Brexit?

[Hasselhoff]

Here we go again, making up shit as per normal. Reaths17 and his daily dose of tripe and nonsense.

 

1. I'm not anti-English, I'm pro Scottish and believe Scotland would be better off running its own affairs.

 

2. The uk government is paying to de-commission all these oil fields? That right aye? [emoji23]

 

3. Is 17 your IQ?

 

4. Unlucky:

https://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/11985/north-sea-oil-has-healthy-future-after-price-rise-says-bp-boss/

You think Scotland would be better off running its own affairs. Maybe you should watch Derek Mackay (one of the brightest SNP up and coming politicians supposedly) look completely bewildered under questioning on financial matters today. Completely inept and proof he is just a front as he has no understanding what he is talking about other than just the spin he has been told to say.

 

1 hour 25 mins in

 

http://www.scottishparliament.tv/Archive/Index/4330000b-bd08-4fc3-8a1a-bf8dce8a81a4?categoryId=adf12acf-2cad-492c-8c5b-538e04973a86&parentCategoryClicked=False&pageNumber=1&orderByField=ScheduledStart&queryOrder=DESC

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Here we go again, making up shit as per normal. Reaths17 and his daily dose of tripe and nonsense.

 

1. I'm not anti-English, I'm pro Scottish and believe Scotland would be better off running its own affairs.

 

 

 

Perhaps, for a short while we may be able to run our own affairs, but all that will change the day Scotland joins the EU and then we will have to do as Brussels tells us.

 

You say you want Scotland to run her own affairs but do you want her to be able to make her own laws and rules, make her own trade deals etc and be answerable to no one but the Scottish people?

That is what I call real Independence, not this half-way house pretend Independence that the SNP are offering.

 

 

 

 

[JamboX2]

Today the Guardian excels itself in Remainer propaganda. No less than 4 pages of the G2 section (what used to be the arts and entertainment section) are devoted to "The Brexit Resistance" . The headlines and sub headlines give the gist. "We're getting bigger all the time" "The Tories are now rushing for the EU exit and Jeremy Corbyn is not far behind them. But many pro-Europeans around the country believe there is still a chance to fight Brexit. So what do they think they can achieve? John Harris meets the new resistance leaders" " As much as anything the growing resistance highlights how divided the country has become" "There's no reason why Theresa May has to pursue this crusade to ruin the UK".

 

So the remainers are portrayed as if they were the French resistance against German occupation.

 

Odd comparison to draw. Why can't they just be resistant to Brexit? What's wrong in them arguing against leaving the Single Market or the Customs Union. Or about worrying the anti-immigrant rhetoric from some elements is getting too much? Or that the real failings of the UK is not it's European partnership but it's divisive rhetoric and mediocre governments.

 

All worth resisting if you ask me.

 

But one thing struck me about the over eighty faces portrayed in the accompanying five pictures of the "resistance" movement, (And I see Space Mackerel and others poised with their knee jerk reactions accusing me of racism as I type). There were only two non-white faces in the crowds of demonstrators. Given that Brexit is a supposedly racist movement isn't that a bit odd? Wouldn't you expect black and brown faces to be prominent in the resistance?

 

I don't think you are being racist. People of all races can be racist or anti-immigration. But what's your point? The Guardian should be more diverse in it's reporting?

 

Or could it be that non-white Britons recognise that the precious right of "free movement of peoples" is mainly about the free movement of people between predominantly white countries, tending to exclude or make more difficult the movement of people from predominantly non-white countries?

So free movement in the EU is racist because there are more predominantly white nations in the EU?

 

Well I have to disagree with that. The UK has not addressed it's non-EU migration issues and continues to "let in" a high number of non-EU migrants. Why? Because it needs immigrants. The UK needs immigration. It's a huge boost to our universities. Our NHS. Our farms. Our schools. Our factories. Our local councils. Our country relies on and has always relied on immigration.

 

The great moments of our post-war history can be seen in our attitude to migration. The British Nationality Act 1948 granted the right to citizenship to an Empire we had ruled as subjects. The Windrush, economic migration assisting us in a depopulated post-war nation with an exodus of talent to Canada, Australia and the like and into wasteful national service. The opening of arms to East African Asians who were fleeing persecution. The constant Irish migration into our economy has supported our growth. As has eastern european immigration.

 

Don't forget when we were suffering in the 1980s a lot of UK citizens travelled to Germany and Europe for work.

 

I honestly believe the fact we are in this position is because rather than make hard choices or criticise ourselves our populist right wing media brought up a boggie man in immigeation causing more issues than not and our leaders decided at the height of austerity to play a similar line than face up to it.

 

There might in places be issues around integration of communities. But nonetheless, the issue again isn't immigration it is government policies on the effect and ramifications of immigration. Much like the NHS isn't stressed by immigration but crap political management.

[Space Mackerel]

You think Scotland would be better off running its own affairs. Maybe you should watch Derek Mackay (one of the brightest SNP up and coming politicians supposedly) look completely bewildered under questioning on financial matters today. Completely inept and proof he is just a front as he has no understanding what he is talking about other than just the spin he has been told to say.

1 hour 25 mins in http://www.scottishparliament.tv/Archive/Index/4330000b-bd08-4fc3-8a1a-bf8dce8a81a4?categoryId=adf12acf-2cad-492c-8c5b-538e04973a86&parentCategoryClicked=False&pageNumber=1&orderByField=ScheduledStart&queryOrder=DESC

So you don't know the difference between actual budget and real spending power what he was trying to say.

For example, a business can increase sales but find its profits down by an increase in overheads etc.

Pretty simple stuff.

[Hasselhoff]

So you don't know the difference between actual budget and real spending power what he was trying to say.

For example, a business can increase sales but find its profits down by an increase in overheads etc.

Pretty simple stuff.

Scotland budget has increased since 2010 in real terms despite their claims that they have been handed reduced budgets each year by UK government

[AlphonseCapone]

Ancestry.co.uk

Cheers!

[jake]

Odd comparison to draw. Why can't they just be resistant to Brexit? What's wrong in them arguing against leaving the Single Market or the Customs Union. Or about worrying the anti-immigrant rhetoric from some elements is getting too much? Or that the real failings of the UK is not it's European partnership but it's divisive rhetoric and mediocre governments.

 

All worth resisting if you ask me.

 

 

I don't think you are being racist. People of all races can be racist or anti-immigration. But what's your point? The Guardian should be more diverse in it's reporting?

 

 

So free movement in the EU is racist because there are more predominantly white nations in the EU?

 

Well I have to disagree with that. The UK has not addressed it's non-EU migration issues and continues to "let in" a high number of non-EU migrants. Why? Because it needs immigrants. The UK needs immigration. It's a huge boost to our universities. Our NHS. Our farms. Our schools. Our factories. Our local councils. Our country relies on and has always relied on immigration.

 

The great moments of our post-war history can be seen in our attitude to migration. The British Nationality Act 1948 granted the right to citizenship to an Empire we had ruled as subjects. The Windrush, economic migration assisting us in a depopulated post-war nation with an exodus of talent to Canada, Australia and the like and into wasteful national service. The opening of arms to East African Asians who were fleeing persecution. The constant Irish migration into our economy has supported our growth. As has eastern european immigration.

 

Don't forget when we were suffering in the 1980s a lot of UK citizens travelled to Germany and Europe for work.

 

I honestly believe the fact we are in this position is because rather than make hard choices or criticise ourselves our populist right wing media brought up a boggie man in immigeation causing more issues than not and our leaders decided at the height of austerity to play a similar line than face up to it.

 

There might in places be issues around integration of communities. But nonetheless, the issue again isn't immigration it is government policies on the effect and ramifications of immigration. Much like the NHS isn't stressed by immigration but crap political management.

 

Its the way they are asking our politicians to ignore the vote.

 

Its the constant fake news the guardian uses to undermine the result.

Regardless of fact.

 

Yes in the 80s british workers went to Germany because Germany needed them.

 

They had to apply for work visas and complete other paperwork which german authorities could control .

 

Which brings me neatly to your point about integration.

Its the inabilty to control the numbers and the strain it put on housing schooling and the health service.

 

We have not had it as much as english cities but still even in Edinburgh this has seen pressure on the housing stock and schools have had more young eastern european kids to deal with.

 

There is real benefits to edinburgh from mostly hard working good citezens from eastern europe.

But this must be planned for.

 

And finally your assertion we wouldnt be here if it wasnt for the press.

 

Are you actually serious.

The press have been anti brexit and continue to be.

Every time it rains its brexit.

 

Every forecast of economic doom hasn't happened.

The falling value of the pound has benefits and drawbacks.

[Francis Albert]

Its the way they are asking our politicians to ignore the vote.

 

Its the constant fake news the guardian uses to undermine the result.

Regardless of fact.

 

Yes in the 80s british workers went to Germany because Germany needed them.

 

They had to apply for work visas and complete other paperwork which german authorities could control .

 

Which brings me neatly to your point about integration.

Its the inabilty to control the numbers and the strain it put on housing schooling and the health service.

 

We have not had it as much as english cities but still even in Edinburgh this has seen pressure on the housing stock and schools have had more young eastern european kids to deal with.

 

There is real benefits to edinburgh from mostly hard working good citezens from eastern europe.

But this must be planned for.

 

And finally your assertion we wouldnt be here if it wasnt for the press.

 

Are you actually serious.

The press have been anti brexit and continue to be.

Every time it rains its brexit.

 

Every forecast of economic doom hasn't happened.

The falling value of the pound has benefits and drawbacks.

Take just that one statement headlined by the Guardian. "There is no reason why Theresa May has to pursue this crusade to ruin the UK", Now most Governments are elected by a minority of votes cast , often below 40%. They are elected on the basis of a manifesto combining lots of policies, none of which have a specific mandate. Yet they are allowed to govern and no one (much) sets up a resistance movement against their right to do so. Here 52% of voters have voted in favour of a very specific proposal, leaving the EU. Not for the invented "soft Brexit" which means in practice staying in the EU but just without any right of representation or say in the EU rules. None of the 52% voted for that. Theresa May has a clear mandate to leave the EU and given the promises before the vote that "your vote will decide" not just a mandate but an obligation to implement the decision. whether some of the other side thinks it will ruin the UK or not. 

[Martin_T]

Take just that one statement headlined by the Guardian. "There is no reason why Theresa May has to pursue this crusade to ruin the UK", Now most Governments are elected by a minority of votes cast , often below 40%. They are elected on the basis of a manifesto combining lots of policies, none of which have a specific mandate. Yet they are allowed to govern and no one (much) sets up a resistance movement against their right to do so. Here 52% of voters have voted in favour of a very specific proposal, leaving the EU. Not for the invented "soft Brexit" which means in practice staying in the EU but just without any right of representation or say in the EU rules. None of the 52% voted for that. Theresa May has a clear mandate to leave the EU and given the promises before the vote that "your vote will decide" not just a mandate but an obligation to implement the decision. whether some of the other side thinks it will ruin the UK or not.

A bit of a sweeping statement to say that all 52% of the leave voter's voted for a 'hard Brexit'.

 

As a remain voter yourself, what were your reasons for doing so?

[Francis Albert]

A bit of a sweeping statement to say that all 52% of the leave voter's voted for a 'hard Brexit'.

 

As a remain voter yourself, what were your reasons for doing so?

How many do you think voted for sticking with all existing and future EU rules, just without representation in EU institutions? No-one has explained why "Soft Brexit" doesn't mean just that.

 

I would on balance have voted remain (I was out of the country at the time and neither my wife (pro-Brexit) nor me ( a soft Remain) voted; since we would have cancelled each other out, so arranging a proxy or postal vote seemed a waste of time).

 

I would have voted Remain because I am basically an internationalist not a nationalist despite deep misgivings about the undemocratic direction of the EU "project"..

 

But I fully accept that "we" lost and that the result should be accepted. And like everyone else I do not know whether in ten years time we will be better or worse off. And indeed we will never know.

[jake]

Take just that one statement headlined by the Guardian. "There is no reason why Theresa May has to pursue this crusade to ruin the UK", Now most Governments are elected by a minority of votes cast , often below 40%. They are elected on the basis of a manifesto combining lots of policies, none of which have a specific mandate. Yet they are allowed to govern and no one (much) sets up a resistance movement against their right to do so. Here 52% of voters have voted in favour of a very specific proposal, leaving the EU. Not for the invented "soft Brexit" which means in practice staying in the EU but just without any right of representation or say in the EU rules. None of the 52% voted for that. Theresa May has a clear mandate to leave the EU and given the promises before the vote that "your vote will decide" not just a mandate but an obligation to implement the decision. whether some of the other side thinks it will ruin the UK or not.

 

What also astounds me is the hypocrisy of those seeking a second referendum in this country.

The question is simple yes for independence .

Imagine we had voted independent and 80 luvvies appeared in the record asking Theresa May to ignore the result.

 

Yet those 67% of snp members and their leader want the government to do exactly that.

 

As for the Guardian .

Well it prints lies and scaremongering on a daily basis.

 

The reporting by them and the bbc on the Syrian conflict has been riddled with falshoods.

A respected canadian journalist Eva Bartlett has publicly accused them of it as has Syrian people of Allepo.

 

Im not providing links its easy to find.

Msm has agendas .

One of them is brexit.

One of them is Syria.

 

And if we examine the reporting of the Scottish referendum there has been studies to show the editing of news broadcasts against the snp(who i have no time for).

 

One of the more infamous ones was during first minister questions.

 

The Guardian is the sun for luvvies.

[jake]

A bit of a sweeping statement to say that all 52% of the leave voter's voted for a 'hard Brexit'.

 

As a remain voter yourself, what were your reasons for doing so?

 

So what did they vote for.

They voted leave the EU.

Not lets see what happens but leave.

 

So not a sweeping statement but a statement of fact.

 

If Scotland voted leave the union would we say a but the voters didnt want that they wanted soft independence.

 

Its 52% voted leave .

Bye bye .

No more part of the EU.

[JamboX2]

Its the way they are asking our politicians to ignore the vote.

 

Its the constant fake news the guardian uses to undermine the result.

Regardless of fact.

 

Yes in the 80s british workers went to Germany because Germany needed them.

 

They had to apply for work visas and complete other paperwork which german authorities could control .

 

Which brings me neatly to your point about integration.

Its the inabilty to control the numbers and the strain it put on housing schooling and the health service.

 

We have not had it as much as english cities but still even in Edinburgh this has seen pressure on the housing stock and schools have had more young eastern european kids to deal with.

 

There is real benefits to edinburgh from mostly hard working good citezens from eastern europe.

But this must be planned for.

 

And finally your assertion we wouldnt be here if it wasnt for the press.

 

Are you actually serious.

The press have been anti brexit and continue to be.

Every time it rains its brexit.

 

Every forecast of economic doom hasn't happened.

The falling value of the pound has benefits and drawbacks.

Don't get your last point on the press.

 

The doom laden forecasts were predicated on what Cameron said about a quick move to Article 50 which never happened. The only test is when article 50 is invoked and we start to see the terms emerge.

 

And the rest of your post is not the failings of the EU or immigration but of British and now Scottish governments not effectively planning for such things. Housing stock has been low for decades. Stopping immigration won't help. Building houses will. Leaving the EU won't help the NHS social care crisis, investment will. ?4.6bn on corporate tax cuts. Why not keep tax the same and spend that money on the NHS and housing? ?2.3bn each way?

 

On the Guardian, the G2 is a supplement more in line with features and editorials. It need not be balanced reporting. That is in the actual paper. Then again it is a pro-EU, centre-left paper. That is it's editorial line. You will NOT get that reporting on Brexit Resistance in the Telegraph. So either read within your views or read to challenge or reaffirm your opinions. Don't blame the paper. Imo.

[JamboX2]

How many do you think voted for sticking with all existing and future EU rules, just without representation in EU institutions? No-one has explained why "Soft Brexit" doesn't mean just that.

 

I would on balance have voted remain (I was out of the country at the time and neither my wife (pro-Brexit) nor me ( a soft Remain) voted; since we would have cancelled each other out, so arranging a proxy or postal vote seemed a waste of time).

 

I would have voted Remain because I am basically an internationalist not a nationalist despite deep misgivings about the undemocratic direction of the EU "project"..

 

But I fully accept that "we" lost and that the result should be accepted. And like everyone else I do not know whether in ten years time we will be better or worse off. And indeed we will never know.

On the votes cancelling each other out point, that is only the case if there were two of you voting. In effect the votes would have counted irregardless of your views between the two of you as part of the wider voting electorate who voted last June.

 

I respect your right not to vote. Just an odd reason (to me anyway).

[JamboX2]

So what did they vote for.

They voted leave the EU.

Not lets see what happens but leave.

 

So not a sweeping statement but a statement of fact.

 

If Scotland voted leave the union would we say a but the voters didnt want that they wanted soft independence.

 

Its 52% voted leave .

Bye bye .

No more part of the EU.

But voters voting for independence in 2014 didn't want tariff based trade, a border wall and passport control.

 

I'm sure a fair few Brexiters don't want that with the EU. As Keir Starmer displayed in the Commons last year you could go through a dozen prominent leave campaigners and get mixed signals.

 

Brexit was never really defined other than leaving the EU. We could do that and still be in the Customs Union and Single Market... which I hope we very much do. Like Norway.

[Stephen Muddie]

Scotland spends more than it brings in.

Britain's national debt rises massively every year...

 

It would be less stupid to compare debt increases as a percentage.

 

I just found a link. Not great reading for the fairly dumb, hopeful nationalist. But there is plenty grey area in these stats, can you see what it is yet mate?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/11/scottish-financial-deficit-40-higher-than-rest-of-uk-data-reveals

[Stephen Muddie]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/11/scottish-financial-deficit-40-higher-than-rest-of-uk-data-reveals

But then...

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_deficit_analysis

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

But voters voting for independence in 2014 didn't want tariff based trade, a border wall and passport control.

 

I'm sure a fair few Brexiters don't want that with the EU. As Keir Starmer displayed in the Commons last year you could go through a dozen prominent leave campaigners and get mixed signals.

 

Brexit was never really defined other than leaving the EU. We could do that and still be in the Customs Union and Single Market... which I hope we very much do. Like Norway.

Norway is neither in the single market nor the customs union. Rather, there is an agreement between the EU and countries that make up the EEA. Norway can negotiate its own trade deals unlike the UK.

[JamboX2]

Norway is neither in the single market nor the customs union. Rather, there is an agreement between the EU and countries that make up the EEA. Norway can negotiate its own trade deals unlike the UK.

Sorry Geoff. They have single market access. They accept free movement for example. But they aren't in the Customs Union hence the ability to set their own deals.

[jake]

But voters voting for independence in 2014 didn't want tariff based trade, a border wall and passport control.

 

I'm sure a fair few Brexiters don't want that with the EU. As Keir Starmer displayed in the Commons last year you could go through a dozen prominent leave campaigners and get mixed signals.

 

Brexit was never really defined other than leaving the EU. We could do that and still be in the Customs Union and Single Market... which I hope we very much do. Like Norway.

 

People voting for independence wanted control of their own country.

What happens after that is for their own government to sort out.

 

Exactly as brexit should be.

[Francis Albert]

But voters voting for independence in 2014 didn't want tariff based trade, a border wall and passport control.

 

I'm sure a fair few Brexiters don't want that with the EU. As Keir Starmer displayed in the Commons last year you could go through a dozen prominent leave campaigners and get mixed signals.

 

Brexit was never really defined other than leaving the EU. We could do that and still be in the Customs Union and Single Market... which I hope we very much do. Like Norway.

We already have passport control and I don't remember a border wall being part of the Leave campaign, Unless the EU leaders, Merkel in particular, are bluffing (we will find out) we can't both control immigration and retain access to the Customs Union and Single Market.

 

And maybe a fair few Remain voters believed that Cameron's renegotiation with its "emergency brake" provisions would actually mean some greater control of immigration.

 

After every election you can argue about why people voted and what they voted for,  The analysis here is much simpler than in a multi-issue general election. The electorate voted to leave the EU, not to remain bound by all present and future EU rules, except without any say in the rules and their application.

[Francis Albert]

On the votes cancelling each other out point, that is only the case if there were two of you voting. In effect the votes would have counted irregardless of your views between the two of you as part of the wider voting electorate who voted last June.

 

I respect your right not to vote. Just an odd reason (to me anyway).

There were two of us voting, or as the case was not voting, one strongly pro-Brexit, one more mildly anti. We didn't see the point of asking a proxy to cast one vote for and one vote against.

[JamboX2]

People voting for independence wanted control of their own country.

What happens after that is for their own government to sort out.

 

Exactly as brexit should be.

Fair. So there should be debate on single market membership and customs union, yes?

[Adam Murray]

But voters voting for independence in 2014 didn't want tariff based trade, a border wall and passport control.

 

I'm sure a fair few Brexiters don't want that with the EU. As Keir Starmer displayed in the Commons last year you could go through a dozen prominent leave campaigners and get mixed signals.

 

Brexit was never really defined other than leaving the EU. We could do that and still be in the Customs Union and Single Market... which I hope we very much do. Like Norway.

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/11/norwegians-reject-nicola-sturgeons-norway-plan-stay-single-market/

 

Norway seem to have put a dampner on that.

 

I know, it's the Telegraph blah blah blah, it could be lies, what newspapers to trust eh?

 

Take away what paper it's from though, and be more concerned with whom the quotes are from, proper people and not just a 'source'

[Space Mackerel]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/11/norwegians-reject-nicola-sturgeons-norway-plan-stay-single-market/

 

Norway seem to have put a dampner on that.

 

I know, it's the Telegraph blah blah blah, it could be lies, what newspapers to trust eh?

 

Take away what paper it's from though, and be more concerned with whom the quotes are from, proper people and not just a 'source'

In that case, the City of London is just as snookered as Scotland.

 

232,000 job losses was it?

[JamboX2]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/11/norwegians-reject-nicola-sturgeons-norway-plan-stay-single-market/

 

Norway seem to have put a dampner on that.

 

I know, it's the Telegraph blah blah blah, it could be lies, what newspapers to trust eh?

 

Take away what paper it's from though, and be more concerned with whom the quotes are from, proper people and not just a 'source'

Wasn't going to attack your source mate. Will have a read, cheers

[Space Mackerel]

Wasn't going to attack your source mate. Will have a read, cheers

Brexit good for lawyers though

[JamboX2]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/11/norwegians-reject-nicola-sturgeons-norway-plan-stay-single-market/

 

Norway seem to have put a dampner on that.

 

I know, it's the Telegraph blah blah blah, it could be lies, what newspapers to trust eh?

 

Take away what paper it's from though, and be more concerned with whom the quotes are from, proper people and not just a 'source'

I agree a Scotland only policy seems hard to achieve.

 

My point was more for a UK wide policy.

[JamboX2]

Brexit good for lawyers though

Not really. Could be out a job if the economy sees a collapse in confidence and investment in the economy dries up

[Adam Murray]

Wasn't going to attack your source mate. Will have a read, cheers

 

Mentioning that it was The Telegraph wasn't really having a pop at yourself, as you seem to be able to debate things in a very reasonable and constructive manner, unlike some who's sole purpose seem to be to improve their post count with memes and inane drivel, dismissing any media source that doesn't suit their own specific agenda.

[jake]

Not really. Could be out a job if the economy sees a collapse in confidence and investment in the economy dries up

 

Care to expand why practicing law will drie up after brexit?

Or is this just more foundless conjecture.

[Space Mackerel]

Mentioning that it was The Telegraph wasn't really having a pop at yourself, as you seem to be able to debate things in a very reasonable and constructive manner, unlike some who's sole purpose seem to be to improve their post count with memes and inane drivel, dismissing any media source that doesn't suit their own specific agenda.

So, European Banking Passports and Scotland, square this circle please?

[Boris]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/11/norwegians-reject-nicola-sturgeons-norway-plan-stay-single-market/

 

Norway seem to have put a dampner on that.

 

I know, it's the Telegraph blah blah blah, it could be lies, what newspapers to trust eh?

 

Take away what paper it's from though, and be more concerned with whom the quotes are from, proper people and not just a 'source'

Perhaps this is all part of the plan. Be seen to be trying to reach an accommodation for Scotland within the current set up (the UK), but in the end the conclusion is only independence can see Scotland remain in the EU, or single market via EFTA.

 

Cynical perhaps, but wouldn't surprise me.

[Space Mackerel]

Not really. Could be out a job if the economy sees a collapse in confidence and investment in the economy dries up

That's no good mate. I like a good debate on here and always read your replies. One of the better posters on here

Probably a bit too brainy for me too

[jake]

Perhaps this is all part of the plan. Be seen to be trying to reach an accommodation for Scotland within the current set up (the UK), but in the end the conclusion is only independence can see Scotland remain in the EU, or single market via EFTA.

 

Cynical perhaps, but wouldn't surprise me.

 

Oxymoron alert.

 

Scotland cannot be an independent nation in the EU.

Nor will it be sovereign.

[Space Mackerel]

Oxymoron alert.

Scotland cannot be an independent nation in the EU.

Nor will it be sovereign.

Can we not just wait till Article 50 is actually really pulled then the fun, fireworks will begin?

[jake]

Can we not just wait till Article 50 is actually really pulled then the fun, fireworks will begin?

Makeral.

If you think the fireworks are bad from the media just now wait till indy happens for Scotland.

 

Dont you know brexit is only bad for the places that voted for it.

According to the news which we all believe.

[Space Mackerel]

Makeral.

If you think the fireworks are bad from the media just now wait till indy happens for Scotland.

Dont you know brexit is only bad for the places that voted for it.

According to the news which we all believe.

I don't watch any MSM tv news apart from Sky for the chicks, and a good chuckle. I get my info from other sites now, and I'm afraid to say, it's not fake, whatever line they are now peddling.

 

You do know the ? has hit a 31 year lows v $. Whilst good for exports, it's bad for imports which is what most of Middle England live on. The Euro will be according to HSBC heid honchos be a pound too by end of 2107.

 

And don't get me started how UK manufacturers are going to make things when they import bits and bobs from the EU to go in their products. It's a cluster****.

[jake]

I don't watch any MSM tv news apart from Sky for the chicks, and a good chuckle. I get my info from other sites now, and I'm afraid to say, it's not fake, whatever line they are now peddling.

 

You do know the ? has hit a 31 year lows v $. Whilst good for exports, it's bad for imports which is what most of Middle England live on. The Euro will be according to HSBC heid honchos be a pound too by end of 2107.

 

And don't get me started how UK manufacturers are going to make things when they import bits and bobs from the EU to go in their products. It's a cluster****.

Ok.

I tried

[Space Mackerel]

Ok.

I tried

Enjoy Maggie Mays speech that's supposedly happening in the next few days. Shits n giggles all round

[Adam Murray]

Perhaps this is all part of the plan. Be seen to be trying to reach an accommodation for Scotland within the current set up (the UK), but in the end the conclusion is only independence can see Scotland remain in the EU, or single market via EFTA.

 

Cynical perhaps, but wouldn't surprise me.

 

 

They do seem to be going down a lot of avenues which, in reality, they probably no will not work while still part of the UK.

 

Also, not paying too much attention, nor worrying if matters on the home front aren't going too swimmingly, as if the situation as it is now was seen to be working well, why would there be any need for independence, also cynical, but like yourself, it would be no surprise. 

[Francis Albert]

Perhaps this is all part of the plan. Be seen to be trying to reach an accommodation for Scotland within the current set up (the UK), but in the end the conclusion is only independence can see Scotland remain in the EU, or single market via EFTA.

 

Cynical perhaps, but wouldn't surprise me.

Scotland cannot "remain" in the EU or the single market or EFTA, because Scotland isn't a member of any of them. If and when Scotland is independent it can apply to join.

[JamboX2]

Care to expand why practicing law will drie up after brexit?

Or is this just more foundless conjecture.

Not going into my work on this. But effectively, if investment in the UK economy dries up. The area I work in will be impacted. Less money in the economy means less work. Less work means jobs at risk.

[Space Mackerel]

Scotland cannot "remain" in the EU or the single market or EFTA, because Scotland isn't a member of any of them. If and when Scotland is independent it can apply to join.

You got it

Can Maggie May please please please trigger Article 50 soon. It's gonna be a blast!

[jake]

Enjoy Maggie Mays speech that's supposedly happening in the next few days. Shits n giggles all round

 

I dont vote torie.

I dont vote labour .

I dont buy politic .

I dont ascribe to any of that makeral.

 

I argue with you because you do.

[jake]

Not going into my work on this. But effectively, if investment in the UK economy dries up. The area I work in will be impacted. Less money in the economy means less work. Less work means jobs at risk.

 

So you lose others benefit.

[Space Mackerel]

I dont vote torie.

I dont vote labour .

I dont buy politic .

I dont ascribe to any of that makeral.

I argue with you because you do.

You've gone rogue, crack on, see you on Sky News

[JamboX2]

So you lose others benefit.

Who benefits?

 

Manufacturers needed a cheaper pound. So the arse has fallen out the pound but now they are saying they're struggling because it's expensive to import the goods, the resources and the machinery to build what they build.

 

"The City" (banks, services etc) relies on it's "Single Market" passport to dominate Frankfurt, Paris, the Hague, Dublin etc. Now we hear stories and announcements of HSBC planning to move jobs to Paris. Of others to Dublin and Frankfurt. So does it do our services industry any good?

 

Science and research in the UK gets a huge boost from EU funding. From grants. From free movement to allow ease of movement and residence for people in those sectors. No UK government will match it ? for ? in cash terms. Can barely find money for social care. So what happens there? Do our universities benefit there?

 

Regional development money has helped build roads in the Highlands, helped lay broadband in rural Wales and build social housing in the English regions. Where will the extra money come for these places?

 

I think in the end we will be left with a chaotic exit with Theresa "Maybe" May trying to do what she wanted to do as Home Secretary and "reduce immigration to the 10s of thousands". Economy to the side. Immigration is now the government aim.

 

Happy to be proved wrong by the PM when she speaks next Tuesday.

[Boris]

They do seem to be going down a lot of avenues which, in reality, they probably no will not work while still part of the UK.

 

Also, not paying too much attention, nor worrying if matters on the home front aren't going too swimmingly, as if the situation as it is now was seen to be working well, why would there be any need for independence, also cynical, but like yourself, it would be no surprise. 

 

Haha - I agree!  To be fair, I think most political parties employ these tactics from time to time.

[Boris]

Scotland cannot "remain" in the EU or the single market or EFTA, because Scotland isn't a member of any of them. If and when Scotland is independent it can apply to join.

 

Which is kind of my point regards the blind alleys the SNP are going down.

 

Oxymoron alert.

 

Scotland cannot be an independent nation in the EU.

Nor will it be sovereign.

 

But as a sovereign, independent nation it can make that choice.  

 

I don't buy wholly into the EU = not a sovereign state anymore.

 

BUt we can agree to differ on that.