved by leaving the EU. On balance, the vote itself will have no impact at all. Honestly. Judging by social media, though, many EU citizens might leave because they are worried by the campaign and the atmosphere. They are also worried that the money they are earning just got effectively cut by 11%. If you see a fall in the immigration numbers, that will be the reason; that we're seen as a less hospitable nation that isn't a great place to earn money. You won't see huge cuts to immigration because of your vote. Honestly.

4) those warnings you heard about the economy that were labelled 'Project Fear'. Inflation will rise - you will see this at the garage this week. The pound has lost 11% of its value. If you have a private pension plan it is worth less today - as much as 27% less. Billions of pounds have already been lost out of the U.K. Economy. More will go in the next seven years before we even get close to where we already were. We might, on balance, avoid a full blown recession. This will be achieved by gifting banks in excess of £250 billion we won't ever get back. People are going to lose their jobs. Areas of the country like Cornwall, the North East, East Anglia that relied on EU subsidies are in very deep trouble. Some of it got hyped up - Osborne's fake budget was stupid, it's why I didn't post it, but your taxes will have to rise to pay for all the fall out. We will have to borrow more money or shut more services. Economically, things will be much worse in the short term and slightly worse in the long term. And when you see a bounce in the value of sterling and the stock market next week and it's hailed as the world realising Britain is great; that's not true either. We are holding a garage sale of our assets and just announced a two for one offer. Economists and experts were right. Michael Gove was wrong.

I know you genuinely believed I and others were lying or seeking to serve our own interests, but I honestly wasn't.

I'm not a genius or a psychic. I read a lot and try and get information from good sources. That doesn't make me better than you or cleverer than you, and offering you my opinion after I've done that isn't meant to be patronising. I completely understand that sometimes it reads like it is, because I get frustrated when things I know to be correct are answered by comments like "never heard of article 50, this vote isn't about that'.

I honestly hope you can make this work. I genuinely find the back pedalling from Brexit deeply distasteful and dishonest; people voted to Leave and the U.K. should leave. But let's never have another vote held in an atmosphere like this ever again.

There, I've said everything I have to say about it.

Now, about those music venues.......


I think that this is a brilliant post. Would have expected a reply or two by now to the points you are raising.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I think that this is a brilliant post. Would have expected a reply or two by now to the points you are raising.

I thought i heard on the news tonight the stock market has recovered its value? Might have misheard

[High-On-Hibs]

I thought i heard on the news tonight the stock market has recovered its value? Might have misheard

Do you honestly think that the stock market revolves around the UK economy?

If the stock market is doing well, but the pound remains weak. Then Brussels will have even less motive to negotiate a single market deal with the UK Government.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Do you honestly think that the stock market revolves around the UK economy?

If the stock market is doing well, but the pound remains weak. Then Brussels will have even less motive to negotiate a single market deal with the UK Government.

Just throwing it in there - i dont know.

[steakbake]

Knock down prices makes a busy market...

[High-On-Hibs]

On another note. The post that the OP quoted is longer than one paragraph. The Be-leavers struggle with anything longer than a sentence. That's why cheap empty slogans were enough to sway them.

[RyeSloan]

On another note. The post that the OP quoted is longer than one paragraph. The Be-leavers struggle with anything longer than a sentence. That's why cheap empty slogans were enough to sway them.

Oh man your trolling is getting worse...which is an impressive feat.

It's interesting that you are not against a Scottish currency knowing that such a move could result in extreme volatility and a huge transition period, possibly up to 15 years before the full benefits could be realised (if at all as it would be a rocky road) as well as wider Scottish independence which would involve Scotland undoing almost 300 years of political and monetary union with our biggest trading partner and the only country we have a land border with. Yet dismiss any claims that the UK disentangling itself from the EU and developing its own trade and immigration policies and everything else over time with the wider world is some sort of mentalism that is doomed to fail.

Seems to me that both Leave and Yes promote some flavour of Independence but your viewpoint appears to be that one is the best idea ever and the other sheer folly. Yet both require potential short to medium pain and a huge amount of negotiation and realignment of fiscal policies, monetary policies, people and economies.

Such a stance is some what puzzling..especially when you consider that the EU has a known ambition for ever more political union, so a mandate to continue to centralise power yet Westminster has been steadily devolving power. You would think someone that believes so strongly in 'Independence' would see the EU as the biggest threat to self determination not Westminster.

If you can prevent yourself from posting more trolling it would be interesting (mildly at least ;-)) to understand why that is the case.

[High-On-Hibs]

Oh man your trolling is getting worse...which is an impressive feat.

It's interesting that you are not against a Scottish currency knowing that such a move could result in extreme volatility and a huge transition period, possibly up to 15 years before the full benefits could be realised (if at all as it would be a rocky road) as well as wider Scottish independence which would involve Scotland undoing almost 300 years of political and monetary union with our biggest trading partner and the only country we have a land border with. Yet dismiss any claims that the UK disentangling itself from the EU and developing its own trade and immigration policies and everything else over time with the wider world is some sort of mentalism that is doomed to fail.

Seems to me that both Leave and Yes promote some flavour of Independence but your viewpoint appears to be that one is the best idea ever and the other sheer folly. Yet both require potential short to medium pain and a huge amount of negotiation and realignment of fiscal policies, monetary policies, people and economies.

Such a stance is some what puzzling..especially when you consider that the EU has a known ambition for ever more political union, so a mandate to continue to centralise power yet Westminster has been steadily devolving power. You would think someone that believes so strongly in 'Independence' would see the EU as the biggest threat to self determination not Westminster.

If you can prevent yourself from posting more trolling it would be interesting (mildly at least ;-)) to understand why that is the case.

You talk about volatility in the event of Scotland having it's own currency. If you want the perfect example of volatility right now, look no further than the British Pound which is now pinning all it's hopes on the bubble of the housing market. Just wait until that implodes.

The UK is our largest trading partner (within the European Union). A UK without access to the single market will not be our largest trading partner, they couldn't possibly be. The vast majority of trade that goes on between Scotland and the rest of the UK comes from imported stock through the single market.

The UK can not develop it's own trade and immigration policies, as they both go hand in hand. You can't have open trade with the border shutters up. The UK Government knows this, which is why they're bricking themselves. They know they have no choice but to clamp down on immigration due to political demand. But they also know the detrimental effects this will have on trade and the overall UK Economy.

There is nothing puzzling about my stance at all. I'm not sure if you're being intentionally naive or not. But your position on Scotland somehow being better off in a UK with closed borders and no access to the single market because of 300 years of "friendship" holds no weight whatsoever.

[ballengeich]

There is a possibility that a rerun of the referendum will occur. The majority of MPs don't want an exit, and I suspect that most European leaders don't either, despite the statements now being made. Once passions have cooled they'll get down to calculation of how to achieve their goal.

The whole thing was bizarre. A referendum is normally held to gain validation for change. This one was designed to de-fang internal Tory opposition and UKIP and the political elite had given no consideration to the consequences of defeat. Given the relatively close result in percentages and the lack of an exit plan prior to the vote, I can see another vote being called with people being asked to reconsider once there's an definite alternative actually laid out.

Our vote will have an effect on other countries. Is the EU (in particular the Eurozone) to be a nation with a central government or an exercise in co-operation between independent nations? I think the politicians in Brussels would like the former. I'm not sure that they'll have general support from the people they want to rule.

[Finn2015]

There is a possibility that a rerun of the referendum will occur. The majority of MPs don't want an exit, and I suspect that most European leaders don't either, despite the statements now being made. Once passions have cooled they'll get down to calculation of how to achieve their goal.

The whole thing was bizarre. A referendum is normally held to gain validation for change. This one was designed to de-fang internal Tory opposition and UKIP and the political elite had given no consideration to the consequences of defeat. Given the relatively close result in percentages and the lack of an exit plan prior to the vote, I can see another vote being called with people being asked to reconsider once there's an definite alternative actually laid out.

Our vote will have an effect on other countries. Is the EU (in particular the Eurozone) to be a nation with a central government or an exercise in co-operation between independent nations? I think the politicians in Brussels would like the former. I'm not sure that they'll have general support from the people they want to rule.

So in other words cos the majority of MPs wanted to remain so when the dust settles, they will manipulate things to get their own way and ignore this referendum where the majority voted leave. True democracy

[RyeSloan]

You talk about volatility in the event of Scotland having it's own currency. If you want the perfect example of volatility right now, look no further than the British Pound which is now pinning all it's hopes on the bubble of the housing market. Just wait until that implodes. The UK is our largest trading partner (within the European Union). A UK without access to the single market will not be our largest trading partner, they couldn't possibly be. The vast majority of trade that goes on between Scotland and the rest of the UK comes from imported stock through the single market. The UK can not develop it's own trade and immigration policies, as they both go hand in hand. You can't have open trade with the border shutters up. The UK Government knows this, which is why they're bricking themselves. They know they have no choice but to clamp down on immigration due to political demand. But they also know the detrimental effects this will have on trade and the overall UK Economy. There is nothing puzzling about my stance at all. I'm not sure if you're being intentionally naive or not. But your position on Scotland somehow being better off in a UK with closed borders and no access to the single market because of 300 years of "friendship" holds no weight whatsoever.

Thanks for the response but you didn't answer the question at all apart form saying there is nothing puzzling about your stance...in your opinion clearly not but I was interested in some reasons as to why not.

Let's be clear on on a few things here.

The U.K. WILL have access to the single market through what ever agreement is reached. It's quite likely that some sort of tariff be that a set payment or a tariff on goods will be required. The EU imports huge amounts of goods from outwith the single market now the UK would be in no different a position to those countries.

The borders will also not be closed. There will be a immigration policy that will allow the UK to limit or expand the numbers as it sees fit but using hyperbole like 'closed borders' is nonsense. Sure the numbers might be lower (they might not be) but maybe the mix might be better in terms of education and what they bring to the economy. There is plenty of options, zero immigration is not one of them.

Anyway I asked you to at least try and explain how you could support a decade or more of disruption to Scotland and its economy but be so clear on your dislike of the U.K. essentially seeking independence from the EU but it looks like we will just leave it there as I wasn't overly interested in hyperbole or dismissing the intrinsic links Scotland has with rUK as mere friendship..

[ballengeich]

So in other words cos the majority of MPs wanted to remain so when the dust settles, they will manipulate things to get their own way and ignore this referendum where the majority voted leave. True democracy

They won't ignore the result, but I can see the question being put again once the consequences of leave are clearer.

[High-On-Hibs]

Thanks for the response but you didn't answer the question at all apart form saying there is nothing puzzling about your stance...in your opinion clearly not but I was interested in some reasons as to why not.

Let's be clear on on a few things here.

The U.K. WILL have access to the single market through what ever agreement is reached. It's quite likely that some sort of tariff be that a set payment or a tariff on goods will be required. The EU imports huge amounts of goods from outwith the single market now the UK would be in no different a position to those countries.

The borders will also not be closed. There will be a immigration policy that will allow the UK to limit or expand the numbers as it sees fit but using hyperbole like 'closed borders' is nonsense. Sure the numbers might be lower (they might not be) but maybe the mix might be better in terms of education and what they bring to the economy. There is plenty of options, zero immigration is not one of them.

Anyway I asked you to at least try and explain how you could support a decade or more of disruption to Scotland and its economy but be so clear on your dislike of the U.K. essentially seeking independence from the EU but it looks like we will just leave it there as I wasn't overly interested in hyperbole or dismissing the intrinsic links Scotland has with rUK as mere friendship..

We're going around in circles here. The UK will only have access to the single market if they allow the free movement of Labour, tariffs or not. If they allow the free movement of Labour, people will then defect to UKIP once they play the "betrayal" card. Which will lead to a government that will drag us out of the single market if the Conservatives don't. Either way, the UK will be dragged out of the single market.

I would support a disruption to the Scottish Economy in the event of independence, because I believe it would be less of a disruption than the current path that we're on.

[RyeSloan]

We're going around in circles here. The UK will only have access to the single market if they allow the free movement of Labour, tariffs or not. If they allow the free movement of Labour, people will then defect to UKIP once they play the "betrayal" card. Which will lead to a government that will drag us out of the single market if the Conservatives don't. Either way, the UK will be dragged out of the single market. I would support a disruption to the Scottish Economy in the event of independence, because I believe it would be less of a disruption than the current path that we're on.

But we could still export to the EU in the same way non EU countries do now...as I said there would be costs attached but then there is costs attached to being in the EU. The point is that the EU market will still be available to the UK but on different terms, but so will the rest of the worlds markets be available on terms the UK and the other party agree on. All of that can be done without having to wait on the EU to decide those terms or indeed on terms more aligned to the UK's interests than those that were agreed by the EU. And all of that could be achieved without having to agree on free movement of labour.
China for example exports twice as much to the EU as it imports yet there is no free movement of labour with there.

OK so now we have it, you believe Scotland independence will be less disruptive to Scotland and its economy (even if we introduced a new currency) than a Brexit. I'm wholly unconvinced that would be the case.

[mmmmhibby]

Do you honestly think that the stock market revolves around the UK economy?

If the stock market is doing well, but the pound remains weak. Then Brussels will have even less motive to negotiate a single market deal with the UK Government.

The big talking on trade deals will be done by the Germans, French and the Dutch, Juncker and his clan will have to take a wide berth, they aint fit for purpose.

[High-On-Hibs]

But we could still export to the EU in the same way non EU countries do now...as I said there would be costs attached but then there is costs attached to being in the EU. The point is that the EU market will still be available to the UK but on different terms, but so will the rest of the worlds markets be available on terms the UK and the other party agree on. All of that can be done without having to wait on the EU to decide those terms or indeed on terms more aligned to the UK's interests than those that were agreed by the EU. And all of that could be achieved without having to agree on free movement of labour.
China for example exports twice as much to the EU as it imports yet there is no free movement of labour with there.

OK so now we have it, you believe Scotland independence will be less disruptive to Scotland and its economy (even if we introduced a new currency) than a Brexit. I'm wholly unconvinced that would be the case.

China is the worlds largest exporter. Of course exceptions are going to be made in Chinas case. Every country in the world wants China as a trading partner, they would be crazy not to. The UK is not China, the same exceptions will not be made in our case. Angela Merkel has been very clear about this. The UK will not have access to the single market if they remove the free movement of Labour.

Brexiters may want to believe that the UK is considered as important as China on the international stage. It's a far cry from reality however.

[mmmmhibby]

You talk about volatility in the event of Scotland having it's own currency. If you want the perfect example of volatility right now, look no further than the British Pound which is now pinning all it's hopes on the bubble of the housing market. Just wait until that implodes.

The UK is our largest trading partner (within the European Union). A UK without access to the single market will not be our largest trading partner, they couldn't possibly be. The vast majority of trade that goes on between Scotland and the rest of the UK comes from imported stock through the single market.

The UK can not develop it's own trade and immigration policies, as they both go hand in hand. You can't have open trade with the border shutters up. The UK Government knows this, which is why they're bricking themselves. They know they have no choice but to clamp down on immigration due to political demand. But they also know the detrimental effects this will have on trade and the overall UK Economy.

There is nothing puzzling about my stance at all. I'm not sure if you're being intentionally naive or not. But your position on Scotland somehow being better off in a UK with closed borders and no access to the single market because of 300 years of "friendship" holds no weight whatsoever.

Ok, Scotland export more to England than the entire EU, cutting off yer nose to spite yer face likes. We would pay tariffs to England, our biggest trade partner, have you never thought about that scenario if we went independent?

[RyeSloan]

China is the worlds largest exporter. Of course exceptions are going to be made in Chinas case. Every country in the world wants China as a trading partner, they would be crazy not to. The UK is not China, the same exceptions will not be made in our case. Angela Merkel has been very clear about this. The UK will not have access to the single market if they remove the free movement of Labour. Brexiters may want to believe that the UK is considered as important as China on the international stage. It's a far cry from reality however.

You are not getting the point...there are many many countries the EU trades with without freedom of movement requirements. There is zero reason to believe that the UK could not join them.

It's also interesting to note that the two largest importers of goods after the US are China and Russia with whom there are huge geo political differences yet they have a rather lucrative trade with the EU. Your supposition therefore that the UK will not be able to trade with the EU without free movement of labour is well wide of the mark...Turkey, Japan, South Korea, India and Brazil all do so.

[McD]

We're going around in circles here. The UK will only have access to the single market if they allow the free movement of Labour, tariffs or not. If they allow the free movement of Labour, people will then defect to UKIP once they play the "betrayal" card. Which will lead to a government that will drag us out of the single market if the Conservatives don't. Either way, the UK will be dragged out of the single market.

I would support a disruption to the Scottish Economy in the event of independence, because I believe it would be less of a disruption than the current path that we're on.


Youre speaking very confidently about something that is complete supposition. It's also based on a), the assumption that the UK electorate will 'defect to UKIP', a party which has little actual political clout at the moment (despite all the right wing enthusiasm currently), and is single issue (so a rather large risk to vote into government), and b) even if that did all come to pass, do you think even UKIP would torpedo Britain's ability to trade with our (all of Britain's that is) biggest trade partners?

Your last statement is 100% guesswork, so using the word 'will' is stretching it. At best, it's a possibility.

[Pete]

What will happen next?

The BOE say that interest rates will be cut, which totally contradicts what George Osborne said would happen if we voted to leave.

Happy days for those of us with mortgages. Well, happy days if you still have a job in a few months to pay for it. The leave campaign also said that tens of thousands of jobs would go if we left the EU so...

[grunt]

The leave campaign also said that tens of thousands of jobs would go if we left the EU so...The leave campaign said this?

[Pete]

The leave campaign said this?

Sorry, I meant remain. Not concentrating. :greengrin

[grunt]

Sorry, I meant remain. Not concentrating. :greengrinThat's ok. I don't think anyone was concentrating during the referendum campaign.

[Hibrandenburg]

Thanks for the response but you didn't answer the question at all apart form saying there is nothing puzzling about your stance...in your opinion clearly not but I was interested in some reasons as to why not.

Let's be clear on on a few things here.

The U.K. WILL have access to the single market through what ever agreement is reached. It's quite likely that some sort of tariff be that a set payment or a tariff on goods will be required. The EU imports huge amounts of goods from outwith the single market now the UK would be in no different a position to those countries.

The borders will also not be closed. There will be a immigration policy that will allow the UK to limit or expand the numbers as it sees fit but using hyperbole like 'closed borders' is nonsense. Sure the numbers might be lower (they might not be) but maybe the mix might be better in terms of education and what they bring to the economy. There is plenty of options, zero immigration is not one of them.

Anyway I asked you to at least try and explain how you could support a decade or more of disruption to Scotland and its economy but be so clear on your dislike of the U.K. essentially seeking independence from the EU but it looks like we will just leave it there as I wasn't overly interested in hyperbole or dismissing the intrinsic links Scotland has with rUK as mere friendship..

If the UK wants access to the EU trading zone then it will have to accept freedom of movement with the EU.
There will either be no change to freedom of movement or no Deal.

[Colr]

Was in Central London yesterday where a big pro-remain rally was taking part. Overwhelmingly attended by young people.

They need to get engaged here and also to demand the vote is dropped to 16. They are being shafted by the boomer generation and need to start fighting back.

The old are shutting off their opportunities whilst demanding kore and more of the pot for their health and social care whilst the young are being saddled with debts for education and denied access to home ownership.

There's a massive inter-generational crisis arising out of Brexit but young people need to stop taking it on the chin.

If they want in,they have to make it clear that they are not going to accept taking all the downside.

[Jack]

Was in Central London yesterday where a big pro-remain rally was taking part. Overwhelmingly attended by young people.

They need to get engaged here and also to demand the vote is dropped to 16. They are being shafted by the boomer generation and need to start fighting back.

The old are shutting off their opportunities whilst demanding kore and more of the pot for their health and social care whilst the young are being saddled with debts for education and denied access to home ownership.

There's a massive inter-generational crisis arising out of Brexit but young people need to stop taking it on the chin.

If they want in,they have to make it clear that they are not going to accept taking all the downside.

If the younger generation had come out and voted then the result may have been different. Roughly two thirds didn't vote.

Of those eligible to vote a proportionately higher number of older folk voted to remain than younger folk.

[Colr]

If the younger generation had come out and voted then the result may have been different. Roughly two thirds didn't vote.

Of those eligible to vote a proportionately higher number of older folk voted to remain than younger folk.

It's incredible ****wittery that they don't and it didn't happen on the Scottish referendum.

Schools should definitely do more to make kids more engaged in political issues as part of their pastoral role.

I was dumbfounded by some of the vox pops on the TV during the campaign some young people saying nobody had explained what it was about to them!! So much for the connected generation - surely they can google it!!

[magpie1892]

On another note. The post that the OP quoted is longer than one paragraph. The Be-leavers struggle with anything longer than a sentence. That's why cheap empty slogans were enough to sway them.

A spectacularly ignorant post, regardless of which way you voted (or not).

[steakbake]

It's incredible ****wittery that they don't and it didn't happen on the Scottish referendum.

Schools should definitely do more to make kids more engaged in political issues as part of their pastoral role.

I was dumbfounded by some of the vox pops on the TV during the campaign some young people saying nobody had explained what it was about to them!! So much for the connected generation - surely they can google it!!

Oh man, that really rips my knitting when you see some halfwit looking all confused and complaining about "they don't give you enough information to make a decision" kind of thing.Very common on Question Time, vox pops and the like.

[Hibrandenburg]

Oh man, that really rips my knitting when you see some halfwit looking all confused and complaining about "they don't give you enough information to make a decision" kind of thing.Very common on Question Time, vox pops and the like.

Even worse are those who say "stop talking about politics, it's boring". They're also normally the first to complain about changes too.

[heretoday]

It's incredible ****wittery that they don't and it didn't happen on the Scottish referendum.

Schools should definitely do more to make kids more engaged in political issues as part of their pastoral role.

I was dumbfounded by some of the vox pops on the TV during the campaign some young people saying nobody had explained what it was about to them!! So much for the connected generation - surely they can google it!!

They certainly spend enough time with their heads attached to various devices.

[SHODAN]

Theresa May openly admitting she'll use the future of EU Citizens in the UK as a pawn in negotiations for access to the single market. Absolutely disgusting.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Theresa May openly admitting she'll use the future of EU Citizens in the UK as a pawn in negotiations for access to the single market. Absolutely disgusting.

Its all just posturing pre negotiation.

Its absolutely our politicians job now to get the uk the best possible deal - this is all just part of that.

[Moulin Yarns]

Its all just posturing pre negotiation.

Its absolutely our politicians job now to get the uk the best possible deal - this is all just part of that.

You mean, all the fear voiced by remainers is coming true. Whad hae thunk it!!!?

[High-On-Hibs]

Theresa May openly admitting she'll use the future of EU Citizens in the UK as a pawn in negotiations for access to the single market. Absolutely disgusting.

She won't though. Not unless she wants to piss off thousands of Brits abroad.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

You mean, all the fear voiced by remainers is coming true. Whad hae thunk it!!!?

I dont follow?

[marinello59]

Its all just posturing pre negotiation.

Its absolutely our politicians job now to get the uk the best possible deal - this is all just part of that.

Posturing?
Letting residents of our country feel their future here is in doubt as part of political bargaining is downright nasty.

[Moulin Yarns]

I dont follow?


Posturing?
Letting residents of our country feel their future here is in doubt as part of political bargaining is downright nasty.

That answers your question.

[Future17]

Whatever the Tories do about residency and related issues, they'll just change the electoral franchise to protect their own interests afterwards.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Posturing?
Letting residents of our country feel their future here is in doubt as part of political bargaining is downright nasty.

Possibly, but it was always going to be thus. The government has a duty to the whole country now to be fierce negotiators

Giving anything away pre negotiation is daft.

Plus, thwir futures here are in doubt, thats just the reality. Juat as brits abroad future isnin doubt.

Personally i dont see a cat in hell's chance of those already here not being allowed to stay, but as of two years from now, they prob wobnt have that right.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Whatever the Tories do about residency and related issues, they'll just change the electoral franchise to protect their own interests afterwards.

How might they do that?

You do know current electoral boundaries favour the labour party?

[Jack]

Torys do what's best for Torys and their pals. The rest of us are plebs and what happens to us doesn't matter.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Torys do what's best for Torys and their pals. The rest of us are plebs and what happens to us doesn't matter.

Its reductive stuff like this that lets political discourse down.

Also, given most of their pals didnt want brexit, how does that fit with your narrative?

[Jack]

Its reductive stuff like this that lets political discourse down.

Also, given most of their pals didnt want brexit, how does that fit with your narrative?

There will be those that backed both sides of the debate.

Just look at the case of one Boris Johnson and his journey to lead the leavers. Up to a couple of weeks before he was remain!

Look at the recent May statement. Apparently willing to abuse the rights the million or so EU migrants that are currently contributing to the UK in so many ways as pawns in a political tit for tat.

Whatever happens the rich will continue to get considerably richer, queues at the foodbanks will get considerably longer and the rest of us will be too busy trying to keep our heads above water to notice.

It's easier saying Torys do what's best for Torys and their pals. The rest of us are plebs and what happens to us doesn't matter. Folk know what I mean.

[Moulin Yarns]

A MUST watch


https://www.facebook.com/UniversityofLiverpool/videos/1304633102897424/

[Jack]

A MUST watch


https://www.facebook.com/UniversityofLiverpool/videos/1304633102897424/

Academics coming out in force!

https://www.nchlondon.ac.uk/2016/07/01/professor-c-graylings-letter-650-mps-urging-parliament-not-support-motion-trigger-article-50-lisbon-treaty-1-july-2016/

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

There will be those that backed both sides of the debate.

Just look at the case of one Boris Johnson and his journey to lead the leavers. Up to a couple of weeks before he was remain!

Look at the recent May statement. Apparently willing to abuse the rights the million or so EU migrants that are currently contributing to the UK in so many ways as pawns in a political tit for tat.

Whatever happens the rich will continue to get considerably richer, queues at the foodbanks will get considerably longer and the rest of us will be too busy trying to keep our heads above water to notice.

It's easier saying Torys do what's best for Torys and their pals. The rest of us are plebs and what happens to us doesn't matter. Folk know what I mean.

Ok, folk know what you mean.

Ill leave you to get back to the breadline of your victorian dystopia

[CropleyWasGod]

Academics coming out in force!

https://www.nchlondon.ac.uk/2016/07/01/professor-c-graylings-letter-650-mps-urging-parliament-not-support-motion-trigger-article-50-lisbon-treaty-1-july-2016/
Whilst I agree with their concerns, the idea that the Commons might knock back the referendum vote niggles at my sense of democracy.

Given the debate about the undemocratic nature of the EU, it would be the ultimate irony if the Commons respected the vote, but the Lords rejected it.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[High-On-Hibs]

Its reductive stuff like this that lets political discourse down.

Also, given most of their pals didnt want brexit, how does that fit with your narrative?

How do you know which one's really wanted brexit and which ones didn't? Based on the side they campaigned on? lol

Let me tell you something about British Politicians. They will do exactly what they have to do to further their own personal careers, even if it means standing on a side that they don't really agree with. That's what Boris Johnson did and it backfired on him spectacularly.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

How do you know which one's really wanted brexit and which ones didn't? Based on the side they campaigned on? lol

Let me tell you something about British Politicians. They will do exactly what they have to do to further their own personal careers, even if it means standing on a side that they don't really agree with. That's what Boris Johnson did and it backfired on him spectacularly.

I presumed he meant wealthy & corporate interests - the majority of whom were remain.

Thanks for the lesson. Im sure that applies to most politicians - i doubt jean claude juncker could have reached such high office by pursuing domestic politics in luxemburg.

[jonty]

Vince from Hull wants to put up a fence between England and Scotland, mainly because Scotland doesn't want to be part of England.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/brexit-voter-calls-for-fence-along-scotland-england-border-1-4168773

He's not wrong.

[Mon Dieu4]

Guy on BBC just now wants to shut the gates, we are full!!! Oh but he has 6 kids and a horse, clearly doesn't do irony

[PeeJay]

I presumed he meant wealthy & corporate interests - the majority of whom were remain.

Thanks for the lesson. Im sure that applies to most politicians - i doubt jean claude juncker could have reached such high office by pursuing domestic politics in luxemburg.

You may doubt it, but that is exactly what he did - he was Prime Minister in Luxembourg from 1995 up to 2013 ...

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

You may doubt it, but that is exactly what he did - he was Prime Minister in Luxembourg from 1995 up to 2013 ...

Thats my point. Nobody cares about the PM of luxemburg. His career has been defined by the EU - i mean can anyone name any other former or current luxemburg PMs?

[PeeJay]

Thats my point. Nobody cares about the PM of luxemburg. His career has been defined by the EU - i mean can anyone name any other former or current luxemburg PMs?

Santer also comes to mind ... he's hardy a political gnome either. They have both played important roles in shaping the modern-day European Union. Anyway, isn't this some sort of arrogance on your part? No-body cares? A case could be made for saying that these guys have contributed more to making the EU evolve than any of the "big weights" from the important countries like the UK (?).

[steakbake]

Thats my point. Nobody cares about the PM of luxemburg. His career has been defined by the EU - i mean can anyone name any other former or current luxemburg PMs?

See, that's the kind of disrespect and jingoism that was the trademark of Leave.

[Geo_1875]

Thats my point. Nobody cares about the PM of luxemburg. His career has been defined by the EU - i mean can anyone name any other former or current luxemburg PMs?

What you mean is YOU don't care about the PM of Luxemburg (it's got an initial capital) and YOU can't name any other former or current Luxemburg PMs.

That kind of attitude would get you elected leader of UKIP.

[CapitalGreen]

Thats my point. Nobody cares about the PM of luxemburg. His career has been defined by the EU - i mean can anyone name any other former or current luxemburg PMs?

and the mask slips...

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Santer also comes to mind ... he's hardy a political gnome either. They have both played important roles in shaping the modern-day European Union. Anyway, isn't this some sort of arrogance on your part? No-body cares? A case could be made for saying that these guys have contributed more to making the EU evolve than any of the "big weights" from the important countries like the UK (?).

Youre missing the point.

Yes, they have made big impacts on europe, that is the whole point. Europe has served them very well, of course they are committed federalists.

Otherwise they would be another (unknown) former PM of Lux.

They are feathering their own nest as much as any other politician does.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

See, that's the kind of disrespect and jingoism that was the trademark of Leave.

Ha ha, ok then.

Out come all these committed Europhiles who are students of minor European countries and their domestic political systems.

I didnt realise there wered so many students of Luxemburgian (?) politics on Hibs.Net.

Shame on me.:blah:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

What you mean is YOU don't care about the PM of Luxemburg (it's got an initial capital) and YOU can't name any other former or current Luxemburg PMs.

That kind of attitude would get you elected leader of UKIP.

Away and boil yer heid.

Are you seriously telling me that you know, and that more importantly, the wider public, anywhere in Europe, know, or care about who the PM of Lux is?

Absolute tripe.

But yes you are right, i dont care about the politics, or political leaders of Lux. And to make a name for themselves, former Lux PMs have to become committed European federalists.

If only they knew they were all so famous and admired here in Scotland...

[Rasta_Hibs]

What happens next?

Obviously I am no expert but I understand this in the Brexit saga:

The Italian banks will need another bail out from the EU tax payer and now thankfully the people of the UK do not need to pay towards failed Italian banks that did not fix their bad loan problem out when they should have done over 4 years ago.

[PeeJay]

Youre missing the point.

Yes, they have made big impacts on europe, that is the whole point. Europe has served them very well, of course they are committed federalists.

Otherwise they would be another (unknown) former PM of Lux.

They are feathering their own nest as much as any other politician does.

Think you are the one "missing the point", it being that a small country in Europe can make a major contribution to the vision that is the European Union. Of course they are federalists - they are deeply committed to the idea of the EU and it is "federalist" by nature. The last part of your post is pointless polemic ...

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Think you are the one "missing the point", it being that a small country in Europe can make a major contribution to the vision that is the European Union. Of course they are federalists - they are deeply committed to the idea of the EU and it is "federalist" by nature. The last part of your post is pointless polemic ...

That is never wjat i said or what the point was. So yoy have missed it.

I wad making the point, in response to someone saying that uk politicians were self-serving, that the same applies to eurocrats.

The point being that junker was a complete unknown anywhere other than Lux (because nobody outside lux cares about lux domestic politics - except of course for the squad of commmited lux observers here) until he became a european politician - therefore his federalism is as much about self-service as senior tories being brexit.

THAT was the point - nothing about the influence or otherwise of individual member states, which has never come up.

But well done for jumping in and getting it wrong.

[PeeJay]

That is never wjat i said or what the point was. So yoy have missed it.

I wad making the point, in response to someone saying that uk politicians were self-serving, that the same applies to eurocrats.

The point being that junker was a complete unknown anywhere other than Lux (because nobody outside lux cares about lux domestic politics - except of course for the squad of commmited lux observers here) until he became a european politician - therefore his federalism is as much about self-service as senior tories being brexit.

THAT was the point - nothing about the influence or otherwise of individual member states, which has never come up.

But well done for jumping in and getting it wrong.


Seems to me that you're the one that isn't getting anything! Juncker is not a complete unknown anywhere other than Luxembourg, he never was, he was/is well-known here in Europe (sic)! To YOU he may be an unknown, that may well simply down to your lack of knowledge of politics beyond the UK arena, an insular quality greatly in evidence of late, I may say. Juncker's ability as a domestic politician is what furthered his career in Europe, it wasn't the other way round. The fact YOU have only picked up on him since recent debates about Europe in the UK does not mean he is/was a complete unknown, nor that Luxembourg is somehow not important. There is a reason why people outside Luxembourg cared about his domestic policies and why much criticism can be levelled at him ...

[steakbake]

What happens next?

Obviously I am no expert but I understand this in the Brexit saga:

The Italian banks will need another bail out from the EU tax payer and now thankfully the people of the UK do not need to pay towards failed Italian banks that did not fix their bad loan problem out when they should have done over 4 years ago.

We have our own failed banks to deal with, the downgrading of the UK's credit standard which will put up the cost of national borrowing and also likely have a recession coming up fast, a collapse of our currency to 1980s levels and essentially, we will have to print money to keep the economy solvent. As long as we're not bailing out the Italians and gloss over the fact that when our banks collapsed in 2008, a proportion of the bailout money came from the ECB... which we're now cutting ourselves off from... then we can maintain our splendid isolation.

But no, we are far too important now to need EU bailouts. Just as well, because we won't be getting any and we'll need to find the money down the back of the national sofa.

[steakbake]

Seems to me that you're the one that isn't getting anything! Juncker is not a complete unknown anywhere other than Luxembourg, he never was, he was/is well-known here in Europe (sic)! To YOU he may be an unknown, that may well simply down to your lack of knowledge of politics beyond the UK arena, an insular quality greatly in evidence of late, I may say. Juncker's ability as a domestic politician is what furthered his career in Europe, it wasn't the other way round. The fact YOU have only picked up on him since recent debates about Europe in the UK does not mean he is/was a complete unknown, nor that Luxembourg is somehow not important. There is a reason why people outside Luxembourg cared about his domestic policies and why much criticism can be levelled at him ...





Just parrotting Farage, the former merchant banker, serial non-attender of his highly paid day job, who lectured people about having proper jobs.

[McD]

That is never wjat i said or what the point was. So yoy have missed it.

I wad making the point, in response to someone saying that uk politicians were self-serving, that the same applies to eurocrats.

The point being that junker was a complete unknown anywhere other than Lux (because nobody outside lux cares about lux domestic politics - except of course for the squad of commmited lux observers here) until he became a european politician - therefore his federalism is as much about self-service as senior tories being brexit.

THAT was the point - nothing about the influence or otherwise of individual member states, which has never come up.

But well done for jumping in and getting it wrong.


that's so ridiculous it's laughable.

Whether he was an unknown or not, gives absolutely NO credence to your assertion that he's self serving.

[RyeSloan]

that's so ridiculous it's laughable. Whether he was an unknown or not, gives absolutely NO credence to your assertion that he's self serving.

True but then why not pick up on the post that called ALL British politicians self serving, like we had a special breed of politician that no other country has?

[mmmmhibby]

[QUOTE=PeeJay;4751181]Seems to me that you're the one that isn't getting anything! Juncker is not a complete unknown anywhere other than Luxembourg, he never was, he was/is well-known here in Europe (sic)! To YOU he may be an unknown, that may well simply down to your lack of knowledge of politics beyond the UK arena, an insular quality greatly in evidence of late, I may say. Juncker's ability as a domestic politician is what furthered his career in Europe, it wasn't the other way round. The fact YOU have only picked up on him since recent debates about Europe in the UK does not mean he is/was a complete unknown, nor that Luxembourg is somehow not important. There is a reason why people outside Luxembourg cared about his domestic policies and why much criticism can be levelled at him ...



Juncker - the former leader of Tax-haven Luxembourg, hardly a mandate to be mouthpiece of the EU. This guy has dedicated his career to ensuring society becomes less fair, that wealthy institutions and individuals can avoid taxes little people and small businesses must pay. Juncker turned Luxembourg into a tax haven far bigger than say, the cayman islands because it benefits from the EU free movement off capital. More dangerously his policies then inspire the Netherlands, Ireland and other EU states following beggar-thy-neighbour tax policies to join it in a race to the bottom. He's the Sepp Blatter of EU politics.

[RyeSloan]

We have our own failed banks to deal with, the downgrading of the UK's credit standard which will put up the cost of national borrowing and also likely have a recession coming up fast, a collapse of our currency to 1980s levels and essentially, we will have to print money to keep the economy solvent. As long as we're not bailing out the Italians and gloss over the fact that when our banks collapsed in 2008, a proportion of the bailout money came from the ECB... which we're now cutting ourselves off from... then we can maintain our splendid isolation. But no, we are far too important now to need EU bailouts. Just as well, because we won't be getting any and we'll need to find the money down the back of the national sofa.

There is a good argument that we should, as a nation, be looking after our finances anyway.

Of course the EU did have deficit rules to prevent such things but they were junked as soon as they became politically awkward.

On a slightly different note I read a good article by Mathew Lynn yesterday in MoneyWeek (a man that speaks a lot of sense in my opinion) where he argued for Britain to join the EFTA and effectively turn that into a stronger organisation where it could engage with the Eurozone forever closer union style EU on more level terms but be free of the main downsides of the EU (the aforementioned ever closer union). This would allow access to the European free market but at the same time allow the UK to negotiate trade deals globally alongside providing the required heft to allow the EFTA countries to have input into the EU rule making process. Seemed a pretty reasonable compromise to me and one I'll be interested to see if it comes to pass.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Seems to me that you're the one that isn't getting anything! Juncker is not a complete unknown anywhere other than Luxembourg, he never was, he was/is well-known here in Europe (sic)! To YOU he may be an unknown, that may well simply down to your lack of knowledge of politics beyond the UK arena, an insular quality greatly in evidence of late, I may say. Juncker's ability as a domestic politician is what furthered his career in Europe, it wasn't the other way round. The fact YOU have only picked up on him since recent debates about Europe in the UK does not mean he is/was a complete unknown, nor that Luxembourg is somehow not important. There is a reason why people outside Luxembourg cared about his domestic policies and why much criticism can be levelled at him ...






Ok then, youre so worldly wise.

The publix at large fall over themselves to observe lux politics. Im just an ignoramus.

Junker was a household name before he became a top european bureaucrat. I stand corrected.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

that's so ridiculous it's laughable.

Whether he was an unknown or not, gives absolutely NO credence to your assertion that he's self serving.

Ok, only uk politicians are self serving.

The EU commission is full of altruistic idealists who do the job for free and hate the power they have.

[High-On-Hibs]

Ok, only uk politicians are self serving.

The EU commission is full of altruistic idealists who do the job for free and hate the power they have.

Difference is. We're close enough to UK politicians to know that they are self serving. As you pointed out yourself, very few people in this country know much of anything about EU politicians. So how can we state one way or another as to whether they're self serving or not?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Just parrotting Farage, the former merchant banker, serial non-attender of his highly paid day job, who lectured people about having proper jobs.

Ha ha, ok.

Im not as it goes. But hey, rather than engage with arguments that challenge the worldview, its easier just to dismiss them.

Its little wonder that remain did so badly.

[PeeJay]

Ok then, youre so worldly wise.

The publix at large fall over themselves to observe lux politics. Im just an ignoramus.

Junker was a household name before he became a top european bureaucrat. I stand corrected.

Perhaps not "worldy" just "euro" wise - glad you have finally seen the light:greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Ok then, youre so worldly wise.

The publix at large fall over themselves to observe lux politics. Im just an ignoramus.

Junker was a household name before he became a top european bureaucrat. I stand corrected.

Peejay lives in Germany. By the very nature of mainland Europe, he's going to be more aware of his neighbours' politics and personalities than the, naturally, insular Brits.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Difference is. We're close enough to UK politicians to know that they are self serving. As you pointed out yourself, very few people in this country know much of anything about EU politicians. So how can we state one way or another as to whether they're self serving or not?

Apparently not high-on-hibs, apparently junker was very well known in his pre-EU days.

Well it is just opinion, ultimately. Based on my knowledge amd experiences of politics, and european politics.

And basded on observation. For example, that the german finance minister is apparently furious at junker for pouring petrol on the brexit flames, and germany are plotting his removal and are marginalising him from brexit negotiations.

Supposedly they want the commission marginalised in favour of the council when it comes to brexit negotiations.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Peejay lives in Germany. By the very nature of mainland Europe, he's going to be more aware of his neighbours' politics and personalities than the, naturally, insular Brits.

My point was that junker has become a household name and powerful man because of the eu. Without the eu, he would be an ex-pm of lux. Therefore his personal interests lie in a strong and powerful eu just as much as senior tories interests (may) lie in brexit.

Whether he is, or is not, well known for his time as pm of lux or not is a matter of opinion. He may well be in Germany. And maybe germans take a keen interest in lux. If they do, i stand corrected.

I dount very much that most people in the uk, or across europe, could name any ex lux PMs who havent made their names through the EU, which is really the point i was making.

[PeeJay]

[QUOTE=PeeJay;4751181]Seems to me that you're the one that isn't getting anything! Juncker is not a complete unknown anywhere other than Luxembourg, he never was, he was/is well-known here in Europe (sic)! To YOU he may be an unknown, that may well simply down to your lack of knowledge of politics beyond the UK arena, an insular quality greatly in evidence of late, I may say. Juncker's ability as a domestic politician is what furthered his career in Europe, it wasn't the other way round. The fact YOU have only picked up on him since recent debates about Europe in the UK does not mean he is/was a complete unknown, nor that Luxembourg is somehow not important. There is a reason why people outside Luxembourg cared about his domestic policies and why much criticism can be levelled at him ...



Juncker - the former leader of Tax-haven Luxembourg, hardly a mandate to be mouthpiece of the EU. This guy has dedicated his career to ensuring society becomes less fair, that wealthy institutions and individuals can avoid taxes little people and small businesses must pay. Juncker turned Luxembourg into a tax haven far bigger than say, the cayman islands because it benefits from the EU free movement off capital. More dangerously his policies then inspire the Netherlands, Ireland and other EU states following beggar-thy-neighbour tax policies to join it in a race to the bottom. He's the Sepp Blatter of EU politics.

All fair points: but let's not pretend: there is a much greater problem in the UK with money laundering, tax evasion, off-shore accounts, but as ever the Brits prefer to blame Europe and well, why not pick on one of the little countries and some supposedly "unknown" eurocrat - all helps in the process of disinformation? By the way, who is stopping the UK from fixing it's problems in this area? Hedge fund regulation anyone? I guess you'll suggest it was the EU, but now the UK's left it can no doubt fix it all! Except - it was never really the fault of the EU, it was all within the remit of the UK government, all the time, so there must be another reason why the UK hasn't fixed it - what could that be, I wonder?

[steakbake]

Ha ha, ok.

Im not as it goes. But hey, rather than engage with arguments that challenge the worldview, its easier just to dismiss them.

Its little wonder that remain did so badly.

Not in Scotland, they didn't.

[steakbake]

There is a good argument that we should, as a nation, be looking after our finances anyway.

Of course the EU did have deficit rules to prevent such things but they were junked as soon as they became politically awkward.

On a slightly different note I read a good article by Mathew Lynn yesterday in MoneyWeek (a man that speaks a lot of sense in my opinion) where he argued for Britain to join the EFTA and effectively turn that into a stronger organisation where it could engage with the Eurozone forever closer union style EU on more level terms but be free of the main downsides of the EU (the aforementioned ever closer union). This would allow access to the European free market but at the same time allow the UK to negotiate trade deals globally alongside providing the required heft to allow the EFTA countries to have input into the EU rule making process. Seemed a pretty reasonable compromise to me and one I'll be interested to see if it comes to pass.

It is something. Wouldn't EFTA bring free movement of labour, though?

Something the Brexit politicians will have to square.

[RyeSloan]

It is something. Wouldn't EFTA bring free movement of labour, though? Something the Brexit politicians will have to square.

Correct, that's a tough one for them and probably the biggest sticking point. However all politicians love a fudge and joining EFTA on the premise of it becoming some sort of counter weight to the centralising Eurozone EU would still meet the terms of Brexit so it would require a bit of spin but ultimately Brexit would be achieved (just maybe not in the way the anti immigration element perceived it would be which wouldn't cause me to shed any tears)

Personally I have no problems with it and see the benefits in being able to source labour from across Europe but I'm very much minded that I didn't like the concept of a forever centralising EU taking more and more of a nations powers away in terms of national budgets etc. Contrary to some of the more excited claims I think (personal opinion only of course!) that such views were shared by a lot of Leave voters so you would only be left with the anti immigration lobby crying foul. Which would be a minority so stuff 'em ;-)

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Not in Scotland, they didn't.

Ha ha, now whos being parochial.

But remain did lose, it was a national referendum as well you know.

[SHODAN]

Brexit should not be blocked - England made its choice and there's no going back.

It should also happen so the rest of the EU can watch rUK implode/Scotland prosper and realise it would be a terrible idea for any of them to do it.

[ronaldo7]

The First Minister continues to reach out to our European neighbours.

17092

A nice article from Liam McIlvaney

https://t.co/VBhNZGNKL5

[Jack]

The First Minister continues to reach out to our European neighbours.

17092

A disgrace. No manners. All those ignorant European males sitting making oor Nikki stand!

[CropleyWasGod]

A disgrace. No manners. All those ignorant European males sitting making oor Nikki stand!
Well they canny have they Scots going over there, stealing their chairs. ..

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[McD]

True but then why not pick up on the post that called ALL British politicians self serving, like we had a special breed of politician that no other country has?


Good point - our politicians are generally no better or worse than anywhere else

[McD]

Ok, only uk politicians are self serving.

The EU commission is full of altruistic idealists who do the job for free and hate the power they have.


Even more ridiculous hyperbole

[McD]

Correct, that's a tough one for them and probably the biggest sticking point. However all politicians love a fudge and joining EFTA on the premise of it becoming some sort of counter weight to the centralising Eurozone EU would still meet the terms of Brexit so it would require a bit of spin but ultimately Brexit would be achieved (just maybe not in the way the anti immigration element perceived it would be which wouldn't cause me to shed any tears)

Personally I have no problems with it and see the benefits in being able to source labour from across Europe but I'm very much minded that I didn't like the concept of a forever centralising EU taking more and more of a nations powers away in terms of national budgets etc. Contrary to some of the more excited claims I think (personal opinion only of course!) that such views were shared by a lot of Leave voters so you would only be left with the anti immigration lobby crying foul. Which would be a minority so stuff 'em ;-)

I agree, it does sound like a reasonable situation. And as you've said, it's the anti-immigration group that would possibly be the only ones complaining.

[JeMeSouviens]

There is a good argument that we should, as a nation, be looking after our finances anyway.

Of course the EU did have deficit rules to prevent such things but they were junked as soon as they became politically awkward.

On a slightly different note I read a good article by Mathew Lynn yesterday in MoneyWeek (a man that speaks a lot of sense in my opinion) where he argued for Britain to join the EFTA and effectively turn that into a stronger organisation where it could engage with the Eurozone forever closer union style EU on more level terms but be free of the main downsides of the EU (the aforementioned ever closer union). This would allow access to the European free market but at the same time allow the UK to negotiate trade deals globally alongside providing the required heft to allow the EFTA countries to have input into the EU rule making process. Seemed a pretty reasonable compromise to me and one I'll be interested to see if it comes to pass.

An EEA/EFTA deal does sound like a good compromise way out of the economic risks, but doesn't look like it can happen politically. The Tory leadership candidates have all signed up to blocking free movement. I'm not convinced there's much chance of EFTA providing a counterweight either. The UK would be utterly dominant by population size so it would effectively boil down to UK vs Germany/France/Italy and if we couldn't make that work from inside the EU how's this going to be any different?

[Moulin Yarns]

Michael Gove scored a spectacular own goal on Twitter yesterdayhttp://www.hibs.net/images/smilies/greengrin2.gif



http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/michael-gove-twitter-insults_uk_577b8963e4b073366f0faf62

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

An EEA/EFTA deal does sound like a good compromise way out of the economic risks, but doesn't look like it can happen politically. The Tory leadership candidates have all signed up to blocking free movement. I'm not convinced there's much chance of EFTA providing a counterweight either. The UK would be utterly dominant by population size so it would effectively boil down to UK vs Germany/France/Italy and if we couldn't make that work from inside the EU how's this going to be any different?


This was always what annoyed me about europe. The uk and germany should have bee qorking together to drive the agenda - if we had ever actually committed to making it work, we should have been coaying up with the jerries on the economy, amd with france on foreign affairs (notwithstanding how useless the eu is at foreign affairs).

That this didnt happen was definitely our fault though, through our half in, half out position.

I suppose another consequence of brexit is that the nascent EU foreign policy has beem set-back hugely, possibly permanatly, and the primacy of NATO (if ever in doubt) is secure.

[The Harp Awakes]

Back to a Thatcherite Britain:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36717050

Hurry up and get indyref2 sorted Nicola.

[RyeSloan]

An EEA/EFTA deal does sound like a good compromise way out of the economic risks, but doesn't look like it can happen politically. The Tory leadership candidates have all signed up to blocking free movement. I'm not convinced there's much chance of EFTA providing a counterweight either. The UK would be utterly dominant by population size so it would effectively boil down to UK vs Germany/France/Italy and if we couldn't make that work from inside the EU how's this going to be any different?

I suppose the argument is that after the creation of the Euro there was always going to be a two speed Europe. The Euro necessitates ever closer political and fiscal union...which is exactly what the UK and others (incl Denmark) didn't and don't want. That's probably played a large part in why we are where we are.

Making the EFTA a force to be reckoned with by the UK joining allows the formalisation of that two speed Europe. The EU will be free to crack on with their grand plan to create one super state while the EFTA focuses on developing the common market concept with the EU and separate trade agreements with other countries while enshrining the status of national governments to follow their own fiscal and political agendas.

[RyeSloan]

This was always what annoyed me about europe. The uk and germany should have bee qorking together to drive the agenda - if we had ever actually committed to making it work, we should have been coaying up with the jerries on the economy, amd with france on foreign affairs (notwithstanding how useless the eu is at foreign affairs). That this didnt happen was definitely our fault though, through our half in, half out position. I suppose another consequence of brexit is that the nascent EU foreign policy has beem set-back hugely, possibly permanatly, and the primacy of NATO (if ever in doubt) is secure.

But a huge part of the problem is what would work for Germany might not work for the UK.

The constant drive to integrate more and more power to the heart of the EU may well have suited Germany and as I've said above is essential for the long term health of the Euro. Britain and others outside of the Euro had no such need to cede fiscal powers or anything else to the EU beyond what was needed to make the single market work. The EU and the Euro project is wayy more than the single market but in essence that is largely all that the UK needed.

As for an EU wide foreign policy, just not achievable with so many states with so many interests and is a typical example of just why the EU was causing friction. Allowing foreign policy to be decided at an EU level was never going to work for the UK with its own seat on the UN Security Council for example.

Better to admit that the EU was heading in a direction that didn't work for a number of nations, allow them to leave and join the EFTA so collaboration could continue on a trade and labour level and let the remainder of the EU get on with doing what they wanted to do..

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

But a huge part of the problem is what would work for Germany might not work for the UK.

The constant drive to integrate more and more power to the heart of the EU may well have suited Germany and as I've said above is essential for the long term health of the Euro. Britain and others outside of the Euro had no such need to cede fiscal powers or anything else to the EU beyond what was needed to make the single market work. The EU and the Euro project is wayy more than the single market but in essence that is largely all that the UK needed.

As for an EU wide foreign policy, just not achievable with so many states with so many interests and is a typical example of just why the EU was causing friction. Allowing foreign policy to be decided at an EU level was never going to work for the UK with its own seat on the UN Security Council for example.

Better to admit that the EU was heading in a direction that didn't work for a number of nations, allow them to leave and join the EFTA so collaboration could continue on a trade and labour level and let the remainder of the EU get on with doing what they wanted to do..

You make a lot of sense.

I was more meaning from the outset, rather than as a firw dighting exercise now.

And yeah you are right about foreign policy, but if the uk and others had led on it, it might have been different. Although probably not.

Mind you, the migrant and ukraine situations sirely show howuxh the eu needed foreign policy, or at least a better neifhbourhood policy.

[RyeSloan]

You make a lot of sense. I was more meaning from the outset, rather than as a firw dighting exercise now. And yeah you are right about foreign policy, but if the uk and others had led on it, it might have been different. Although probably not. Mind you, the migrant and ukraine situations sirely show howuxh the eu needed foreign policy, or at least a better neifhbourhood policy.

Cheers! Not often my points are called sensible ;-)

I think the migrant situation simply showed the flaws in the EU...it's not a super state (yet) and thus simply isn't equipped to deal with such challenges. Again the answer is more and more integration which brings the whole discussion back round in a circle!

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Cheers! Not often my points are called sensible ;-)

I think the migrant situation simply showed the flaws in the EU...it's not a super state (yet) and thus simply isn't equipped to deal with such challenges. Again the answer is more and more integration which brings the whole discussion back round in a circle!

True, and its easy to see how federalists think the answer is more europe.

Fascinated to see where europe goes from here. Amongst all the rancour and bitterness (on all sides) is the inescapable fact that the EU project is diminished as a result of losing the UK.

[RyeSloan]

True, and its easy to see how federalists think the answer is more europe. Fascinated to see where europe goes from here. Amongst all the rancour and bitterness (on all sides) is the inescapable fact that the EU project is diminished as a result of losing the UK.

Indeed...I read (a translated) editorial from Der Spiegel that was saying exactly the same thing. It was calling for a fundamental reassessment that examined why such a large member of the EU wanted to leave and how such a situation had come about. I know many people simply blame the Tory's and BoJo and Farange but the truth is that the EU has been under strain for some time and this is just a rather dramatic manifestation of that.

I'll not hold my breath for an EU introspection though as it was and still is a political project that seems determined to carry on regardless of the outcomes for the millions of people it encapsulates. Cameron's 're-negotiation' proved that to some degree so I stand by my comments that (dependent on some sensible negotiations) the UK and probably the EU are better off accepting the reality of the situation and get on with dealing with it rather than bemoaning the decision. Half glass full view of course but there you go :-)

[jonty]

Michael Gove scored a spectacular own goal on Twitter yesterdayhttp://www.hibs.net/images/smilies/greengrin2.gif



http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/michael-gove-twitter-insults_uk_577b8963e4b073366f0faf62

some of those responses are comedy gold. :greengrin

[steakbake]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/brexiters-excuses-increasingly-bollocks-20160707110366

I liked this. Very true!

Slightly more factually, I see the much talked-about "domino effect" of a Brexit is really taking hold:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/08/brexit-causes-resurgence-in-pro-eu-leanings-across-continent

[heretoday]

We should cuddle up to Russia more. Big trade possibilities there.

They like their whisky and they're mad on Robert Burns for his socialist tendencies.

[steakbake]

GBP now world's weakest major currency.

As I saw somewhere, would be pretty amusing if we ended up using the Euro.

[Moulin Yarns]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36703799


This is interesting, a number of large law firms, experts in European law all seem to come to the same conclusion, it needs the UK parliament to create an Act of Parliament to allow to be invoked.

[steakbake]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/09/norway-may-block-uk-return-to-european-free-trade-association

Anyone looking for an EFTA silver lining in the Brexit cloud will find this a bit depressing.

If this was about Scotland seeking to remain in the EU, the headlines we could expect to see will be "Fresh blow to Sturgeon" or "Norway snubs Scotland..." or something like that.

[ronaldo7]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/09/norway-may-block-uk-return-to-european-free-trade-association

Anyone looking for an EFTA silver lining in the Brexit cloud will find this a bit depressing.

If this was about Scotland seeking to remain in the EU, the headlines we could expect to see will be "Fresh blow to Sturgeon" or "Norway snubs Scotland..." or something like that.

:agree: Meanwhile the FM is in Germany "Plotting" against the UK, rather than looking after Scotlands interests

[Hibrandenburg]

:agree: Meanwhile the FM is in Germany "Plotting" against the UK, rather than looking after Scotlands interests

Saw her interview on German TV last night. The line of questioning was obviously intended to portray any chance of Scotland staying in the EU as "Pie in the sky". Sturgeon countered this line of questioning quite well but I can't shake the feeling that Germany are unwilling to come off the fence on EU membership for Scotland because they're worried about that the effect of doing so would have on brexit negotiations. Let's be clear on this, I'm sure they'd welcome Scotland into the EU but are not willing to openly say so until the cards are on the table.

[Hibbyradge]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/09/norway-may-block-uk-return-to-european-free-trade-association

Anyone looking for an EFTA silver lining in the Brexit cloud will find this a bit depressing.

If this was about Scotland seeking to remain in the EU, the headlines we could expect to see will be "Fresh blow to Sturgeon" or "Norway snubs Scotland..." or something like that.

Most likely, you're correct, but this article is a "fresh blow" to who?

[Hibbyradge]

:agree: Meanwhile the FM is in Germany "Plotting" against the UK, rather than looking after Scotlands interests

Presumably, either description would have been accurate.

[AndyM_1875]

:agree: Meanwhile the FM is in Germany "Plotting" against the UK, rather than looking after Scotlands interests

Good on her.
She's standing up for Scotland as we voted to stay in Europe

[#FromTheCapital]

Good on her.
She's standing up for Scotland as we voted to stay in Europe

Without really wanting to go back over this argument as its been done to death...we also voted to stay part of the U.K which means accepting the results of a UK referendum. But I suppose Sturgeon and the SNP aren't very good at accepting referendum results.

[Ozymandias]

Without really wanting to go back over this argument as its been done to death...we also voted to stay part of the U.K which means accepting the results of a UK referendum. But I suppose Sturgeon and the SNP aren't very good at accepting referendum results.

With the former having as a key argument the need to vote No to ensure EU membership for Scotland, then darn tooting it should be challenged

[#FromTheCapital]

With the former having as a key argument the need to vote No to ensure EU membership for Scotland, then darn tooting it should be challenged

It was an argument but I disagree that it was a 'key' argument.

In any event, the no vote did secure EU membership, albeit for a short time and with the benefit of hindsight.

A yes vote was anybodies guess and therefore it was a valid argument at the time.

[steakbake]

Without really wanting to go back over this argument as its been done to death...we also voted to stay part of the U.K which means accepting the results of a UK referendum. But I suppose Sturgeon and the SNP aren't very good at accepting referendum results.

It's a fair point in some ways, but it is a bit of a phyrric one.

Does that mean that people in Scotland now must always accept whatever happens in the UK, come what may, and even if it is in direct opposition to the national interest here?

Are you happy with the fact that we are being taken out of the European Union, even though the majority of people who voted on this in Scotland, did not back it?

[#FromTheCapital]

It's a fair point in some ways, but it is a bit of a phyrric one.

Does that mean that people in Scotland now must always accept whatever happens in the UK, come what may, and even if it is in direct opposition to the national interest here?

Are you happy with the fact that we are being taken out of the European Union, even though the majority of people who voted on this in Scotland, did not back it?

I take your point and see where you're coming from. But as part of the U.K. then yes we have to accept it - that's democracy for you and it's not 'democratically unacceptable' like sturgeon said it was.

As I seen it, there wasn't many people who were particularly bothered about the EU vote before it happened. I also include myself in that category, because I wasn't really fussed that I missed my opportunity to vote due to a delayed flight. It only seems to be in hindsight that people are bothering about it and a large part of the reason for that is because of Sturgeon and SNP stirring people's emotions again.

[Ozymandias]

I take your point and see where you're coming from. But as part of the U.K. then yes we have to accept it - that's democracy for you and it's not 'democratically unacceptable' like sturgeon said it was.

As I seen it, there wasn't many people who were particularly bothered about the EU vote before it happened. I also include myself in that category, because I wasn't really fussed that I missed my opportunity to vote due to a delayed flight. It only seems to be in hindsight that people are bothering about it and a large part of the reason for that is because of Sturgeon and SNP stirring people's emotions again.

You could extend that to say if the referendum had been Yes then as part of the UK who wanted us to stay then we couldn't have left! There is a genuine political imbalance caused by Brexit, and I don't think a stance of "tough" is a good one.

[#FromTheCapital]

You could extend that to say if the referendum had been Yes then as part of the UK who wanted us to stay then we couldn't have left! There is a genuine political imbalance caused by Brexit, and I don't think a stance of "tough" is a good one.

Not sure what you're getting at here? The independence referendum was a Scottish only vote and the EU vote was UK, what point are you trying to make?

[RyeSloan]

It's a fair point in some ways, but it is a bit of a phyrric one. Does that mean that people in Scotland now must always accept whatever happens in the UK, come what may, and even if it is in direct opposition to the national interest here? Are you happy with the fact that we are being taken out of the European Union, even though the majority of people who voted on this in Scotland, did not back it?

Is that not exactly what a No vote implicitly stated...we would stay as part of the U.K. and as a direct result would be under Westminster control for non devolved areas, of which EU membership was one?

Why would people vote No then all of a sudden claim that the result of a UK vote was not in the Scottish national interest and expect Surgeon to go gallivanting across Europe on matters where she holds zero power or responsibility?

I know why she is doing it but it's purely for her and her parties political interests, to think otherwise is a bit foolish in my eyes. And anyway the wheels of time turn and we shall see where we are at in a couple of years...by then we could easily have a few more countries looking to leave as there are sizeable portions of the electorate in a number of countries that want a very similar referendum.

[steakbake]

You could extend that to say if the referendum had been Yes then as part of the UK who wanted us to stay then we couldn't have left! There is a genuine political imbalance caused by Brexit, and I don't think a stance of "tough" is a good one.

It's the stance that some folk are taking a measure of enjoyment in. I don't understand the mentality, but then we've never been so polarised.

"Tough" will only go so far.

[steakbake]

Is that not exactly what a No vote implicitly stated...we would stay as part of the U.K. and as a direct result would be under Westminster control for non devolved areas, of which EU membership was one?

Why would people vote No then all of a sudden claim that the result of a UK vote was not in the Scottish national interest and expect Surgeon to go gallivanting across Europe on matters where she holds zero power or responsibility?

I know why she is doing it but it's purely for her and her parties political interests, to think otherwise is a bit foolish in my eyes. And anyway the wheels of time turn and we shall see where we are at in a couple of years...by then we could easily have a few more countries looking to leave as there are sizeable portions of the electorate in a number of countries that want a very similar referendum.

Self-styled saviour of the Union and Nat-Slayer in Chief, Ruth Davidson said:

The only way to guarantee Scotland remaining in the EU is to vote No.

BT also campaigned in a similar way:

"What is the process for removing EU citizenship? Voting Yes"

She did not say "for the foreseeable future" or similar.

There are those attempting to rewrite history to say that an EU referendum was in the offing, but that was not confirmed as their policy until the Tory manifesto for the May 2015 election.

[Ozymandias]

Not sure what you're getting at here? The independence referendum was a Scottish only vote and the EU vote was UK, what point are you trying to make?

You seem to suggest that Scotland is entirely subservient for non-devolved issues for ever now as a result of the referendum. It is fair to say I think that the wishes of Scotlands electorate are in the matter of EU not being carried out by a significant amount. It is a sufficiently large figure as to call into question the direction the country is being driven down, especially in the light of No claims regarding Scotlands future in the EU, which was part of their campaign, and a big one.

[Ozymandias]

Is that not exactly what a No vote implicitly stated...we would stay as part of the U.K. and as a direct result would be under Westminster control for non devolved areas, of which EU membership was one?

Why would people vote No then all of a sudden claim that the result of a UK vote was not in the Scottish national interest and expect Surgeon to go gallivanting across Europe on matters where she holds zero power or responsibility?

I know why she is doing it but it's purely for her and her parties political interests, to think otherwise is a bit foolish in my eyes. And anyway the wheels of time turn and we shall see where we are at in a couple of years...by then we could easily have a few more countries looking to leave as there are sizeable portions of the electorate in a number of countries that want a very similar referendum.

She has a mandate to represent Scotland. Whether you agree with her or not it would be a derogation of her duties if she wasn't representing the country this way, surely?

[#FromTheCapital]

You seem to suggest that Scotland is entirely subservient for non-devolved issues for ever now as a result of the referendum. It is fair to say I think that the wishes of Scotlands electorate are in the matter of EU not being carried out by a significant amount. It is a sufficiently large figure as to call into question the direction the country is being driven down, especially in the light of No claims regarding Scotlands future in the EU, which was part of their campaign, and a big one.

No I didn't suggest that at all. It would depend on what the vote was for. In this case though it's pretty straighforward... The UK has EU membership, whereas Scotland does not. The UK - in which Scotland voted to remain part of in 2014, was asked whether it wanted to leave the EU and the answer was yes. What is so difficult to understand about that? Yes the demographics showed that most Scottish people would've preferred to remain, but they also showed that most Londoners would've preferred to stay. There's no difference in the context of this referendum.

Edit, didn't read your post properly. Can take away the first sentence of the above. Scotland do have a say in non-devolved issues, but given our relatively small population it doesn't usually count for much. When we did have our own say, we opted to remain as we are. So why should such a small nation have more say in non-devolved issues?

[steakbake]

There is a different context in the case of Scotland than in other parts of the UK. Appreciate that London has an assembly or that Norwich etc voted in, but these are not devolved parts of the UK who will see a significant impact upon legislation, even the legislation that underpins the existence of the Scottish devolution settlement as it is, being affected by the overall UK vote.

I appreciate there will always be people who are implacably opposed to anything that the SNP might propose, but on this issue it is entirely right that the Scottish Government - regardless of who constituted it - should pursue whatever options there are for the outcome of this to as closely match the vote in Scotland.

I don't think any ScotGov would get very far if they talked about it being a reserved matter and none of their business...

[#FromTheCapital]

There is a different context in the case of Scotland than in other parts of the UK. Appreciate that London has an assembly or that Norwich etc voted in, but these are not devolved parts of the UK who will see a significant impact upon legislation, even the legislation that underpins the existence of the Scottish devolution settlement as it is, being affected by the overall UK vote.

I appreciate there will always be people who are implacably opposed to anything that the SNP might propose, but on this issue it is entirely right that the Scottish Government - regardless of who constituted it - should pursue whatever options there are for the outcome of this to as closely match the vote in Scotland.

I don't think any ScotGov would get very far if they talked about it being a reserved matter and none of their business...

There is no difference in this context. For the purpose of a Uk wide vote, Scotland is simply a region in the north of the Uk.

There will always be people who are implacably in favour of anything that the SNP might propose...

Realistically, what options are there that would closely match the vote in Scotland? Other than another independence referendum, which ironically would mean ignoring the outcome of another vote from 2 years ago.

[RyeSloan]

Self-styled saviour of the Union and Nat-Slayer in Chief, Ruth Davidson said: The only way to guarantee Scotland remaining in the EU is to vote No. BT also campaigned in a similar way: "What is the process for removing EU citizenship? Voting Yes" She did not say "for the foreseeable future" or similar. There are those attempting to rewrite history to say that an EU referendum was in the offing, but that was not confirmed as their policy until the Tory manifesto for the May 2015 election.

But none of that matters a jot...the vote wasn't about being in the EU or if Ruth Davidson had a crystal ball it was about staying in the UK and therefore being part of any UK vote and the consequences of that. That was a very very clear outcome of voting No and only two years later to somehow say that because the outcome of a UK vote doesn't match the Scotland vote we are be taken somewhere against our will is a very convenient mis-interpretation.

[steakbake]

There is no difference in this context. For the purpose of a Uk wide vote, Scotland is simply a region in the north of the Uk.

There will always be people who are implacably in favour of anything that the SNP might propose...

Realistically, what options are there that would closely match the vote in Scotland? Other than another independence referendum, which ironically would mean ignoring the outcome of another vote from 2 years ago.

Or, the Scottish government seeks what it can do on the issue of retaining some form of membership - which is precisely what Sturgeon is doing.

[#FromTheCapital]

Or, the Scottish government seeks what it can do on the issue of retaining some form of membership - which is precisely what Sturgeon is doing.

That was my question though, what options are there in that respect? What form of membership can Scotland realistically expect to keep as a Uk nation? From what I've seen, Sturgeon has met with the cleaner and the janny at the European Parliament and done a lot of shouting about 'democratically unacceptable' votes.

[CropleyWasGod]

Or, the Scottish government seeks what it can do on the issue of retaining some form of membership - which is precisely what Sturgeon is doing.

Yep. Not to do so would be, IMO, an abdication of her responsibility.

Scotland voted to stay in, and she is trying to find a way to respect that. It may be that there are none. It may be that the only way is leaving the UK.

Whatever, it's part of her job to find out the facts. After that, she can put the facts out there for the electorate to decide on the next step.

[ronaldo7]

Is that not exactly what a No vote implicitly stated...we would stay as part of the U.K. and as a direct result would be under Westminster control for non devolved areas, of which EU membership was one?

Why would people vote No then all of a sudden claim that the result of a UK vote was not in the Scottish national interest and expect Surgeon to go gallivanting across Europe on matters where she holds zero power or responsibility?

I know why she is doing it but it's purely for her and her parties political interests, to think otherwise is a bit foolish in my eyes. And anyway the wheels of time turn and we shall see where we are at in a couple of years...by then we could easily have a few more countries looking to leave as there are sizeable portions of the electorate in a number of countries that want a very similar referendum.

I believe the First Minister got support from 3 other parties in the Scottish Parliament to go Gallivanting across Europe to try and keep Scotland in the EU.:wink:

Maybe because the Tory amendment failed is why we're hearing the howling of derision by the Unionists in our MSM.

Some are even saying she just spoke to jannies and cleaners.

The Scottish cringe is alive and well.

[#FromTheCapital]

The Scottish cringe is alive and well.

Tell me about it.

[Ozymandias]

No I didn't suggest that at all. It would depend on what the vote was for. In this case though it's pretty straighforward... The UK has EU membership, whereas Scotland does not. The UK - in which Scotland voted to remain part of in 2014, was asked whether it wanted to leave the EU and the answer was yes. What is so difficult to understand about that? Yes the demographics showed that most Scottish people would've preferred to remain, but they also showed that most Londoners would've preferred to stay. There's no difference in the context of this referendum.

Edit, didn't read your post properly. Can take away the first sentence of the above. Scotland do have a say in non-devolved issues, but given our relatively small population it doesn't usually count for much. When we did have our own say, we opted to remain as we are. So why should such a small nation have more say in non-devolved issues?

It depends on how much you view the identity, history, culture, devolved-ness of Scotland as being worthy of a democratic voice in matters of major importance, and also at what point differences in political will between Scotland and the rest of the UK become of material impact.

For me, the size of the Remain vote and the political landscape after the Devo vote means that Scotland is sufficiently different and united to have an opportunity to challenge our position. If, for example, the vote had been 80% in favour of Remain would you have thought it right to explore options? If yes, then it really is only a question of at what number action becomes justified. If no, then as a result of the Devo vote, Scotland is destined, in non-devolved matters, to have zero impact on UK policy. that doesnt sit well with me.

[ronaldo7]

Tell me about it.

You're doing well enough, all by yourself.:greengrin

Take a look at this. The First Minister meeting your jannies, and cleaner.:wink:

http://www.snp.org/there_is_strong_support_for_scotland_s_place_in_eu rope

Or maybe we should all just go back into our boxes and not bother with our futures.

I wonder if the broad shoulders of the UK GOV will stump up the cash. I think not.

https://t.co/mqGJswPhIM

[#FromTheCapital]

You're doing well enough, all by yourself.:greengrin

Take a look at this. The First Minister meeting your jannies, and cleaner.:wink:

http://www.snp.org/there_is_strong_support_for_scotland_s_place_in_eu rope

Seeing as you're hell bent on posting biased references, let me add some balance - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36656980

[#FromTheCapital]

It depends on how much you view the identity, history, culture, devolved-ness of Scotland as being worthy of a democratic voice in matters of major importance, and also at what point differences in political will between Scotland and the rest of the UK become of material impact.

For me, the size of the Remain vote and the political landscape after the Devo vote means that Scotland is sufficiently different and united to have an opportunity to challenge our position. If, for example, the vote had been 80% in favour of Remain would you have thought it right to explore options? If yes, then it really is only a question of at what number action becomes justified. If no, then as a result of the Devo vote, Scotland is destined, in non-devolved matters, to have zero impact on UK policy. that doesnt sit well with me.

Scotland has always wanted to be different to the rest of the UK, that's evident in many aspects not least politics and it's been that way for as long as I can remember. However, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, we voted to stay as part of the UK and as such we should accept the results of a UK vote. Not sure how identity, history, culture and devolved-ness comes into this particular debate.

I said in an earlier post, that in my view nobody up here seemed to be particularly bothered about the EU referendum until the results were announced. That's reflected in the turnout. Forgetting percentages, the margin of victory for remain was roughly the same as the margin for better together.

[ronaldo7]

Seeing as you're hell bent on posting biased references, let me add some balance - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36656980

Is that guy Junker the cleaner or the Janny?:na na:

And those references that I posted were indeed facts. It really happened.:aok:

[#FromTheCapital]

Is that guy Junker the cleaner or the Janny?:na na:

And those references that I posted were indeed facts. It really happened.:aok:

Your link is an article from the SNP containing mostly tweets from the SNP and it's titled 'Get the facts here' :faf:

Depends what you class as a fact I suppose, certainly doesn't tell the story from all sides.

What really happened?

[ronaldo7]

Your link is an article from the SNP containing mostly tweets from the SNP and it's titled 'Get the facts here' :faf:

Depends what you class as a fact I suppose, certainly doesn't tell the story from all sides.

What really happened?

So are you saying the First Minister didn't actually meet these Europeans or was it just the Janny and cleaner?

You must have been on the Brexit team eh.:wink:

I know the MSM are having difficulty with the fact that our FM has gone out of her way to seek assurances for Scotland, and it's probably the first time that the UK gov have been side stepped, but you better get used to it, because theirs more where this comes from.

I look forward to the months ahead.:aok:

[#FromTheCapital]

So are you saying the First Minister didn't actually meet these Europeans or was it just the Janny and cleaner?

I know the MSM are having difficulty with the fact that our FM has gone out of her way to seek assurances for Scotland, and it's probably the first time that the UK gov have been side stepped, but you better get used to it, because theirs more where this comes from.

I look forward to the months ahead.:aok:

This is pretty boring to be honest. You keep making reference to a joke comment I made, it must have touched a nerve with you :rolleyes:.

Please point out where I say she didn't meet these people. While you're at it, maybe explain how any of these meetings will help Scotland remain part of the EU. And here's the hard part... do so without posting a reference to the national, wings over scotland or the SNP website.

[ronaldo7]

This is pretty boring to be honest. You keep making reference to a joke comment I made, it must have touched a nerve with you :rolleyes:.

Please point out where I say she didn't meet these people. While you're at it, maybe explain how any of these meetings will help Scotland remain part of the EU. And here's the hard part... do so without posting a reference to the national, wings over scotland or the SNP website.

You're right, it is boring reading someone continue to say people must respect the vote in 2014, whilst not respecting the vote 2 years later.

Imagine if the Labour party took your line of thinking eh. They'd not be having another leadership election ever again.

The outcome from ALL of the meetings our FM has had will out in the years ahead. She's just laying the groundwork for our future away from the UK.

I seem to get the gist of your argument is that everyone should just respect the votes and go to the back of the bus and shut up. I'm afraid that's not going to happen bud. Prepare yourself for Indy2 because it's coming to a home near you soon.

Alternatively we could all just accept that the Tories will look after Scotland and it's people.:rolleyes:

[#FromTheCapital]

You're right, it is boring reading someone continue to say people must respect the vote in 2014, whilst not respecting the vote 2 years later.

Imagine if the Labour party took your line of thinking eh. They'd not be having another leadership election ever again.

The outcome from ALL of the meetings our FM has had will out in the years ahead. She's just laying the groundwork for our future away from the UK.

I seem to get the gist of your argument is that everyone should just respect the votes and go to the back of the bus and shut up. I'm afraid that's not going to happen bud. Prepare yourself for Indy2 because it's coming to a home near you soon.

Alternatively we could all just accept that the Tories will look after Scotland and it's people.:rolleyes:

Unbelievable...That post just sums up everything I've been saying....Respect the vote 2 years later 😂😂😂

I know what she has been doing and that's exactly what I've been getting at - of course she knows the only option is another Independance referendum and imo anyone trying to suggest otherwise is at it.

I will 'prepare myself for Indy2' and while it's pretty obvious which way I'd be voting, let me tell you that it's people like you that would maybe just swing the vote in favour of no once again.

[ronaldo7]

Unbelievable...That post just sums up everything I've been saying....Respect the vote 2 years later 😂😂😂

I know what she has been doing and that's exactly what I've been getting at - of course she knows the only option is another Independance referendum and imo anyone trying to suggest otherwise is at it.

I will 'prepare myself for Indy2' and while it's pretty obvious which way I'd be voting, let me tell you that it's people like you that would maybe just swing the vote in favour of no once again.

I can understand why you're so uneasy and getting personal. The ground has shifted. Most now see us out of the EU as a slap in the face.

With respect to the options for staying in the EU being Independence(note the spelling) only, the FM is doing the job that the Scottish Parliament voted for her to do. As others have said on the thread, it would have been a dereliction of her duty not to investigate "ALL" options for staying.

I accept that you wish to stay within the UK, and have you down as a lost cause, however I'm currently on 27 ex NO VOTERS who have moved over to YES if Indyref2 happens.

I'm off to work on a couple of cleaners and the local Janny. Votes to be won.:greengrin

[#FromTheCapital]

I can understand why you're so uneasy and getting personal. The ground has shifted. Most now see us out of the EU as a slap in the face.

With respect to the options for staying in the EU being Independence(note the spelling) only, the FM is doing the job that the Scottish Parliament voted for her to do. As others have said on the thread, it would have been a dereliction of her duty not to investigate "ALL" options for staying.

I accept that you wish to stay within the UK, and have you down as a lost cause, however I'm currently on 27 ex NO VOTERS who have moved over to YES if Indyref2 happens.

I'm off to work on a couple of cleaners and the local Janny. Votes to be won.:greengrin

Not even going to dignify your suggestion of me getting personal with a response, it's not the first time you've spouted nonsense on this forum and I dare say it will be the last, so crack on. You're arguments are for the most part childish and I'm not getting drawn in to a slagging match about joke comments made or incorrect spelling.

Most of us, seems to be most on this forum which has always had a majority in favour of independence. However according to the recent yougov poll, most of us still want to stay in the UK despite the imminent Brexit.

[ronaldo7]

Not even going to dignify your suggestion of me getting personal with a response, it's not the first time you've spouted nonsense on this forum and I dare say it will be the last, so crack on. You're arguments are for the most part childish and I'm not getting drawn in to a slagging match about joke comments made or incorrect spelling.

Most of us, seems to be most on this forum which has always had a majority in favour of independence. However according to the recent yougov poll, most of us still want to stay in the UK despite the imminent Brexit.

Sorry bud, not got a clue what this means so best we leave it there.:greengrin

[Ozymandias]

Scotland has always wanted to be different to the rest of the UK, that's evident in many aspects not least politics and it's been that way for as long as I can remember. However, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, we voted to stay as part of the UK and as such we should accept the results of a UK vote. Not sure how identity, history, culture and devolved-ness comes into this particular debate.

I said in an earlier post, that in my view nobody up here seemed to be particularly bothered about the EU referendum until the results were announced. That's reflected in the turnout. Forgetting percentages, the margin of victory for remain was roughly the same as the margin for better together.

I think it comes into it because of the level of importance to the future of Scotland. A nation dragged into something it clearly does not want is not a good grounding. We accept UK/Tory government because we are in the UK and accept the UK vote. For me, Brexit is the tipping point.

[#FromTheCapital]

Sorry bud, not got a clue what this means so best we leave it there.:greengrin

That's fine, I don't expect you to understand. You're best sticking to your main argument which is based completely on a joke comment.

[#FromTheCapital]

I think it comes into it because of the level of importance to the future of Scotland. A nation dragged into something it clearly does not want is not a good grounding. We accept UK/Tory government because we are in the UK and accept the UK vote. For me, Brexit is the tipping point.

Fair do's 👍🏼

[ronaldo7]

Anyone moving from No to YES is welcomed. Eric Joyce, previously of Labour moves from No to Yeeeessssssss.

https://t.co/6sW54voIF6

[lord bunberry]

I think anyone who thinks that Nicola Sturgeon isn't using the brexit result to further her own political beliefs is living in a fantasy world. I also believe that anyone criticising her for doing so is showing a basic failure to understand how politics work. The SNP believe in Scottish independence, they also believe in continued EU membership. The brexit vote has given her a legitimate reason to promote her core beliefs. I don't buy the argument that the referendum result should be respected, we already have the Lib Dems calling for a re run of the brexit referendum after 2 years of telling us we should respect the independence referendum result. Things change quickly in politics and if the people of this country want a second independence referendum, then that's what should happen. Things have changed significantly since the independence referendum and our country is in a position to forge ahead with how it sees our place in the world, be that a part of the U.K. Or outside that and part of the EU. I do think things have changed enough to ask the question again though.

[Hibrandenburg]

I think anyone who thinks that Nicola Sturgeon isn't using the brexit result to further her own political beliefs is living in a fantasy world. I also believe that anyone criticising her for doing so is showing a basic failure to understand how politics work. The SNP believe in Scottish independence, they also believe in continued EU membership. The brexit vote has given her a legitimate reason to promote her core beliefs. I don't buy the argument that the referendum result should be respected, we already have the Lib Dems calling for a re run of the brexit referendum after 2 years of telling us we should respect the independence referendum result. Things change quickly in politics and if the people of this country want a second independence referendum, then that's what should happen. Things have changed significantly since the independence referendum and our country is in a position to forge ahead with how it sees our place in the world, be that a part of the U.K. Or outside that and part of the EU. I do think things have changed enough to ask the question again though.

I think you've just summarised democracy quite nicely.

[Ozymandias]

I think anyone who thinks that Nicola Sturgeon isn't using the brexit result to further her own political beliefs is living in a fantasy world. I also believe that anyone criticising her for doing so is showing a basic failure to understand how politics work. The SNP believe in Scottish independence, they also believe in continued EU membership. The brexit vote has given her a legitimate reason to promote her core beliefs. I don't buy the argument that the referendum result should be respected, we already have the Lib Dems calling for a re run of the brexit referendum after 2 years of telling us we should respect the independence referendum result. Things change quickly in politics and if the people of this country want a second independence referendum, then that's what should happen. Things have changed significantly since the independence referendum and our country is in a position to forge ahead with how it sees our place in the world, be that a part of the U.K. Or outside that and part of the EU. I do think things have changed enough to ask the question again though.

Excellent post - summarises very succintly and accurately the position

[RyeSloan]

I think you've just summarised democracy quite nicely.

Ya think? Sounds to me like it's people who don't like the result of democracy wanting to ask the question again to see if they can get a different result that suits their agendas.

The concept of asking the nation to vote on its political and economic unions every 2-4 years is ridiculous in my eyes....the outcome of the votes should be respected, that would be true democracy.

[Hibrandenburg]

Ya think? Sounds to me like it's people who don't like the result of democracy wanting to ask the question again to see if they can get a different result that suits their agendas.

The concept of asking the nation to vote on its political and economic unions every 2-4 years is ridiculous in my eyes....the outcome of the votes should be respected, that would be true democracy.

Democracy has to account for and move with the will of the people. If the will of the people changes or the political landscape, then it's only democratic when the people are asked, even if that means every 6 months if necessary.

[lord bunberry]

Ya think? Sounds to me like it's people who don't like the result of democracy wanting to ask the question again to see if they can get a different result that suits their agendas.

The concept of asking the nation to vote on its political and economic unions every 2-4 years is ridiculous in my eyes....the outcome of the votes should be respected, that would be true democracy.
Your reply sounds like the words of a man who fears that nation has woken up to the lies that it was fed 2 years ago and wants a chance to put things right. Something fundamental has to change to ask the question again and few would doubt that brexit has put a spanner in the works.

[#FromTheCapital]

Democracy has to account for and move with the will of the people. If the will of the people changes or the political landscape, then it's only democratic when the people are asked, even if that means every 6 months if necessary.

The latest poll shows that the will of the people has not changed significantly enough to merit another referendum.

[CropleyWasGod]

The latest poll shows that the will of the people has not changed significantly enough to merit another referendum.
Public confidence in opinion polls had taken a battering in recent years, so it's not necessarily a wise thing to rely on them.

That said, it's far too early to judge the mood of the nation when we don't even know what is in store for us. In lots of ways, it's a status quo...and will remain that way until such things as Article 50 is invoked, or NS has some concrete proposals to work with.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

Your reply sounds like the words of a man who fears that nation has woken up to the lies that it was fed 2 years ago and wants a chance to put things right. Something fundamental has to change to ask the question again and few would doubt that brexit has put a spanner in the works.

Naa I don't fear anything of the sort...there are lies peddled by politicians of all colours and all sides all of the time.

My view is quite simple, in the Indy vote Scotland as a nation voted to stay part of the U.K. And part of that was to abide by UK wide vote results. The EU referendum was one such vote therefore it should be respected not used as a political weapon to further undermine a democratic result (ironically using he result of another completely separate vote as justification) and to get a re run in the hope that the result will change to suit a particular view point.

[Hibrandenburg]

Naa I don't fear anything of the sort...there are lies peddled by politicians of all colours and all sides all of the time.

My view is quite simple, in the Indy vote Scotland as a nation voted to stay part of the U.K. And part of that was to abide by UK wide vote results. The EU referendum was one such vote therefore it should be respected not used as a political weapon to further undermine a democratic result (ironically using he result of another completely separate vote as justification) and to get a re run in the hope that the result will change to suit a particular view point.

About 98% of Scottish MPs at Westminster were put there on a mandate from the Scottish people in that if there were any significant changes then a 2nd referendum could be back on the table. If the SNP weren't looking at this then they'd be neglecting the mandate they were given. Just because you don't like that it doesn't change the situation.

[Moulin Yarns]

Public confidence in opinion polls had taken a battering in recent years, so it's not necessarily a wise thing to rely on them.

That said, it's far too early to judge the mood of the nation when we don't even know what is in store for us. In lots of ways, it's a status quo...and will remain that way until such things as Article 50 is invoked, or NS has some concrete proposals to work with.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

I reckon it will be better if the SNP were to not be at the front of the indyref2 campaign. Get a constitutional convention set up with true cross party agreement. SNP were too prominent last time and others had to keep quiet and accept their proposal.

[lord bunberry]

Naa I don't fear anything of the sort...there are lies peddled by politicians of all colours and all sides all of the time.

My view is quite simple, in the Indy vote Scotland as a nation voted to stay part of the U.K. And part of that was to abide by UK wide vote results. The EU referendum was one such vote therefore it should be respected not used as a political weapon to further undermine a democratic result (ironically using he result of another completely separate vote as justification) and to get a re run in the hope that the result will change to suit a particular view point.
While I respect your view on this matter, I can't agree that the result of the independence referendum should be used as a tool to beat the independence movement with. If the goal posts have been moved, then it's only right that the people who asked the original question should suggest that the result was obtained by false promises. What I would say on this is that Indy 2 should be the last vote for as long as the current incumbents are in power.

[lord bunberry]

I reckon it will be better if the SNP were to not be at the front of the indyref2 campaign. Get a constitutional convention set up with true cross party agreement. SNP were too prominent last time and others had to keep quiet and accept their proposal.
:agree: They kept quiet despite believing otherwise. Party politics at its lowest point imo.

[ronaldo7]

I reckon it will be better if the SNP were to not be at the front of the indyref2 campaign. Get a constitutional convention set up with true cross party agreement. SNP were too prominent last time and others had to keep quiet and accept their proposal.

:agree: This has been the best way forward for Scotland in most of the change we've achieved. It might just depend on whether the other parties and none are up for the fight.:wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

Democracy has to account for and move with the will of the people. If the will of the people changes or the political landscape, then it's only democratic when the people are asked, even if that means every 6 months if necessary.

When I was a child, opinion polls consistently showed an 80-20 split in favour of reintroducing capital punishment. It stayed that way for years. I don't know what the polling is now but I'm glad that for literally decades, the will of the people rested with elected MPs, who wouldn't countenance capital punishment.

As a teenager I was pro-hanging and would have voted so, given the chance. I changed my view as I grew older.

The will of the people was expressed in the referendum vote. We cant revisit it every month, like it's SurveyMonkey, people have to accept responsibility for taking part in decision-making, even if they don't like the consequences.

That's democracy - taking a bit of responsibility when the decision goes the other way.

[RyeSloan]

About 98% of Scottish MPs at Westminster were put there on a mandate from the Scottish people in that if there were any significant changes then a 2nd referendum could be back on the table. If the SNP weren't looking at this then they'd be neglecting the mandate they were given. Just because you don't like that it doesn't change the situation.

98% of Scottish MP's but on how much of the vote? Yet again we seem to accept one vote (this time a Westmister election) as a guiding light yet still refuse to accept the consequences of another one, it's all very convenient.

Put it this way, there has been no significant change. The U.K. Is still part of the EU and will be for at least another two years. At the end of that period there will be change but at this point no one knows how significant or large a change it will be. Then add in the fact that it will clearly take some time after that to assess if that has had a positive or negative effect on Scotland and the U.K..

Then and only then can it be determined if there has been significant change for the worse that may require a re examination of the internal Union of the U.K. to do otherwise is purely for political gain and in no way takes any evidence of the benefits or otherwise for the country into account.

Surgeon may be absolutely convinced that the EU is the be all and end all but a million Scots were not and quite a few others would appear to be accepting of the fact that we would need to understand what the brave new world of non EU membership looks like before even considering re-running a once in a generation vote.

[Ozymandias]

98% of Scottish MP's but on how much of the vote? Yet again we seem to accept one vote (this time a Westmister election) as a guiding light yet still refuse to accept the consequences of another one, it's all very convenient.

Put it this way, there has been no significant change. The U.K. Is still part of the EU and will be for at least another two years. At the end of that period there will be change but at this point no one knows how significant or large a change it will be. Then add in the fact that it will clearly take some time after that to assess if that has had a positive or negative effect on Scotland and the U.K..

Then and only then can it be determined if there has been significant change for the worse that may require a re examination of the internal Union of the U.K. to do otherwise is purely for political gain and in no way takes any evidence of the benefits or otherwise for the country into account.

Surgeon may be absolutely convinced that the EU is the be all and end all but a million Scots were not and quite a few others would appear to be accepting of the fact that we would need to understand what the brave new world of non EU membership looks like before even considering re-running a once in a generation vote.

Are there any changes in political circumstances - Brexit related or otherwise - that would in your view be grounds for a second vote? If Brexit had been, for the sake of argument, 80/20 Remain in Scotland would that have been sufficient grounds?

[Bristolhibby]

I think you've just summarised democracy quite nicely.

This. And why the "once in a lifetime" argument is defunct.

You can vote on anything at any time. Ask the Swiss.

J

[RyeSloan]

Are there any changes in political circumstances - Brexit related or otherwise - that would in your view be grounds for a second vote? If Brexit had been, for the sake of argument, 80/20 Remain in Scotland would that have been sufficient grounds?

Sure there is plenty but for me it's a time thing. I just can't square the fact that the Indy question, a really fundamental question, can seriously be mooted again only two years after it was last put to the people. It started on day one after the result and still continues, Brexit was the same. Sure ask the people the question but if you don't like the answer the solution is not simply to force the question to be asked again as soon as possible.

The scale of the Scotland vote for or against Brexit doesn't really bother me, we voted to stay in a union where we knew our vote could quite easily be different to rUK...that to me was a clear and unambiguous outcome of the No vote.

I also don't get how others stomp about muttering about the will of the Scottish people being ignored while wilfully ignoring that it was the will of the Scottish people that resulted in us being part of a UK wide vote and being subject to its outcome.

I do get though that others don't agree and it's not unusual for me to be the outlier on here on things so I'm not gonna greet about that and know you probably shake your head at my view as much as I do yours and others but hey that's life I suppose ;-)

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Sure there is plenty but for me it's a time thing. I just can't square the fact that the Indy question, a really fundamental question, can seriously be mooted again only two years after it was last put to the people. It started on day one after the result and still continues, Brexit was the same. Sure ask the people the question but if you don't like the answer the solution is not simply to force the question to be asked again as soon as possible.

The scale of the Scotland vote for or against Brexit doesn't really bother me, we voted to stay in a union where we knew our vote could quite easily be different to rUK...that to me was a clear and unambiguous outcome of the No vote.

I also don't get how others stomp about muttering about the will of the Scottish people being ignored while wilfully ignoring that it was the will of the Scottish people that resulted in us being part of a UK wide vote and being subject to its outcome.

I do get though that others don't agree and it's not unusual for me to be the outlier on here on things so I'm not gonna greet about that and know you probably shake your head at my view as much as I do yours and others but hey that's life I suppose ;-)

For what it is worth, i think you make the case very well and i tend to ageee with you.

What if those areas that vote no in indyref2 can exercise their democratic will and stay in uk, ignoring the national vote a la the snp with independence?

What if edinburgh and aberdeen were both 'dragged out of the union' against our will by the votes of job shy weegies and ignorant tcheucters?

[JeMeSouviens]

The latest poll shows that the will of the people has not changed significantly enough to merit another referendum.

There have been 4 polls from mainstream pollsters since Brexit: 2 from Survation, 1 from Panelbase and 1 from YouGov. All show a swing to Yes compared to pre-Brexit polls from the same firms. 3 have Yes ahead by a small margin, only Yougov has No ahead, also by a small margin. However, it should be noted that YouGov used a "Westminster franchise" sample: ie. no under 18s and EU citizens. Both these groups are likely to be pro-Yes, I'm not sure if enough to make up the difference.

So the current state of polling is that Brexit appears to have seen a shift from a 0-5% No lead to a 0-5% Yes lead. Not as big a shift as those of us on the Yes side might have hoped/expected to see but we're getting there. :wink:

[steakbake]

I read this, this morning, from Simon Pia - a Labour man, it's safe to say and also I believe, a Hibby. It's an interesting and I think, relevant read.

Hope he doesn't mind (if he lowers himself to hanging around on hibs.net) if I put this here .

It's on his website: https://simonpia.com/2016/08/15/labour-must-embrace-radical-change-on-independence/

LABOUR MUST EMBRACE RADICAL CHANGE ON INDEPENDENCE
AUGUST 15, 2016 SIMONPIA LEAVE A COMMENT
This is a piece I wrote for The Sunday Times 14:8:16

Two major British institutions confirmed last week, albeit subconsciously, they consider Scotland a separate country with its own distinct politics.

One was the BBC, the other the Labour party.

There was no official announcement or statement from either. Rather it was everyday behaviour that reflects how people down south now view Scotland.

In Brexit: The Battle for Britain on BBC last Monday, Scotland was posted missing from the battle. Its absence was not some metropolitan oversight, but tacit acknowledgement Scotland had a fought a different battle with a different result and it was up to Scotland to analyse it.

Meanwhile Scotland’s irrelevance in the Labour leadership campaign, unthinkable five years ago, was encapsulated in a throwaway remark by Dave Anderson, shadow Scottish secretary (an English MP, if anyone needs reminding).

When asked about the next election Anderson said he did not rule out the possibility of a future coalition with the SNP. It echoed the call by Clive Lewis, Shadow Defence spokesperson, days earlier for a progressive alliance at Westminster with SNP, Greens and Lib Dems.

Neither was meant as a slap in the face to Scottish Labour, just it is the new reality at Westminster. Scotland’s gone, as far as Labour down south is concerned and it is not just the Corbyn wing of the party that sees it that way.

Where, then, lies the future of Scottish Labour and does it even have one in the UK?

The Holyrood elections three months ago suggest Labour is not yet irrelevant in Scotland, but it is a sideshow. When the Tories seized second billing they confronted head on the issue at the heart of Scottish politics, the constitution …. something Labour chose to ignore.

This was not a momentary aberration by Labour, but an existential problem it has been wrestling with since 1999.

Nobody ever believed devolution would kill nationalism stone dead, apart from maybe George Robertson, but it has evolved more rapidly than even nationalists could have hoped – leaving Scottish Labour now an endangered if not extinct species.

But the party is doomed if it doesn’t sit up, grab the constitution by the throat and wring a coherent policy out of it – be it federalism, Home Rule or perhaps more realistically, independence itself.

Not only must it send a clear message to the electorate , but it must take the initiative rather than feebly react to events. It cannot remain in denial and must be prepared for all eventualities such as independence or even the party splitting.

Labour is in crisis across the UK because it lost its ability to rethink ideas and thrash out some intellectual foundation for its policy agenda as the New Labour era withered away.

In Scotland this has been compounded byt the inability to have a coherent response to devolution and nationalism. The last leader to try was Wendy Alexander with the Calman commission and when she spooked the SNP with her Bring It On referendum challenge in 2008 only to be shut down by clunking fist of Gordon Brown. Since then there has been nothing.

Now the most powerful argument for independence for those on the left – the democratic deficit – has been turbo-charged by the Brexit result.

It was Scottish Labour who first cited the notion of the “democratic deficit” to challenge the legitimacy of the Thatcher government in Scotland in the 1980s.

This was an argument many could empathise with during the 2014 referendum campaign, yet still retain a residual loyalty and solidarity to UK Labour.

But since Brexit all bets are off, not just for myself but many Labour supporters. The democratic deficit now takes pre-eminence as such a profound political decision with historic consequences for Scotland rested on the gamble of a vain and wreckless prime minister trying to assuage the far right of his party and bolster his own position. Such legitimacy must be challenged.

It was a referendum no one but some Tories and UKIP wanted.

As we move into unchartered territory some in Scottish Labour realise it would be in a healthier position today if it had been an autonomous sister-party to UK Labour since devolution. free to steer its own course.

The control freakery of Blair, Brown and Westminster would never countenance such autonomy which only enhanced the damning perception of Labour at Holyrood as a junior partner.

But now under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership Labour in Scotland has been set free to operate as it sees fit. So far the party has failed to seize the opportunity in a credible manner as it continues to be overtaken by events.

But now some senior figures such as former first minister Henry McLeish, deputy leader Alex Rowley, David Martin MEP and Dave Watson of Unison all acknowledged to varying degrees that Scottish Labour cannot afford to oppose the call for a second referendum or the prospect of independence.

When I worked with former Labour leader Iain Gray, one of his favourite quotes was Maynard Keynes. “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

Scottish Labour cannot afford to do nothing. It must embrace radical change.



ENDS

[snooky]

I think anyone who thinks that Nicola Sturgeon isn't using the brexit result to further her own political beliefs is living in a fantasy world. I also believe that anyone criticising her for doing so is showing a basic failure to understand how politics work. The SNP believe in Scottish independence, they also believe in continued EU membership. The brexit vote has given her a legitimate reason to promote her core beliefs. I don't buy the argument that the referendum result should be respected, we already have the Lib Dems calling for a re run of the brexit referendum after 2 years of telling us we should respect the independence referendum result. Things change quickly in politics and if the people of this country want a second independence referendum, then that's what should happen. Things have changed significantly since the independence referendum and our country is in a position to forge ahead with how it sees our place in the world, be that a part of the U.K. Or outside that and part of the EU. I do think things have changed enough to ask the question again though.

The 'respect' mentioned above is (or at least, should be) a two way street.
Unfortunately, most of the Westminster and the media street signs (before and after the indy referendum) have been "One Way".

[ronaldo7]

There have been 4 polls from mainstream pollsters since Brexit: 2 from Survation, 1 from Panelbase and 1 from YouGov. All show a swing to Yes compared to pre-Brexit polls from the same firms. 3 have Yes ahead by a small margin, only Yougov has No ahead, also by a small margin. However, it should be noted that YouGov used a "Westminster franchise" sample: ie. no under 18s and EU citizens. Both these groups are likely to be pro-Yes, I'm not sure if enough to make up the difference.

So the current state of polling is that Brexit appears to have seen a shift from a 0-5% No lead to a 0-5% Yes lead. Not as big a shift as those of us on the Yes side might have hoped/expected to see but we're getting there. :wink:

We might just leave it until around 2019 for some political parties to put into their manifesto's that they won't trigger article 50.:wink:

https://t.co/zf6Jk3vp6T

[ronaldo7]

With the UK becoming an economic basket case, an Indy Scotland has the chance to cash in.:greengrin

https://t.co/FlfgyHKc6x

[IWasThere2016]

Been an interesting time no doubt.

I didn't vote - was away at the Euros (the irony!) - and didn't make arrangements to vote.

I would have struggled with a Remain vote - because of the lack of democracy and when I read of the Kinnock's millions in earnings/expenses etc I was appalled. I am sure the EU Accounts have been qualified for years on end also.. I have also read the gap between the wealth of Germany and the other countries continues to grow - and Greece and a few others are in a more perilous financial plight as time passes - I am of the view the EU is broken. I sincerely doubt a situation of c. 50% youth unemployment (as it is in parts of the EU) would be allowed to happen in Germany without radical changes to the workings of the EU.

With little democratic process, failing economies, mass youth unemployment in parts and gravy trains for officials - I don't see an attractive club of which to be a member.

I didn't trust the NO campaign and voted YES in favour of an Independent Scotland - again purely in support of democracy. My politics are right of centre, and I won't get the type of Government I'd like to see in Scotland - but when so few Scots want the Government (Westminster) they want then it is time for democratic change.

I mention this as I cannot reconcile the out of UK/in Europe thing either. Surely, Scotland does more trade with RUK than Europe -does it not?

Part of me still thinks, the Leavers want/wanted change and the SNP want/wanted Devo-Max and not full blown Indy.

I think I'll just abstain going forward and focus on the important things in life - my 3 kids, Hibs, good beer/malts and my handicap :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37105379

Sad state of affairs

[ronaldo7]

I read this, this morning, from Simon Pia - a Labour man, it's safe to say and also I believe, a Hibby. It's an interesting and I think, relevant read.

Hope he doesn't mind (if he lowers himself to hanging around on hibs.net) if I put this here .

It's on his website: https://simonpia.com/2016/08/15/labour-must-embrace-radical-change-on-independence/

LABOUR MUST EMBRACE RADICAL CHANGE ON INDEPENDENCE
AUGUST 15, 2016 SIMONPIA LEAVE A COMMENT
This is a piece I wrote for The Sunday Times 14:8:16

Two major British institutions confirmed last week, albeit subconsciously, they consider Scotland a separate country with its own distinct politics.

One was the BBC, the other the Labour party.

There was no official announcement or statement from either. Rather it was everyday behaviour that reflects how people down south now view Scotland.

In Brexit: The Battle for Britain on BBC last Monday, Scotland was posted missing from the battle. Its absence was not some metropolitan oversight, but tacit acknowledgement Scotland had a fought a different battle with a different result and it was up to Scotland to analyse it.

Meanwhile Scotland’s irrelevance in the Labour leadership campaign, unthinkable five years ago, was encapsulated in a throwaway remark by Dave Anderson, shadow Scottish secretary (an English MP, if anyone needs reminding).

When asked about the next election Anderson said he did not rule out the possibility of a future coalition with the SNP. It echoed the call by Clive Lewis, Shadow Defence spokesperson, days earlier for a progressive alliance at Westminster with SNP, Greens and Lib Dems.

Neither was meant as a slap in the face to Scottish Labour, just it is the new reality at Westminster. Scotland’s gone, as far as Labour down south is concerned and it is not just the Corbyn wing of the party that sees it that way.

Where, then, lies the future of Scottish Labour and does it even have one in the UK?

The Holyrood elections three months ago suggest Labour is not yet irrelevant in Scotland, but it is a sideshow. When the Tories seized second billing they confronted head on the issue at the heart of Scottish politics, the constitution …. something Labour chose to ignore.

This was not a momentary aberration by Labour, but an existential problem it has been wrestling with since 1999.

Nobody ever believed devolution would kill nationalism stone dead, apart from maybe George Robertson, but it has evolved more rapidly than even nationalists could have hoped – leaving Scottish Labour now an endangered if not extinct species.

But the party is doomed if it doesn’t sit up, grab the constitution by the throat and wring a coherent policy out of it – be it federalism, Home Rule or perhaps more realistically, independence itself.

Not only must it send a clear message to the electorate , but it must take the initiative rather than feebly react to events. It cannot remain in denial and must be prepared for all eventualities such as independence or even the party splitting.

Labour is in crisis across the UK because it lost its ability to rethink ideas and thrash out some intellectual foundation for its policy agenda as the New Labour era withered away.

In Scotland this has been compounded byt the inability to have a coherent response to devolution and nationalism. The last leader to try was Wendy Alexander with the Calman commission and when she spooked the SNP with her Bring It On referendum challenge in 2008 only to be shut down by clunking fist of Gordon Brown. Since then there has been nothing.

Now the most powerful argument for independence for those on the left – the democratic deficit – has been turbo-charged by the Brexit result.

It was Scottish Labour who first cited the notion of the “democratic deficit” to challenge the legitimacy of the Thatcher government in Scotland in the 1980s.

This was an argument many could empathise with during the 2014 referendum campaign, yet still retain a residual loyalty and solidarity to UK Labour.

But since Brexit all bets are off, not just for myself but many Labour supporters. The democratic deficit now takes pre-eminence as such a profound political decision with historic consequences for Scotland rested on the gamble of a vain and wreckless prime minister trying to assuage the far right of his party and bolster his own position. Such legitimacy must be challenged.

It was a referendum no one but some Tories and UKIP wanted.

As we move into unchartered territory some in Scottish Labour realise it would be in a healthier position today if it had been an autonomous sister-party to UK Labour since devolution. free to steer its own course.

The control freakery of Blair, Brown and Westminster would never countenance such autonomy which only enhanced the damning perception of Labour at Holyrood as a junior partner.

But now under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership Labour in Scotland has been set free to operate as it sees fit. So far the party has failed to seize the opportunity in a credible manner as it continues to be overtaken by events.

But now some senior figures such as former first minister Henry McLeish, deputy leader Alex Rowley, David Martin MEP and Dave Watson of Unison all acknowledged to varying degrees that Scottish Labour cannot afford to oppose the call for a second referendum or the prospect of independence.

When I worked with former Labour leader Iain Gray, one of his favourite quotes was Maynard Keynes. “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

Scottish Labour cannot afford to do nothing. It must embrace radical change.



ENDS

The podcast. Happy to have you on board Simon.:greengrin

https://t.co/mFYqAddSCn

[#FromTheCapital]

So the latest GERS figures were published today.

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/08/2132

Not great reading for the SNP, but I suppose people will interpret and twist it in many different ways.

[snooky]

Widely reported....
Oil revenue down by 97%.
Scotland's deficit at £15b.

Phew, thank goodness the rest of the UK is unaffected. :rolleyes:

[JeMeSouviens]

So the latest GERS figures were published today.

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/08/2132

Not great reading for the SNP, but I suppose people will interpret and twist it in many different ways.

Not great reading for anyone in Scotland unless you regard sponging off a declining England as a long term viable strategy.

[steakbake]

Not great reading for anyone in Scotland unless you regard sponging off a declining England as a long term viable strategy.

Indeed. As you might expect me to think however, GERS are a political tool. They do not include a range of levers of the economy: corporation tax and excise duty is not allocated.

GERS was set up by Ian Lang, then Scottish secretary. It was used to "undermine" political opponents.

It is, however, the only set of stats that the UK government uses on the issue.

[#FromTheCapital]

Not great reading for anyone in Scotland unless you regard sponging off a declining England as a long term viable strategy.

Yes.

It's up to the current government to fix it though. Perhaps they should concentrate on that for now...

[CropleyWasGod]

Indeed. As you might expect me to think however, GERS are a political tool. They do not include a range of levers of the economy: corporation tax and excise duty is not allocated.

GERS was set up by Ian Lang, then Scottish secretary. It was used to "undermine" political opponents.

It is, however, the only set of stats that the UK government uses on the issue.

Do you know how much they are?

And, when you say excise duty, does that include VAT?

[Moulin Yarns]

Do you know how much they are?

And, when you say excise duty, does that include VAT?

For some historic reason duty and VAT on whisky is paid in London and not Scotland which isn't included in the GERS figures.

[ronaldo7]

So the latest GERS figures were published today.

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2016/08/2132

Not great reading for the SNP, but I suppose people will interpret and twist it in many different ways.

Indeed.

I love how the Unionists draw our attention to their mismanagement of the Scottish economy with such glee.

[ronaldo7]

For some historic reason duty and VAT on whisky is paid in London and not Scotland which isn't included in the GERS figures.

It's only £4Billion though.:wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

It's only £4Billion though.:wink:

So more than a quarter of the deficit.

Any idea how much the Corporation Tax is?

[ronaldo7]

So more than a quarter of the deficit.

Any idea how much the Corporation Tax is?

Not got that figure G, but it won't be as much, as we're too wee, and stupid to run companies.:greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Not got that figure G, but it won't be as much, as we're too wee, and stupid to run companies.:greengrin

This might help.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/464199/HMRC_disaggregated_receipts_-_Methodology_Note.pdf

[CropleyWasGod]

And this:-

17346

[ronaldo7]

Widely reported....
Oil revenue down by 97%.
Scotland's deficit at £15b.

Phew, thank goodness the rest of the UK is unaffected. :rolleyes:

Oil revenue down £1.802Billion

Non Oil revenue up £1.924Billion.

It's a pity we didn't get that £200Billion bonanza Cameron told us we'd get if we voted NO.:greengrin

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10656869/David-Cameron-to-boost-North-Sea-revenues-by-200bn-to-persuade-Scots-to-vote-no-to-independence.html

[#FromTheCapital]

No matter what way you look at it, Scotland currently has a huge deficit - one that would prohibit us from joining the EU and would be unsustainable if we were independent.

[RyeSloan]

No matter what way you look at it, Scotland currently has a huge deficit - one that would prohibit us from joining the EU and would be unsustainable if we were independent.

No no and no...the deficit now seems to be a good thing as it proves Scotland needs more powers to pull 'economic levers' to resolve it.

Quite what those levers are and quite how they would be pulled and when they are pulled what the outcome would be has not been clarified of course.

And anyway the EU is desperate for Scotland to join so it's not an issue there...the fact that Germany would then be telling Scotland what it needs to do to reduce the deficit is mere unionist propaganda and should be ignored.

Or something like that....

[#FromTheCapital]

No no and no...the deficit now seems to be a good thing as it proves Scotland needs more powers to pull 'economic levers' to resolve it.

Quite what those levers are and quite how they would be pulled and when they are pulled what the outcome would be has not been clarified of course.

And anyway the EU is desperate for Scotland to join so it's not an issue there...the fact that Germany would then be telling Scotland what it needs to do to reduce the deficit is mere unionist propaganda and should be ignored.

Or something like that....

Pretty much sums up the arguments I've seen so far 😂👍🏼

[jonty]

No no and no...the deficit now seems to be a good thing as it proves Scotland needs more powers to pull 'economic levers' to resolve it.

Quite what those levers are and quite how they would be pulled and when they are pulled what the outcome would be has not been clarified of course.

And anyway the EU is desperate for Scotland to join so it's not an issue there...the fact that Germany would then be telling Scotland what it needs to do to reduce the deficit is mere unionist propaganda and should be ignored.

Or something like that....

Don't be silly. everything is fine, nothing to see here, better together. status quo. :greengrin

(now I'm humming along to the Quo - how apt!)
I take it all
You squeeze me dry
And now today
You couldn't even say goodbye

Something needs to change but no one yet appears to have a concrete plan (everything so far appears to be scaremongering and generally miserable nonsense).
So i'm off to stick my head in the sand, hum Status Quo songs and hope for a better future.
Hopefully all the women in charge can come up with a plan.

[steakbake]

http://www.thenational.scot/comment/michael-fry-controversial-financial-figures-are-failing-to-give-true-picture-of-taxes-and-expenditure-in-scotland.21580

This, from a former Tory turned pro-independence.

The last point is where I am with GERS.

[RyeSloan]

http://www.thenational.scot/comment/michael-fry-controversial-financial-figures-are-failing-to-give-true-picture-of-taxes-and-expenditure-in-scotland.21580

This, from a former Tory turned pro-independence.

The last point is where I am with GERS.

I'm not sure what he is saying apart from he believes in Independence, there is also this rather quaint belief that governments are responsible for generating economic growth.

He also fails to back up his assertion re financial services...my understanding is that as a portion of GDP financial services in Scotland is very similar to that of the U.K. As a whole.

That said he does at least suggest lowering the burden of taxation and regulation would be a positive thing but does anyone really believe that an Indy Scotland would be in a position to lower taxation (if the GERS figures are anywhere near accurate I think not) or lower regulation if we joined the EU?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lord bunberry]

No matter what way you look at it, Scotland currently has a huge deficit - one that would prohibit us from joining the EU and would be unsustainable if we were independent.
It has a huge deficit when you use the figures published this week.The figure mentions the drop in oil revenues. Scotland currently receives 2% of all oil revenues and whisky revenues aren't included in the figures either. It's preposterous to use these figures and say that an independent Scotland would run at a deficit of £15b. These figures are for how Scotland operates within the union. I'm not saying that everything would be brilliant in an independent Scotland, but they're not brilliant at the moment within the union. People seem to be happy when our own country is put down by people who have run the UK into the ground and believe people who couldn't give a flying **** about Scotland as long as they are sitting in Westminster doing well from the status quo.

[#FromTheCapital]

It has a huge deficit when you use the figures published this week.The figure mentions the drop in oil revenues. Scotland currently receives 2% of all oil revenues and whisky revenues aren't included in the figures either. It's preposterous to use these figures and say that an independent Scotland would run at a deficit of £15b. These figures are for how Scotland operates within the union. I'm not saying that everything would be brilliant in an independent Scotland, but they're not brilliant at the moment within the union. People seem to be happy when our own country is put down by people who have run the UK into the ground and believe people who couldn't give a flying **** about Scotland as long as they are sitting in Westminster doing well from the status quo.

Revenue from the whiskey industry, in the form of corporation tax, whisky consumed in Scotland, income tax etc are included in the figures as was highlighted earlier in the thread.

People have different ways of looking at it, so it's not the first time I've seen the union blamed for the poor figures. In my view this shows that we benefit from being in the UK, although I don't expect you to agree with that.

[lord bunberry]

Revenue from the whiskey industry, in the form of corporation tax, whisky consumed in Scotland, income tax etc are included in the figures as was highlighted earlier in the thread.

People have different ways of looking at it, so it's not the first time I've seen the union blamed for the poor figures. In my view this shows that we benefit from being in the UK, although I don't expect you to agree with that.
Funnily enough I don't :greengrin. What about things like farmed salmon that is the UKs biggest food export? Apparently it's worth £2.8b and is also not included in the figures. I'm not blaming the union for the figures, I'm saying that the figures aren't a reflection on how the Scottish economy would look in the case of an independence vote. People have been keen all week to use these figures as a reason to keep the union, when they are nothing of the kind.

[CropleyWasGod]

Funnily enough I don't :greengrin. What about things like farmed salmon that is the UKs biggest food export? Apparently it's worth £2.8b and is also not included in the figures. I'm not blaming the union for the figures, I'm saying that the figures aren't a reflection on how the Scottish economy would look in the case of an independence vote. People have been keen all week to use these figures as a reason to keep the union, when they are nothing of the kind.

Why wouldn't it be?

[JeMeSouviens]

Revenue from the whiskey industry, in the form of corporation tax, whisky consumed in Scotland, income tax etc are included in the figures as was highlighted earlier in the thread.

People have different ways of looking at it, so it's not the first time I've seen the union blamed for the poor figures. In my view this shows that we benefit from being in the UK, although I don't expect you to agree with that.

GERS is annoyingly presented as "the amount the Scottish Government spends versus what it raises in taxes" whereas what it actually is is total Scottish Government spending plus UK government spending either in Scotland or notionally attributed to the "benefit of Scotland" versus a partly estimated total figure for the amount of revenue raised by taxation of all kinds attributable to activity in Scotland.

We can quibble over the numbers* but it's pretty much unarguable that without oil revenue (and it has all but dried up unless/until the price recovers) Scotland cannot sustain current levels of public spending without English subsidy or miraculous growth.

I think this is true inside the Union as well, btw. If you believe we are subsidised to the tune of £15Bn then you should be aware that £6Bn of it will disappear if Barnett is scrapped. The only thing that is stopping that happening is the threat of independence. As soon as support for independence drops to a perceived "safe" level, it will be gone like snow off a dyke. And if Brexit really does bring pain to the UK economy in the medium to long term, then UK public spending will decline and Scottish public spending will drop proportionately.

My view is that Independence is a significant risk with probable significant short term pain but a potential medium to long term economic upside (leaving aside the upside on the intangibles, I might get to die in my own country rather than someone else's for instance, what price can you put on that?) Continuing in the UK is a guaranteed managed decline.



* problems with GERS vs hypothetical Indy abound and the implications of Brexit will only make that worse.

1. A share of UK spending is attributed to Scotland we'd never spend on our own, eg. Trident, HS2, London olympics etc
2. If the UK departments don't know what they spend in Scotland, they guess.
3. What share of UK debt would Scotland agree to sustain? Because of Trident relocation we actually have a trump card in any negotiation.
4. Scotland needs immigrants, an Indy Scotland could attempt to attract them. Brexit Britain will do anything but.
5. Scotland needs inward investment, how much of that will come to a non-EU UK?

[lord bunberry]

Why wouldn't it be?
For the same reason that whisky isn't included. It's shipped mainly via Heathrow.

[CropleyWasGod]

For the same reason that whisky isn't included. It's shipped mainly via Heathrow.

See my post 192, which suggests that whisky IS included.

I'm not disbelieving you, and i know :greengrin how numbers can be made to look like anything you want, but I am confused....

[JeMeSouviens]

For the same reason that whisky isn't included. It's shipped mainly via Heathrow.

Whisky should be included in as much as it gets taxed here, ie. VAT and duty on bottles sold in Scotland, corporation tax on companies producing it here. I don't think shipping arrangements have any bearing on that? Although I suppose there will be all sorts of anomalies in how corporation tax of companies earning on either side of the border is carved up (or just guessed at).

[CropleyWasGod]

Whisky should be included in as much as it gets taxed here, ie. VAT and duty on bottles sold in Scotland, corporation tax on companies producing it here. I don't think shipping arrangements have any bearing on that? Although I suppose there will be all sorts of anomalies in how corporation tax of companies earning on either side of the border is carved up (or just guessed at).

Again, see post 192, which is fairly self-explanatory and, IMO, sensible.

[lord bunberry]

See my post 192, which suggests that whisky IS included.

I'm not disbelieving you, and i know :greengrin how numbers can be made to look like anything you want, but I am confused....
http://www.politicsscotland.scot/wps-we16-12/gers-discussion/

[RyeSloan]

http://www.politicsscotland.scot/wps-we16-12/gers-discussion/

I'm curious why there has been no attempt to improve GERS. A reasonably reliable assessment would surely be useful no matter what your politics. These figures seem to be all that we have but do not seem anywhere near reliable enough to inform any debate.

[#FromTheCapital]

Funnily enough I don't :greengrin. What about things like farmed salmon that is the UKs biggest food export? Apparently it's worth £2.8b and is also not included in the figures. I'm not blaming the union for the figures, I'm saying that the figures aren't a reflection on how the Scottish economy would look in the case of an independence vote. People have been keen all week to use these figures as a reason to keep the union, when they are nothing of the kind.

I agree that they aren't a true reflection of how Independant Scotland's economy would look. If we were independent and running that deficit then we'd really be up **** creek without a paddle, it would be unsustainable.

However, in my view the figures do give an indication just how difficult it would be if we went it alone. A far cry from the land of milk and honey promised by Salmond before the last referendum.

[lord bunberry]

I'm curious why there has been no attempt to improve GERS. A reasonably reliable assessment would surely be useful no matter what your politics. These figures seem to be all that we have but do not seem anywhere near reliable enough to inform any debate.
I agree, but the problem is that gers was set up to undermine non Tory parties and has remained a political tool ever since.

[lord bunberry]

I agree that they aren't a true reflection of how Independant Scotland's economy would look. If we were independent and running that deficit then we'd really be up **** creek without a paddle, it would be unsustainable.

However, in my view the figures do give an indication just how difficult it would be if we went it alone. A far cry from the land of milk and honey promised by Salmond before the last referendum.
You say it would be unsustainable, but the UK ran a higher percentage deficit in the past and no one claimed that it was unsustainable then.

[#FromTheCapital]

You say it would be unsustainable, but the UK ran a higher percentage deficit in the past and no one claimed that it was unsustainable then.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. How long was the UK deficit higher for? And how does that make the current Scottish deficit acceptable or sustainable?

[lord bunberry]

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. How long was the UK deficit higher for? And how does that make the current Scottish deficit acceptable or sustainable?
Well we can only go on year on year figures. This year you said that the deficit was unsustainable, but in 2010 the UK ran a higher deficit. Next years figures will be different, maybe better, maybe worse. Running a deficit doesn't make a country unsustainable and as I presume you're well aaware our deficit wouldn't be anywhere near the £15b mentioned in the gers report. When you take out the cost of the armed forces and infrastructure projects that don't effect Scotland, not to mention our share of the current UK debt repayment. Scotland would run a substantially smaller deficit than the £15b figure put out this week.

[#FromTheCapital]

Well we can only go on year on year figures. This year you said that the deficit was unsustainable, but in 2010 the UK ran a higher deficit. Next years figures will be different, maybe better, maybe worse. Running a deficit doesn't make a country unsustainable and as I presume you're well aaware our deficit wouldn't be anywhere near the £15b mentioned in the gers report. When you take out the cost of the armed forces and infrastructure projects that don't effect Scotland, not to mention our share of the current UK debt repayment. Scotland would run a substantially smaller deficit than the £15b figure put out this week.

For one year (2010) in the midst of a recession the UK ran a higher deficit. I'm fairly sure people would've said at the time that it was unsustainable. Regardless it has fallen almost every year since.

What I meant is that it's unsustainable to run that level of deficit for a prolonged period of years. I defintely never said anything about it being unsustainable this year (whatever that means).

[lord bunberry]

For one year (2010) in the midst of a recession the UK ran a higher deficit. I'm fairly sure people would've said at the time that it was unsustainable. Regardless it has fallen almost every year since.

What I meant is that it's unsustainable to run that level of deficit for a prolonged period of years. I defintely never said anything about it being unsustainable this year (whatever that means).
There's nothing to suggest an independent Scotland would run an unsustainable deficit either. It hasn't stopped people using the gers figures as a reason to maintain the union.

[#FromTheCapital]

There's nothing to suggest an independent Scotland would run an unsustainable deficit either. It hasn't stopped people using the gers figures as a reason to maintain the union.

No and I haven't said that either. See my post at the top of the page where I agree that they're not an accurate reflection of how it would look. If a set of figures suggest certain benefits of being in the union, then it's pretty obvious that some people are going to use them as a reason to maintain it.... And just as obvious that people on the other side of the fence are going to try and shoot them down with their own perspective :greengrin

[lord bunberry]

No and I haven't said that either. See my post at the top of the page where I agree that they're not an accurate reflection of how it would look. If a set of figures suggest certain benefits of being in the union, then it's pretty obvious that some people are going to use them as a reason to maintain it.... And just as obvious that people on the other side of the fence are going to try and shoot them down with their own perspective :greengrin

I wasn't suggesting that you personally had said that and I agree that people will always jump on anything that will make their cause seem more legitimate. Obviously in the grand scheme of things you're wrong, but I respect your opinion:greengrin
Peace brother.

[#FromTheCapital]

I wasn't suggesting that you personally had said that and I agree that people will always jump on anything that will make their cause seem more legitimate. Obviously in the grand scheme of things you're wrong, but I respect your opinion:greengrin
Peace brother.


:hilarious

Yes that's enough politics for one night, I'm off to watch clips of a certain cup final winning header.

:aok:

[lord bunberry]

:hilarious

Yes that's enough politics for one night, I'm off to watch clips of a certain cup final winning header.

:aok:

Do you know I've never yet watched the full game yet, which is a bit weird. I'm going to the game tomorrow and then I'm going to head home and we've decided that tomorrow is the day we're going to watch the game in its entirety.

[Mibbes Aye]

I'm not sure what he is saying apart from he believes in Independence, there is also this rather quaint belief that governments are responsible for generating economic growth.



SiMar, I've enjoyed your posts on this thread, they've been well-argued and thought out and generally I wouldn't disagree with anything you've said, despite us probably coming from different starting points in how we view matters.

We do have to revisit 2008 though - the only thing that saved us from cash machines stopping working, direct debits falling apart and the whole banking system going on a domino collapse was a massive, concerted intervention by the state. Here and across the Western economies. The taxpayers have picked up the bill and the weakest in our society have been hurt because the services they rely on most have been cut to pay the bill.

It's fine to believe how good a free market economy might work, without the fetters and restraints of bureaucracy.

The reality is it led us close to an existential disaster and when it comes to the crunch, who bails you out?

It must be nice to be able to gamble all you like, knowing that you've got a godparent who will ensure you don't lose your home however reckless you've been.

That's the system we have, the state (i.e. us) paying for the hubris of those who never have to take responsibility for their decisions.

It's not a free market, it's a con. At least have the honesty to admit that?

[RyeSloan]

SiMar, I've enjoyed your posts on this thread, they've been well-argued and thought out and generally I wouldn't disagree with anything you've said, despite us probably coming from different starting points in how we view matters. We do have to revisit 2008 though - the only thing that saved us from cash machines stopping working, direct debits falling apart and the whole banking system going on a domino collapse was a massive, concerted intervention by the state. Here and across the Western economies. The taxpayers have picked up the bill and the weakest in our society have been hurt because the services they rely on most have been cut to pay the bill. It's fine to believe how good a free market economy might work, without the fetters and restraints of bureaucracy. The reality is it led us close to an existential disaster and when it comes to the crunch, who bails you out? It must be nice to be able to gamble all you like, knowing that you've got a godparent who will ensure you don't lose your home however reckless you've been. That's the system we have, the state (i.e. us) paying for the hubris of those who never have to take responsibility for their decisions. It's not a free market, it's a con. At least have the honesty to admit that?

Oh for sure...I read a lot of comments that say capitalism has failed etc but to my eyes we don't have anything like real capitalism at all!

The fiat money system has been co-opted by the few and abused by governments the world over. To suggest that you can simply continue to print billions upon billions and shovel it into sub zero government debt and now corporate debt (and even corporate equities as the Japanese have done) is somehow a free market is just ludicrous.

I don't suggest I have all the answers but I don't believe more government, eternal deficits and forever growing national debts is any solution. Moving back to some sort of world where capital is actually valued and the effective allocation of it is not undermined by ludicrously low interest rates and massive central bank intervention would be a half decent start!

In the end though I simply don't believe governments and mandarins are really that smart they can control economies or generate economic growth through industrial policies. They back the wrong horse, are influenced way too much by lobbying or those that shout loudest and suffer greatly from the laws of unintended consequences of even the best intentioned policies.

[steakbake]

Plan B (for Brown)...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/29/gordon-brown-house-of-lords-elected-senate-brexit-uk-scottish-independence

[ronaldo7]

Whilst the Uk gov have all been on holidays, the Japanese have been formulating a plan for Boris et al to put into practice.

Maybe, when Scotland gets Independence, the Japs will move their interests up North.:greengrin

https://t.co/vVThsUUtoG

[Hibbyradge]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/10/why-would-eu-appease-deluded-brexiters

[Just Alf]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/10/why-would-eu-appease-deluded-brexiters

Some hard times ahead I feel.... and pretty much what everyone that bothered to "see" the big picture expected if we voted leave.

[ronaldo7]

UK gov wishing back channel talks rebuffed by the EU. This brexit thing is going to be more difficult than the Tories thought.

https://t.co/dzBm7bOLCj

[steakbake]

Far from solving the divisions in the Tory party, Brexit just continues them and divides even further. Now you've got remainers, hard Brexit and soft Brexit. Plus there are some total plums, like the Foreign Secretary, who want to think about decommissioning Britannia so they can use it for signing trade treaties... Presumably with places like Bechuanaland, Lower Volta, Formosa and Siam.

[Hibbyradge]

Far from solving the divisions in the Tory party, Brexit just continues them and divides even further. Now you've got remainers, hard Brexit and soft Brexit. Plus there are some total plums, like the Foreign Secretary, who want to think about decommissioning Britannia so they can use it for signing trade treaties... Presumably with places like Bechuanaland, Lower Volta, Formosa and Siam.

The Labour Party will keep everyone straight on the issue.

[ronaldo7]

The Labour Party will keep everyone straight on the issue.

Are those red lines straight enough for you?

https://t.co/AGOrvkzX2C

[Hibbyradge]

Are those red lines straight enough for you?

https://t.co/AGOrvkzX2C

You do recognise irony when you see it, don't you?

[Moulin Yarns]

Did anybody watch the Andrew Marr programme about the Indyref 2 years on?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b07wzw02/scotland-and-the-battle-for-britain-episode-2

I was pleasantly surprised how balanced it seemed (to me at least) The only thing I had a gripe with was the only party that wanted independence according to the programme was SNP, no mention of SSP, Radical Independence or the Scottish Greens.

[ronaldo7]

You do recognise irony when you see it, don't you?

I do.

Just want to keep as much information out there from "your side" of the leadership battle before you cast your vote. :greengrin

[Hibbyradge]

I do.

Just want to keep as much information out there from "your side" of the leadership battle before you cast your vote. :greengrin

That's very thoughtful of you, but there's no need. I'm merely a horrified observer.

My next political decision will be whether to vote for the Liberals in an attempt to unseat the Tory.

Julian Sturdy. With a name like that, there wasn't much doubt which party he would belong to!

The Liberals were a fairly close second in 2010 but crashed from 36% to 11 last time.

I'll see what the polls say nearer the time, but I'm not holding my breath.

Mr Sturdy received nearly 50% of the vote in 2015, double of what was achieved by Labour.

[ronaldo7]

That's very thoughtful of you, but there's no need. I'm merely a horrified observer.

My next political decision will be whether to vote for the Liberals in an attempt to unseat the Tory.

Julian Sturdy. With a name like that, there wasn't much doubt which party he would belong to!

The Liberals were a fairly close second in 2010 but crashed from 36% to 11 last time.

I'll see what the polls say nearer the time, but I'm not holding my breath.

Mr Sturdy received nearly 50% of the vote in 2015, double of what was achieved by Labour.

I bet you're happy you never moved to Wales.:greengrin

Labour in Wales voted alongside the Tories, Lib dems, and Ukip to oppose single market membership.

https://t.co/N32d02BM74

[Hibbyradge]

I bet you're happy you never moved to Wales.:greengrin

Labour in Wales voted alongside the Tories, Lib dems, and Ukip to oppose single market membership.

https://t.co/N32d02BM74

Geez a friggin break. Idiots. Really?

It's like everyone has gone mental.

[ronaldo7]

It looks like May the merciless has set a date for article 50 to be triggered. Interesting times ahead in the next couple of years.

https://t.co/ajTMgIO98Z

[Kevin]

What is going on with London property market after Brexit? Has it influenced property prices to any extent? KPMG predicted that prices would drop by 5% nationally. But some brokers reported the increase of property investors activity due to the pound fall (also heated by base interest rate drop). My colleague who is in the process of buying a flat in London said it is unaffordable as usuall

[steakbake]

What is going on with London property market after Brexit? Has it influenced property prices to any extent? KPMG predicted that prices would drop by 5% nationally. But some brokers reported the increase of property investors activity due to the pound fall (also heated by base interest rate drop). My colleague who is in the process of buying a flat in London said it is unaffordable as usuall

Brexit hasn't happened yet... but you can see that as soon as the ghost of it appears, the £ goes into a spin.

The true scale of this damaging decision and its aftermath are still some way off.

Personally, I'm not sure what will happen next but I don't believe for one minute, that the welfare of people and the wider economy will be given much thought compared to the ideological outcome of a hard brexit. May has staffed her cabinet with the likes of Liam Fox who somehow thinks we hold all the ace cards in a negotiation.

[RyeSloan]

Brexit hasn't happened yet... but you can see that as soon as the ghost of it appears, the £ goes into a spin.

The true scale of this damaging decision and its aftermath are still some way off.

Personally, I'm not sure what will happen next but I don't believe for one minute, that the welfare of people and the wider economy will be given much thought compared to the ideological outcome of a hard brexit. May has staffed her cabinet with the likes of Liam Fox who somehow thinks we hold all the ace cards in a negotiation.

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...

[steakbake]

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...

We shall see what difference it really makes when Brexit happens.

[Hibrandenburg]

It's depressing watching the news, step by step, the UK is isolating itself from the rest of Europe blind to the fact that anything it does to European citizens will be mirrored by European countries to UK citizens living abroad. For every action there's a reaction. Stupid and inward looking doesn't do this step towards fascism justice.

[steakbake]

It's depressing watching the news, step by step, the UK is isolating itself from the rest of Europe blind to the fact that anything it does to European citizens will be mirrored by European countries to UK citizens living abroad. For every action there's a reaction. Stupid and inward looking doesn't do this step towards fascism justice.

It has been quite something. This is the Tories at full unleashed. It's depressing yet in some ways, I can't help but think that for a good number of people, this is not really the UK they voted for in 2014 and some Tory voters from 2015 might be a bit unsettled.

[#FromTheCapital]

I'm still just patiently waiting to see what happens instead of cutting my wrists thinking about what might or might not happen. If everyone had the same attitude towards Brexit as they seem to on this forum then we'd all be doomed.

[ronaldo7]

It's depressing watching the news, step by step, the UK is isolating itself from the rest of Europe blind to the fact that anything it does to European citizens will be mirrored by European countries to UK citizens living abroad. For every action there's a reaction. Stupid and inward looking doesn't do this step towards fascism justice.

: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.

[Hibrandenburg]

: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.

It's all the tories wet dreams come true after 1 referendum. I can't help but giggle a little that those little Britains that fill the unemployment offices because they're too lazy to work will be the one's who'll be ****ed by this the most. Guess who's gonna have to go wash dishes, pick vegetables from the fields and do the cleaning if they want their dole money, once Johnny Foreigner is no longer here? Or do they all think they're gonna be offered the new vacant Dr posts? It's mental!

[Alex Trager]

It's all the tories wet dreams come true after 1 referendum. I can't help but giggle a little that those little Britains that fill the unemployment offices because they're too lazy to work will be the one's who'll be ****ed by this the most. Guess who's gonna have to go wash dishes, pick vegetables from the fields and do the cleaning if they want their dole money, once Johnny Foreigner is no longer here? Or do they all think they're gonna be offered the new vacant Dr posts? It's mental!

This is the part that I am most looking forward to to be honest.

When the reality hits that it's not the immigrants that do x y and z to the country.

But then as usual, we'll turn on those at the bottom of society. As we are right now. It'll just be different people.


I despise programmes that generate hatred toward the lower rungs of society in a bid to deflect attention. Whether it be benefit abusers or immigrants, there's always someone who is stealing from our country that isn't the REAL thieves. And as long as we continue our focus on them, the real thieves continue to rinse us.

[Geo_1875]

The way the Tories are heading we might just need Trident before too long.

[steakbake]

Common Market is out, according to May. People may have voted to Leave for a variety of reasons, but I would think a pretty decent number did not expect us to pull out of the common market. The usual and understandable refrain from pro-Leavers is that we voted to join a common market in 1974 and that the EU had grown beyond that. I am not sure all of them would be expecting for us to go back to pre-1974.

Labour woefully slow on issuing the statements. Burnham is the only one who said anything of any resonance yesterday.

Conservative Party conference is a perfect curtain-raiser to the SNP one in a couple of weeks.