Even More SNP Nonsense

[AlphonseCapone]

Rubbish.

 

it is clearly shown in poll data repeatedly that, in general, the support for Indy is strong in DE groups but weak in ABC groups. The data is clear and repeatable.

 

This is also supported by the fact that Dundee and Glasgow, which contain high percentages per capita of the groups, voted Yes.

 

This was played on by the SNP, who took their Tory Toff banners along with Brian Cox to those areas and played directly to the hatred of the English as a means to get support.

 

Cox explicitly stated that Indy will be won "In the Schemes". His words, not mine.

I'd say you're half right. But there are a lot more complexities than you are applying here. Age for example is a massive factor.

[jambo lodge]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/bank-bailouts-transcend-all-borders-1-3169707

 

Thanks for confirming that Barclays were not bailed out by the UK Government.

[AlphonseCapone]

Excellent analysis. Not only did the SNP feed the SCOTTISH angle but Salmond in particular fed the ant-English we hate the Tories angle.

English ants are the worst...

[Adam Murray]

English ants are the worst...

 

Not a patch on Scottish midgies though!

[Space Mackerel]

Rubbish.

 

it is clearly shown in poll data repeatedly that, in general, the support for Indy is strong in DE groups but weak in ABC groups.    The data is clear and repeatable.

 

This is also supported by the fact that Dundee and Glasgow, which contain high percentages per capita of the groups, voted Yes.

 

This was played on by the SNP, who took their Tory Toff banners along with Brian Cox to those areas and played directly to the hatred of the English as a means to get support.

 

Cox explicitly stated that Indy will be won "In the Schemes".  His words, not mine.

Funny, all ma pals that grew up in Oxgangs are now SNP instead of Labour.

[JamboX2]

You've got an avatar from a controversial film like Clockwork Orange but you've never seen it?

Great movie. But his avatar is Arnold Rothstein a gangster from 1920s America and a character in HBOs Boardwalk Enpire.

 

Hence the name.

 

Edit: i see it's been explained.

[JamboX2]

Right, so Scotland votes yes(2014) they're out of the EU and England stays. England votes out of the EU, Scotland's out(2016 and counting) So going by the first one, why is it if Scotland votes yes in 2017 they are out of the EU. Is this all based on what England says goes. I don't think so.

If Scotland is a new state(Sovereign Parliament) so is England. Both Parliaments would restart and all GB treaties including EU membership annulled(2014).

It's got to be said, it's astonishing the mindset of some that brexit Britain is some sort of potential utopia and Scottish independence is the opening of hell itself. And they slagged the GLS about a land if milk and honey or something like that.

The SNP aren't doing anything wrong or wanting to hurt anyone, they just want Scotland to run herself by fully elected governments with full power.We've got nowhere in 300+ years of union and will be stuck here until we drive this train. Scotland has great people, land and resources. It's a pity some don't want to use them to their maximum potential.

 

If the second vote is lost, don't worry unionists, that will be that. It won't be asked again.

You post a lot of nonsense but that's the biggest one of the lot. Nothing in 300 years? Really?!

[Trapper John McIntyre]

You post a lot of nonsense but that's the biggest one of the lot. Nothing in 300 years? Really?!

 

On the subject of resources:

 

[JamboX2]

It's not my paranoia. it's what the words say and what they mean. What is the significance of telling us Scottish banks were at the forefront of the financial collapse, Why mention GB is Scottish. Why do you and your ilk define people by where they were born? You know how it works. The Italians are cowards, the Germans have no humour and the Spanish are lazy etc. All you and those like you are doing is trying to perpetuate the too wee, too poor, too stupid stereotype of Scotland.

 

Why did you put "everyone is against us" in quotation marks, not only did I not say it I did not imply it either. There seems to be some kind unwritten rule on here that Unionists are entitled to make things up and then when challenged about it claim that they did not actually say or mean what they posted.

 

I don't think people are against us - quite the contrary. I think people see indy supporters as progressive, internationalist and representing the future. A recent poll shows many EU countries would like Scotland to be a member. Unfortunately we still have a lot of people in our society hankering after the British Empire and an antiquated social order where everybody knew their place. These Alf Garnett types are dying out though. Independence is coming, and coming soon and you and your fellow Britishers will need to "get over" your inferiority complex.

Much like Yes supporters didn't need to "get over" their beliefs and workd view why will No voters need to do so if Yes wins?

 

Why are all supporters of yes progressive and by inference No voters aren't? Are Brian Soutter's views on certain things progressive?

 

And yes - the EU would like a modern, democratic nation to be in the club. Why wouldn't it? But there is likely to be polling data in favour of Norwegian and Icelandic entry. So what does that have to do with Scottish independence being progressive?

 

Independence in itself is not progressive. It is not anything other than a relocation of power. Call it what you want but it's nothing more than constitutional restructuring.

[coconut doug]

There's quite a lot of bollocks in this post to trawl through but suggesting someone who opposes independence defines people by where they were born is ironic in the extreme. Surely you can see that?

I suggested this poster because he was the one who introduced ethnicity to the debate. This is often the case with unionists who seem obsessed with foreigners and the like. It is you who thinks that independence is about ethnicity and you that thinks it ironical that indy supporters constantly deny the importance of ethnicity. The fact that you don't see the irony in that reveals a lot about you.

 

Sorry you don't like the content of my previous post. It was a direct response to the bollocks in your post but I suspect you wont see the irony in that either.

[Trapper John McIntyre]

I suggested this poster because he was the one who introduced ethnicity to the debate. This is often the case with unionists who seem obsessed with foreigners and the like. It is you who thinks that independence is about ethnicity and you that thinks it ironical that indy supporters constantly deny the importance of ethnicity. The fact that you don't see the irony in that reveals a lot about you.

 

Sorry you don't like the content of my previous post. It was a direct response to the bollocks in your post but I suspect you wont see the irony in that either.

 

The mental excretions of a dyed-in-the wool, unreconstructable lunatic.

[coconut doug]

Rubbish.

 

it is clearly shown in poll data repeatedly that, in general, the support for Indy is strong in DE groups but weak in ABC groups.    The data is clear and repeatable.

 

This is also supported by the fact that Dundee and Glasgow, which contain high percentages per capita of the groups, voted Yes.

 

This was played on by the SNP, who took their Tory Toff banners along with Brian Cox to those areas and played directly to the hatred of the English as a means to get support.

 

Cox explicitly stated that Indy will be won "In the Schemes".  His words, not mine.

You claimed to have posted data for this before but I cant find it. Perhaps you could help us out and repost. Perhaps you could also provide proof of your Tory Toffs claim.

 

And maybe you can find some evidence for your anti English claim.

 

I wont ask you to justify your claim that voting SNP weakens the prospect of indy as that is just too ridiculous.

[coconut doug]

Much like Yes supporters didn't need to "get over" their beliefs and workd view why will No voters need to do so if Yes wins?

 

Once we are independent there is no going back.  45% was a major success for yes we won most of the arguments. Some No voters will very likely lose their British nationality.

 

Why are all supporters of yes progressive and by inference No voters aren't? Are Brian Soutter's views on certain things progressive?

I never claimed this. You are making it up. It seems to be the Unionists way. I don't know anything about Soutar and care even less. How is he relevant?

And yes - the EU would like a modern, democratic nation to be in the club. Why wouldn't it? But there is likely to be polling data in favour of Norwegian and Icelandic entry. So what does that have to do with Scottish independence being progressive?

 

For one thing people in the EU are better disposed to Scotland because they know that a large majority of Scots wish to be in the EU. They also know there was a significant majority against the EU in England and Wales. There is some evidence to suggest EU citizens get along better in Scotland. We didn't have the spike in racist attacks after the Brexit vote.

 

Independence in itself is not progressive. It is not anything other than a relocation of power. Call it what you want but it's nothing more than constitutional restructuring.

 

It is much more than a relocation of power. It is an opportunity for a country to operate in the world in the way it wants rather than having itself projected on the world in the guise of its much bigger neighbour. The reality is that the U.K. can expect to have right wing governments for many years. Indy will give us a realistic chance to avoid the regressive policies and outcomes that will be coming our way. We may retain our health service and avoid the next war.

[coconut doug]

Excellent analysis. Not only did the SNP feed the SCOTTISH angle but Salmond in particular fed the ant-English we hate the Tories angle.

Got any proof?

[coconut doug]

Thanks for confirming that Barclays were not bailed out by the UK Government.

That's because their debt was not incurred in the U.k. Same with Scottish banks their debt was not incurred in Scotland and so indy Scotland would not be liable.

[Space Mackerel]

On the subject of resources:

 

Something around 5 years till oil hits $100 a barrel again I've heard.

[Arnold Rothstein]

Something around 5 years till oil hits $100 a barrel again I've heard.

Same source as Alex?.....

[jack D and coke]

That's because their debt was not incurred in the U.k. Same with Scottish banks their debt was not incurred in Scotland and so indy Scotland would not be liable.

You just can't get people to understand this. France bailed out Belgian banks, America bailed out British banks etc etc. It was the country where the liability was held that bailed out the bad debt.

Scotland held around 7% of the bad debt of HBOS and RBS but the British government made out an Indy Scotland would've had to bail the planet out of the this debt because there was a plaque on a wall in Edinburgh. It was scandalous lies that some still try perpetuate.

[Space Mackerel]

Same source as Alex?.....

A good friend who is on the board of a an oil company actually. Was chatting with him on Friday night for half an hour or so.

[Gorgiewave]

You post a lot of nonsense but that's the biggest one of the lot. Nothing in 300 years? Really?!

There might have been a third failed attempt at reaching Panama.

 

Scottish arrogance, Scottish trading isolation, being humped by Spain and depending economically on England.

 

Scotland in 1698 and Scotland in 2017.

 

I wish aussieh had been among our intrepid adventurers on the Darien Scheme.

[DanishTam10]

SNP and Nationalists don't seem inherently confident about winning another referendum, they are setting up a lot of "what-if" scenarios now. 

[Thunderstruck]

A good friend who is on the board of a an oil company actually. Was chatting with him on Friday night for half an hour or so.

Does he call you "Walter" or "Mr Mitty"?

[Dawnrazor]

Does he call you "Walter" or "Mr Mitty"?

[Australis]

Does he call you "Walter" or "Mr Mitty"?

     

[JamboX2]

 

 

Much like Yes supporters didn't need to "get over" their beliefs and workd view why will No voters need to do so if Yes wins?

 

Once we are independent there is no going back. 45% was a major success for yes we won most of the arguments. Some No voters will very likely lose their British nationality.

 

Why are all supporters of yes progressive and by inference No voters aren't? Are Brian Soutter's views on certain things progressive?

I never claimed this. You are making it up. It seems to be the Unionists way. I don't know anything about Soutar and care even less. How is he relevant?

And yes - the EU would like a modern, democratic nation to be in the club. Why wouldn't it? But there is likely to be polling data in favour of Norwegian and Icelandic entry. So what does that have to do with Scottish independence being progressive?

 

For one thing people in the EU are better disposed to Scotland because they know that a large majority of Scots wish to be in the EU. They also know there was a significant majority against the EU in England and Wales. There is some evidence to suggest EU citizens get along better in Scotland. We didn't have the spike in racist attacks after the Brexit vote.

 

Independence in itself is not progressive. It is not anything other than a relocation of power. Call it what you want but it's nothing more than constitutional restructuring.

 

It is much more than a relocation of power. It is an opportunity for a country to operate in the world in the way it wants rather than having itself projected on the world in the guise of its much bigger neighbour. The reality is that the U.K. can expect to have right wing governments for many years. Indy will give us a realistic chance to avoid the regressive policies and outcomes that will be coming our way. We may retain our health service and avoid the next war.

1. Why is there no going back? There's always a chance to go back. Britain may one day rejoin the EU. Nothing is written in stone. Why would they lose their nationality? They're born British citizens. It is their citizenship. They could be true internationalist Scots and opt for two citizenships and two passports.

 

2. You stated Yes supporters were progressive. Brian Soutter owns First. He is a major Yes supporter, big backer of the SNP and has repeatedly campaigned against abortion rights, equal rights for homosexuals and against sex education covering homosexuality at schools. Hardly the views of a progressive yet your claimed progressive movement takes his cash.

 

Equally, I voted Yes. I'm currently undecided in terms of a second vote. So please try not to label me and my views.

 

3. I would imagine there's some truth in that. Whether many ordinary people care as much about such things is open to debate. If Scotland joined the EU it would be a small state in a larger union and have an even greater democratic deficit than it does in the UK in terms of representation. Scots backed UK membership of the EU. That does not mean that if independent they would necessarily back Scottish entry into the EU. The terms would be different and we should not presume membership a given. The Scottish political class have made great play of referenda i think if independent we should get another say.

 

4. It isn't more than anything other than relocating political power. You are simply removing Westminster and political union from the equation. Scotland may enact equally regressive legislation. It may cut corporation tax. Abolish APD. It could switch to insurance based healthcare. It's neither a guarantee that a NATO nation would avoid pressure to take part in military operations- some of them follies.

 

You need a change of attitude in politicians to see a neutral, permanently centre left nation. At present, I do not see that is what is actually on offer from those seeking to bring about independence. In fact, I see a rather different picture. One which based on social attitude surveys shows that Scots largely ahree with their wider British counterparts on major social, economic and political matters tgey just vote differently.

[coconut doug]

1. Why is there no going back? There's always a chance to go back. Britain may one day rejoin the EU. Nothing is written in stone. Why would they lose their nationality? They're born British citizens. It is their citizenship. They could be true internationalist Scots and opt for two citizenships and two passports.

 

Can you name a country that has given up it's independence? The EU is gone for the U.K. for the short and medium term at least. There is apparently a queue to get in and a requirement to use the Euro. We would be vetoed by the Serbs as they would not have forgiven us for bombing hundreds of civilian targets in their country. That's how it works isn't it?

2. You stated Yes supporters were progressive. Brian Soutter owns First. He is a major Yes supporter, big backer of the SNP and has repeatedly campaigned against abortion rights, equal rights for homosexuals and against sex education covering homosexuality at schools. Hardly the views of a progressive yet your claimed progressive movement takes his cash.

 

You are making it up. I didn't say this at all. I don't care about Brian Soutar and I don't believe one person defines a movement. He is entitled to his views and the SNP are entitled to take his money if he wants to give it to them. Are the SNP against abortion rights, equal rights for homosexuals and educating about homosexuality? Are you suggesting Soutar is buying policy, if so you are mixing them up with Labour (unions) and the Tories (business). In recent years there have been many Labour members and supporters convicted of paedophilia and many of their cabinet ministers supported the Paedophile Information Exchange. Should we characterise the Labour Party in that way now?

Equally, I voted Yes. I'm currently undecided in terms of a second vote. So please try not to label me and my views.

 

Of course you are undecided, you argue both sides of most discussions on here.

3. I would imagine there's some truth in that. Whether many ordinary people care as much about such things is open to debate. If Scotland joined the EU it would be a small state in a larger union and have an even greater democratic deficit than it does in the UK in terms of representation. Scots backed UK membership of the EU. That does not mean that if independent they would necessarily back Scottish entry into the EU. The terms would be different and we should not presume membership a given. The Scottish political class have made great play of referenda i think if independent we should get another say.

 

Another insurmountable deficit for Scotland. We are uniquely disadvantaged without England to represent us and speak for us.

 

4. It isn't more than anything other than relocating political power. You are simply removing Westminster and political union from the equation. Scotland may enact equally regressive legislation. It may cut corporation tax. Abolish APD. It could switch to insurance based healthcare. It's neither a guarantee that a NATO nation would avoid pressure to take part in military operations- some of them follies.

 

It can do whatever it thinks is appropriate for Scotland. As we can see with Brexit this is not always an option for us currently. Perhaps that's one thing I could agree with the unionists on. Being governed from Edinburgh and London are not the same thing. I think Edinburgh will be better, they think it will be worse, only you thinks it will be the same.

 

You need a change of attitude in politicians to see a neutral, permanently centre left nation. At present, I do not see that is what is actually on offer from those seeking to bring about independence. In fact, I see a rather different picture. One which based on social attitude surveys shows that Scots largely ahree with their wider British counterparts on major social, economic and political matters tgey just vote differently.

 

Of course you don't see it but around half of your party's voters of 5 years ago do. That is why they have left Labour and gone over to the SNP. The ones that don't like it are now Tories. Who is left? - the diehards and the bewildered. The social attitude surveys I see show Scotland to be different see Brexit vote or the proportion of Tory MPs. 

[By The Light..]

The Nats are an embarrassment, attention seeking fuds. Really sick of them claiming to represent the people.

[AlphonseCapone]

The Nats are an embarrassment, attention seeking fuds. Really sick of them claiming to represent the people.

The SNP won the last election. They formed the Government. Governments are representations of the people.

 

It's not hard to understand tbh.

 

Have you ever heard an elected leader in a democratic country stand up and say he is the leader of X% of the population as opposed to all people?

[By The Light..]

The SNP won the last election. They formed the Government. Governments are representations of the people.

It's not hard to understand tbh.

Have you ever heard an elected leader in a democratic country stand up and say he is the leader of X% of the population as opposed to all people?

Good point I'll give you that. Guess I'm in a minority Scottish and not wanting any more seperation.

[Arnold Rothstein]

A good friend who is on the board of a an oil company actually. Was chatting with him on Friday night for half an hour or so.

You have an almost unbelievable array of friends.....

[deesidejambo]

You claimed to have posted data for this before but I cant find it. Perhaps you could help us out and repost. Perhaps you could also provide proof of your Tory Toffs claim.

 

And maybe you can find some evidence for your anti English claim.

 

I wont ask you to justify your claim that voting SNP weakens the prospect of indy as that is just too ridiculous.

I'm away for a while but will do on my return.  Numerous polls pre-Indy broke down voter intentions by age/sex/social groups and political persuasion and published the results.  I will find them for you on my return but even then you will still deny it but at least others will see the data and understand it.

 

Brian Cox and the Tory Toffs banner wer both shown on Reporting Scotland so i'll see if I can find clips from that.  But if I can't find it I can assure anyone interested that it did happen which is why I am angry about it.  You will deny it happened of course.

 

As for the Anti-English sentiment well there is living proof on this thread and previous ones on Indy so if you also deny there is an element of anti-English sentiment in Dundee and Glasgow then good for you.

 

And if you can't understand the difference between choosing Indy and choosing a candidate to represent your Constituency in Westminster then not much point repeating it a you don't have the capacity to understand there is a  difference.

[coconut doug]

I'm away for a while but will do on my return.  Numerous polls pre-Indy broke down voter intentions by age/sex/social groups and political persuasion and published the results.  I will find them for you on my return but even then you will still deny it but at least others will see the data and understand it.

 

Brian Cox and the Tory Toffs banner wer both shown on Reporting Scotland so i'll see if I can find clips from that.  But if I can't find it I can assure anyone interested that it did happen which is why I am angry about it.  You will deny it happened of course.

 

As for the Anti-English sentiment well there is living proof on this thread and previous ones on Indy so if you also deny there is an element of anti-English sentiment in Dundee and Glasgow then good for you.

 

And if you can't understand the difference between choosing Indy and choosing a candidate to represent your Constituency in Westminster then not much point repeating it a you don't have the capacity to understand there is a  difference.

Fair enough.

 

I would like to see the context of this Tory toffs stuff. I couldn't find anything directly linking the SNP to this and would think it stupid for them to have done so. However just like everybody else they have the capacity for this. I'll wait and see.

 

Really the anti - English stuff on here by one poster at least is a wind up. The accusation was that Alex Salmond and the SNP campaigned on an anti- English platform. I don't accept it but like the other i'll wait and see.

 

Of course I understand that not all SNP voters support INDY but your point was that a good performance by SNP MPs in Westminster would work against INDY. Again I don't see the logic of that. If the SNP prove themselves capable this can only help their cause. You seem to be arguing that in such a circumstance the voters would turn away from the SNP or be less likely to vote for INDY in any future referendum. Bad policies and poor performance will dissuade but surely effective opposition to unpopular policies only advances the case for INDY.

[AlphonseCapone]

Good point I'll give you that. Guess I'm in a minority Scottish and not wanting any more seperation.

Majority Scottish don't want that tbf, not all SNP voters want independence.

[DanishTam10]

The SNP won the last election. They formed the Government. Governments are representations of the people.

 

It's not hard to understand tbh.

 

Have you ever heard an elected leader in a democratic country stand up and say he is the leader of X% of the population as opposed to all people?

 

I have, it was Nicola Sturgeon. 

That is what all this pish about "being dragged out of the EU" is. 

Edited February 12, 2017 by DanishTam10

[Gorgiewave]

I have, it was Nicola Sturgeon. 

That is what all this pish about "being dragged out of the EU" is. 

I hadn't previously noticed your posts, but I'm glad we have another who sees right through the SNP's garbage.

[AlphonseCapone]

I have, it was Nicola Sturgeon.

That is what all this pish about "being dragged out of the EU" is.

Got the actual quote?

[AlphonseCapone]

I hadn't previously noticed your posts, but I'm glad we have another who sees right through the SNP's garbage.

Unfortunately for you, the majority in Scotland don't. JKB isn't really indicitive of anything but it gives you pleasure then all power to you.

[Gorgiewave]

Unfortunately for you, the majority in Scotland don't. JKB isn't really indicitive of anything but it gives you pleasure then all power to you.

 

The majority in Scotland do. The SNP have never got 50% of any vote, ever. The Union is the only thing in the history of Scotland to have attracted more than 50% of voters (twice, once in 1955, once in 2014).

[Boris]

The majority in Scotland do. The SNP have never got 50% of any vote, ever. The Union is the only thing in the history of Scotland to have attracted more than 50% of voters (twice, once in 1955, once in 2014).

 

2015 General Election?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015_(Scotland)

[Gorgiewave]

2015 General Election?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015_(Scotland)

49.97% is under half.

 

Tovarich, Scotland and rUK are currently part of the same state and not in competition. Were Scotland independent, it would be in competition with rUK and have to either lower taxes to compete with a Right wing Toary government at Westmonster or not compete and lose out on inward investment and scare off companies already present.

 

What do the comrades think about introducing competition through lowering of taxes?

[AlphonseCapone]

The majority in Scotland do. The SNP have never got 50% of any vote, ever. The Union is the only thing in the history of Scotland to have attracted more than 50% of voters (twice, once in 1955, once in 2014).

Comparing votes for the SNP to votes for the union makes no sense. They aren't necessarily independent groups.

[Boris]

49.97% is under half.

 

Tovarich, Scotland and rUK are currently part of the same state and not in competition. Were Scotland independent, it would be in competition with rUK and have to either lower taxes to compete with a Right wing Toary government at Westmonster or not compete and lose out on inward investment and scare off companies already present.

 

What do the comrades think about introducing competition through lowering of taxes?

If an Indy Scotland had access to the single market, would that not change things?

[Gorgiewave]

If an Indy Scotland had access to the single market, would that not change things?

 

The single market doesn't seem to do much for economic growth. See Spain, Portugal, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, etc. Rampant unemployment. Hands tied by a single currency. Fewer and fewer powers for states and more for the (unelected) European Commission.

 

It doesn't do much to make a liberal idyll, either. See The Netherlands, Germany, France, Greece, Hungary, Scotland, etc.

[Boris]

The single market doesn't seem to do much for economic growth. See Spain, Portugal, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, etc. Rampant unemployment. Hands tied by a single currency. Fewer and fewer powers for states and more for the (unelected) European Commission.

 

It doesn't do much to make a liberal idyll, either. See The Netherlands, Germany, France, Greece, Hungary, Scotland, etc.

The Commission are appointed, one per nation, by the governments of those nations that make up the eu.

 

Regards the single market, would the uk have had Japanese car investment, for example, were it not for its eu memberships?

[Gorgiewave]

The Commission are appointed, one per nation, by the governments of those nations that make up the eu.

 

Regards the single market, would the uk have had Japanese car investment, for example, were it not for its eu memberships?

Yes, it may well. Why not? There are presumably Japanese car investments all over the place, including in non-EU countries. Why not in the UK?

 

The EU does not have free trade agreements with China, Japan, India or the United States. A person in India who is thinking of buying Scotch whisky might be put off by the 150% import tariff. One might ask, why doesn't the UK negotiate a free trade deal with India and we could get the whisky flowing? Answer: it can't negotiate its own free trade deals. The EU has to do it for it, on its behalf. Remember that every EU country must agree for an agreement to pass. At one point there was an impasse in EU-USA negotiations because of a dispute over American feta cheese, which the Greeks said wasn't really feta cheese. But a dispute over feta cheese can hold up the entire agreement, so that Scotch whisky, Scottish biomedical products or Scottish computer games are kicking their heels while a far-off, irrelevant-to-them dispute is settled. There is still no EU-USA agreement in place, after 42 years.

 

Being out of the EU allows the UK to join the world economy, going beyond Europe in a much bigger way, with free trade deals. China + India + USA + Australia + Japan + New Zealand add up to a lot more than the EU. In fact, rUK is worth four times to Scotland what the entire rEU is worth.

 

Also, being the single market just means being in an area with the same regulatory regime. Being outside the single market doesn't mean you can't trade with all the countries in the single market, it just means you're not bound by the same set of (one-size-fits-all) rules.

 

I'm sure many of us buy American films, Chinese-made clothes, Japanese electrical goods and fruit grown in Africa. All of these products begin outside the single market and are sold in the single market. In fact, the EU causes them to be more expensive to us than they would be with more free trade. There is a tariff on non-EU products entering the EU. When the UK is outside the EU, goods from the USA, China, Japan, etc., will be tariff-free and thus cheaper.

 

I believe this is what Theresa May means by "Global Britain". Truly being part of world free trade, not being focused mainly on the EU, as the SNP and others prefer.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Gorgiewave

[Gorgiewave]

Yes, it may well. Why not? There are presumably Japanese car investments all over the place, including in non-EU countries. Why not in the UK?

 

The EU does not have free trade agreements with China, Japan, India or the United States. A person in India who is thinking of buying Scotch whisky might be put off by the 150% import tariff. One might ask, why doesn't the UK negotiate a free trade deal with India and we could get the whisky flowing? Answer: it can't negotiate its own free trade deals. The EU has to do it for it, on its behalf. Remember that every EU country must agree for an agreement to pass. At one point there was an impasse in EU-USA negotiations because of a dispute over American feta cheese, which the Greeks said wasn't really feta cheese. But a dispute over feta cheese can hold up the entire agreement, so that Scotch whisky, Scottish biomedical products or Scottish computer games are kicking their heels while a far-off, irrelevant-to-them dispute is settled. There is still no EU-USA agreement in place, after 42 years.

 

Being out of the EU allows the UK to join the world economy, going beyond Europe in a much bigger way, with free trade deals. China + India + USA + Australia + Japan + New Zealand add up to a lot more than the EU. In fact, rUK is worth four times to Scotland what the entire rEU is worth.

 

Also, being the single market just means being in an area with the same regulatory regime. Being outside the single market doesn't mean you can't trade with all the countries in the single market, it just means you're not bound by the same set of (one-size-fits-all) rules.

 

I'm sure many of us buy American films, Chinese-made clothes, Japanese electrical goods and fruit grown in Africa. All of these products begin outside the single market and are sold in the single market. In fact, the EU causes them to be more expensive to us than they would be with more free trade. There is a tariff on non-EU products entering the EU. When the UK is outside the EU, goods from the USA, China, Japan, etc., will be tariff-free and thus cheaper.

 

I believe this is what Theresa May means by "Global Britain". Truly being part of world free trade, not being focused mainly on the EU, as the SNP and others prefer.

 

So, specifically on "access", Scotland and the UK will have "access" either way. The rest of the world has "access" to the EU market, if it pays the relevant tariff and makes its goods compliant with single market rules. If Samsung didn't have single market "access", I'd have to buy my phone from elsewhere, for example. But they do.

 

Leaving the EU doesn't mean the UK, or Scotland as an integral part of the UK, can't export to EU countries or import from them. Trade will continue to flow in both directions. The stone in Scotland's economic shoe would be economically separate from rUK, with which its trade is four times larger.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Gorgiewave

[JamboX2]

Whilst I voted Remain. Those two posts are pretty good from GW.

[Boris]

So, specifically on "access", Scotland and the UK will have "access" either way. The rest of the world has "access" to the EU market, if it pays the relevant tariff and makes its goods compliant with single market rules. If Samsung didn't have single market "access", I'd have to buy my phone from elsewhere, for example. But they do.

 

Leaving the EU doesn't mean the UK, or Scotland as an integral part of the UK, can't export to EU countries or import from them. Trade will continue to flow in both directions. The stone in Scotland's economic shoe would be economically separate from rUK, with which its trade is four times larger.

So Scotland couldn't do a trade deal with rUK then? If both out of the Eu, why wouldn't the pair come to some arrangement?

 

Regards trading with the rest of the world, I think I'd rather prefer our government to make those deals than leave it to Liam Fox!

[Boris]

Yes, it may well. Why not? There are presumably Japanese car investments all over the place, including in non-EU countries. Why not in the UK?

 

The EU does not have free trade agreements with China, Japan, India or the United States. A person in India who is thinking of buying Scotch whisky might be put off by the 150% import tariff. One might ask, why doesn't the UK negotiate a free trade deal with India and we could get the whisky flowing? Answer: it can't negotiate its own free trade deals. The EU has to do it for it, on its behalf. Remember that every EU country must agree for an agreement to pass. At one point there was an impasse in EU-USA negotiations because of a dispute over American feta cheese, which the Greeks said wasn't really feta cheese. But a dispute over feta cheese can hold up the entire agreement, so that Scotch whisky, Scottish biomedical products or Scottish computer games are kicking their heels while a far-off, irrelevant-to-them dispute is settled. There is still no EU-USA agreement in place, after 42 years.

 

Being out of the EU allows the UK to join the world economy, going beyond Europe in a much bigger way, with free trade deals. China + India + USA + Australia + Japan + New Zealand add up to a lot more than the EU. In fact, rUK is worth four times to Scotland what the entire rEU is worth.

 

Also, being the single market just means being in an area with the same regulatory regime. Being outside the single market doesn't mean you can't trade with all the countries in the single market, it just means you're not bound by the same set of (one-size-fits-all) rules.

 

I'm sure many of us buy American films, Chinese-made clothes, Japanese electrical goods and fruit grown in Africa. All of these products begin outside the single market and are sold in the single market. In fact, the EU causes them to be more expensive to us than they would be with more free trade. There is a tariff on non-EU products entering the EU. When the UK is outside the EU, goods from the USA, China, Japan, etc., will be tariff-free and thus cheaper.

 

I believe this is what Theresa May means by "Global Britain". Truly being part of world free trade, not being focused mainly on the EU, as the SNP and others prefer.

Non eu goods will be tariff free? Really? What if the USA wish to apply tariffs to imports from the uk? Wouldn't we respond in kind, similarly with every other country?

[Gorgiewave]

So Scotland couldn't do a trade deal with rUK then? If both out of the Eu, why wouldn't the pair come to some arrangement?

 

Regards trading with the rest of the world, I think I'd rather prefer our government to make those deals than leave it to Liam Fox!

 

It seems that preferring Scottish independence is your starting point rather than the conclusion of an analysis of trading arrangements. Is this so? Why would they "both" be out of the EU? The UK, which includes Scotland, will be out of the EU.

 

Scotland is an integral part of the UK: see the 2014 referendum.

Foreign affairs and trade are reserved matters: see the 1997 referendum.

 

Scotland is British and foreign affairs and trade are dealt with by the UK parliament...because the people of Scotland want that.

 

Would you prefer that? How did the Chinese deal go?

 

I'll link to The National so Space Cadet doesn't have a stroke:

 

http://www.thenational.scot/news/14896801.Tories_call_for_fresh_deal_as___10bn_Scotland_China_trade_agreement_collapses/

Edited February 14, 2017 by Gorgiewave