Jump to content
Highlander

How Would You Vote in IndyRef2?

Recommended Posts

coconut doug
16 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

I think you are extremely naive and don't understand how the credit ratimg of your currency affects the exchange rate.

 

Here is some reading for you:

https://www.purefx.co.uk/foreign-currency-exchange-insight/view/how-do-credit-ratings-influence-the-foreign-exchange-rate

Naive i may well be even extremely so as you suggest so could you explain to me the relationship between the credit rating and the exchange rate. Maybe even touch upon the factors that influence the credit rating and how these apply to Scotland. Seems only fair that you should do so given that you are repeatedly asserting that our currency value will  plummet because of our credit rating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
12 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

None of that answers a thing. All you've said is there are sectarian concerns in NI. But you've said nothing about the Irish single energy market or free trade and aligned market rules and how any of that is to be dealt with.

 

If Scotland goes independent it's government wants to rejoin the EU or EEA. So there'll be free movement of people as that is inseparable from the single market for Scotland. The UK is leaving that behind. So I ask you again, does the CTA solve the Irish border issue for Brexit? And would it do so for Scotland's border with England? 

 

If not, you have a hard border for customs, people, goods and services.

 

There'll also be the economic impact on the single energy and utilities market, employment rights for workers working either side of the border and much more. How do you square those issues and costs?

 

Independence is a fine aim. But it is not easy and it is not without a big cost before matters become more settled. This is something the Brexit argument denied and independence supporters would be best to avoid replicating.

I think i explained that the reason the Norway/ Sweden arrangements could not apply in Ireland is in large measure due to sectarian mistrust. Others have pointed out to you the relationship with the GFA, as was my point really but i decided to illustrate it by explaining what some of these tensions are. Seems that fell on stony ground.

 

Scotland does not have a GFA as has also been pointed out to you by another poster and so the major reason for not implementing the a Norway/Sweden type arrangement in Ireland does not apply in Britain.

 Your original point was that you changed your mind on Indy because of concerns over the border suggesting that it could not be "frictionless". I only gave you an example of a "frictionless border" your word to show how it might be done. You countered this by saying the border was not open to people and despite me and others telling you that Norway was in Shengen you persisted with your denial. Added to that there is the recently renewed Common Travel Area agreement between the UK and Ireland which guarantees unimpeded movement between the countries and reciprocal rights around all sorts of thing including education housing, voting and welfare.

  The common Travel area is the agreement which allows open borders and the Norway/Sweden example is one way the practicalities might be resolved.

Had you read the info on the N/S border you would know that there is an average waiting time of 8 minutes for lorries and that their claim to be the "smoothest border in the world" is based on co-operation between the countries. As i pointed out to you at least twice before it doesn't solve the problem of the Irish backstop because of the symbolism created by border infrastructure or the lack of it. 

As far as your other points are concerned they are entirely peripheral to the issue of a Scotland England border. I assume that as a member of the EU Scotland and the ROI will EU compliant and that RUK can make up its own rules. Greater divergence might mean more border controls but equally the opposite applies.

 Your claim that the border issue is a game changer because rUk would no longer be in the EU is in my opinion nothing more than a manufacture. Independent countries will always have some sort of barriers between them e.g. we would not allow the rUk army to enter our country for exercises or anything else without prior agreement and conditions. There were always going to be some restrictions to some groups and some differences in taxes that's the whole point of being independent. 

 Political decision making was always going to be different that's another reason why we might want to be independent. It was not difficult to anticipate that after independence Scotland and England might diverge in some ways not even that surprising that one of them might choose to leave the EU. It would not surprise me if indy happens, that one of them might also choose to leave Nato. 

 It takes some gall to make a statement like "independence is a fine aim" and then rubbish it because things might be different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboX2
24 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

I think i explained that the reason the Norway/ Sweden arrangements could not apply in Ireland is in large measure due to sectarian mistrust. Others have pointed out to you the relationship with the GFA, as was my point really but i decided to illustrate it by explaining what some of these tensions are. Seems that fell on stony ground.

 

GFA makes little reference to the border. It calls for demilitarisation and for a commitment to "close cooperation... as friendly neighbours as EU partners". So what specifically in the GFA decrees a different border approach?

 

Quote

 

Scotland does not have a GFA as has also been pointed out to you by another poster and so the major reason for not implementing the a Norway/Sweden type arrangement in Ireland does not apply in Britain.

 Your original point was that you changed your mind on Indy because of concerns over the border suggesting that it could not be "frictionless". I only gave you an example of a "frictionless border" your word to show how it might be done. You countered this by saying the border was not open to people and despite me and others telling you that Norway was in Shengen you persisted with your denial.

 

But the UK and Scotland will both not be in Schengen. So your point is moot. CTA is not Schengen. It goes no where near to what Schengen is or does.

 

Quote

 

Added to that there is the recently renewed Common Travel Area agreement between the UK and Ireland which guarantees unimpeded movement between the countries and reciprocal rights around all sorts of thing including education housing, voting and welfare.

 

So why is it not a solution to the NI issue? It does everything that's needed. Why is it not guaranteeing an open border as we know it now.

 

Quote

  The common Travel area is the agreement which allows open borders and the Norway/Sweden example is one way the practicalities might be resolved.

Had you read the info on the N/S border you would know that there is an average waiting time of 8 minutes for lorries and that their claim to be the "smoothest border in the world" is based on co-operation between the countries. As i pointed out to you at least twice before it doesn't solve the problem of the Irish backstop because of the symbolism created by border infrastructure or the lack of it. 

As far as your other points are concerned they are entirely peripheral to the issue of a Scotland England border. I assume that as a member of the EU Scotland and the ROI will EU compliant and that RUK can make up its own rules. Greater divergence might mean more border controls but equally the opposite applies.

 

The opposite cannot apply as market rule divergence increases the difficulty of cross border trade and will increase the need for hard borders and checks.

 

Quote

 Your claim that the border issue is a game changer because rUk would no longer be in the EU is in my opinion nothing more than a manufacture. Independent countries will always have some sort of barriers between them e.g. we would not allow the rUk army to enter our country for exercises or anything else without prior agreement and conditions. There were always going to be some restrictions to some groups and some differences in taxes that's the whole point of being independent. 

 Political decision making was always going to be different that's another reason why we might want to be independent. It was not difficult to anticipate that after independence Scotland and England might diverge in some ways not even that surprising that one of them might choose to leave the EU. It would not surprise me if indy happens, that one of them might also choose to leave Nato. 

 It takes some gall to make a statement like "independence is a fine aim" and then rubbish it because things might be different.

 

Again you assert that CTA is a solution. That GFA is an exception to the N/S border. Yet fail to connect the two. If CTA + N/S is workable, why is it not the solution? I would argue it is because they do nothing on trade, market alignment and customs. So you will need hard border infrastructure - customs posts and checks on origin of goods. It is inescapable. You say 8 minutes per lorry is fine, but how many lorries, vans and trucks cross the border? How many folk shop either side of the border? How much cost is a tale back of 100 lorries going to cost us in trade? 

 

You are using Brexit logic - small issue, nothing to see here - to justify your desired outcome.

 

That is a fair position. But be honest this wont be easy, cost free or without a change in lifestyle for us all. It will.

 

The NATO point is again a blithe assertion ignorant to Scotland's vital geopolitical position on the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap and the importance of Scotland's deep waters to NATO naval defence. One of the maturer aspects of the independence prospectus since 2011 has been NATO membership. To change that position would be a daft choice for our security. 

 

As for your final point - it is a fine aim but (1) I don't think it'll result in a drastically different society and (2) will cause a high cost socially and economically. Brexit is a fine aim if you hold views which say the EU is a capitalist cabal or a hindrance to independent economic and trade policies with it's various rules and obligations on member states. But I don't agree with that. I can appreciate a view or aim and not agree with it at the same time.

Edited by JamboX2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
44 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

GFA makes little reference to the border. It calls for demilitarisation and for a commitment to "close cooperation... as friendly neighbours as EU partners". So what specifically in the GFA decrees a different border approach?

 

 

But the UK and Scotland will both not be in Schengen. So your point is moot. CTA is not Schengen. It goes no where near to what Schengen is or does.

 

 

So why is it not a solution to the NI issue? It does everything that's needed. Why is it not guaranteeing an open border as we know it now.

 

 

The opposite cannot apply as market rule divergence increases the difficulty of cross border trade and will increase the need for hard borders and checks.

 

 

Again you assert that CTA is a solution. That GFA is an exception to the N/S border. Yet fail to connect the two. If CTA + N/S is workable, why is it not the solution? I would argue it is because they do nothing on trade, market alignment and customs. So you will need hard border infrastructure - customs posts and checks on origin of goods. It is inescapable. You say 8 minutes per lorry is fine, but how many lorries, vans and trucks cross the border? How many folk shop either side of the border? How much cost is a tale back of 100 lorries going to cost us in trade? 

 

You are using Brexit logic - small issue, nothing to see here - to justify your desired outcome.

 

That is a fair position. But be honest this wont be easy, cost free or without a change in lifestyle for us all. It will.

 

The NATO point is again a blithe assertion ignorant to Scotland's vital geopolitical position on the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap and the importance of Scotland's deep waters to NATO naval defence. One of the maturer aspects of the independence prospectus since 2011 has been NATO membership. To change that position would be a daft choice for our security. 

 

As for your final point - it is a fine aim but (1) I don't think it'll result in a drastically different society and (2) will cause a high cost socially and economically. Brexit is a fine aim if you hold views which say the EU is a capitalist cabal or a hindrance to independent economic and trade policies with it's various rules and obligations on member states. But I don't agree with that. I can appreciate a view or aim and not agree with it at the same time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frankblack
2 hours ago, coconut doug said:

Naive i may well be even extremely so as you suggest so could you explain to me the relationship between the credit rating and the exchange rate. Maybe even touch upon the factors that influence the credit rating and how these apply to Scotland. Seems only fair that you should do so given that you are repeatedly asserting that our currency value will  plummet because of our credit rating.

 

Try reading the link and my previous posts covering it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
45 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

GFA makes little reference to the border. It calls for demilitarisation and for a commitment to "close cooperation... as friendly neighbours as EU partners". So what specifically in the GFA decrees a different border approach?

 

 

But the UK and Scotland will both not be in Schengen. So your point is moot. CTA is not Schengen. It goes no where near to what Schengen is or does.

 

 

So why is it not a solution to the NI issue? It does everything that's needed. Why is it not guaranteeing an open border as we know it now.

 

 

The opposite cannot apply as market rule divergence increases the difficulty of cross border trade and will increase the need for hard borders and checks.

 

 

Again you assert that CTA is a solution. That GFA is an exception to the N/S border. Yet fail to connect the two. If CTA + N/S is workable, why is it not the solution? I would argue it is because they do nothing on trade, market alignment and customs. So you will need hard border infrastructure - customs posts and checks on origin of goods. It is inescapable. You say 8 minutes per lorry is fine, but how many lorries, vans and trucks cross the border? How many folk shop either side of the border? How much cost is a tale back of 100 lorries going to cost us in trade? 

 

You are using Brexit logic - small issue, nothing to see here - to justify your desired outcome.

 

That is a fair position. But be honest this wont be easy, cost free or without a change in lifestyle for us all. It will.

 

The NATO point is again a blithe assertion ignorant to Scotland's vital geopolitical position on the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap and the importance of Scotland's deep waters to NATO naval defence. One of the maturer aspects of the independence prospectus since 2011 has been NATO membership. To change that position would be a daft choice for our security. 

 

As for your final point - it is a fine aim but (1) I don't think it'll result in a drastically different society and (2) will cause a high cost socially and economically. Brexit is a fine aim if you hold views which say the EU is a capitalist cabal or a hindrance to independent economic and trade policies with it's various rules and obligations on member states. But I don't agree with that. I can appreciate a view or aim and not agree with it at the same time.

I explained already why IMO there is a specific problem with Ireland. You seem to want to transpose these problems on to Britain. You seem to be suggesting that just like currency there is no solution for Scotland. I say there is and demonstrated it to you.

 Seems to me that the CTA and Shengen are quite similar but no doubt you will know the legal differences. 

  If lorries wait 8 minutes for a check then there is infrastructure but people can move unimpeded for a variety of reasons. Perhaps you are unaware that ethnic groups/communities that straddle the EU border can often move between the two without difficulty.

 What does it matter how many lorries are in the queue, the salient point is that it takes an average of 8 mins to cross and that has been described a s a frictionless, smoothest border in the world.

 The same problems you cite for Scotland exist elsewhere including Norway and Sweden and they manage without any significant difficulty and have done so for many years. It is not a simplistic Brexit argument to suggest that we could do the same. 

 

I'm not "blithely asserting" anything, It matters not whether the leaving Nato is a good idea or not in this conversation. What matters is that we might do it and that we have the right to do it and that it may cause problems for us and our neighbours, nevertheless it is our choice. Similarly we might choose to no longer be the repository for nuclear weapons, this might cause problems too. I'm not advocating leaving Nato and i am not ignorant of of Scotland's vital geopolitical position, so vital in fact that we could influence things massively if we aligned with Russia. I'm not advocating that btw before you tell me i'm ignorant of what Putin does and the implications of aligning with a uber capitalistic regime.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
Just now, frankblack said:

 

Try reading the link and my previous posts covering it.

It says nothing. Do you remember when you asked me to read you rlast link then had to apologise for you incorrect assertion. Go on answer my question, use your own words to explain your thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlphonseCapone
8 hours ago, pablo said:

 

Yes, the EU is taking the lead on the Irish border issue, that's my point. Why would Scotland be any different? 

 

I don't think you understood or I didn't word it right. Ireland are fully involved in the discussions. They are informing the EU behind the scenes about their position and the EU are then using that as their position, it's a united front. The EU aren't doing or saying anything on the Irish border situation that the Irish haven't agreed to beforehand. 

 

So to turn your question around, why would Scotland be any different? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboX2
1 hour ago, coconut doug said:

I explained already why IMO there is a specific problem with Ireland. You seem to want to transpose these problems on to Britain. You seem to be suggesting that just like currency there is no solution for Scotland. I say there is and demonstrated it to you.

 Seems to me that the CTA and Shengen are quite similar but no doubt you will know the legal differences. 

 

One issue faced by Scotland is that the Treaty of Amsterdam require any new members to be in Schengen. Whilst before then it was optional. Only two EU nations have permanent opt-outs: UK and Ireland. As they have CTA. 

 

So Scotland would, on applying, have to adopt Schengen and not CTA. As it is in the treaties and all new members are obliged to join, I'd argue this will prove to be a difficult ciricle to square.

 

1 hour ago, coconut doug said:

  If lorries wait 8 minutes for a check then there is infrastructure but people can move unimpeded for a variety of reasons. Perhaps you are unaware that ethnic groups/communities that straddle the EU border can often move between the two without difficulty.

 

Under Schengen between Schengen members yes.

 

1 hour ago, coconut doug said:

 What does it matter how many lorries are in the queue, the salient point is that it takes an average of 8 mins to cross and that has been described a s a frictionless, smoothest border in the world.

 

Because at present it is a border with no requirement to stop for checks. There are added costs to trade via these borders called tariffs. That would increase the cost of Scottish goods going south and UK goods north. Which will hit businesses and consumers in the pockets.

 

This would not have been an issue in 2014.

 

There's environmental costs for lorry parks to as they sit idling away. 

 

1 hour ago, coconut doug said:

 The same problems you cite for Scotland exist elsewhere including Norway and Sweden and they manage without any significant difficulty and have done so for many years. It is not a simplistic Brexit argument to suggest that we could do the same. 

 

It is therefore not beyond us to do similar in Ireland either. Yet that is not on the menu. My point to you is simple: there are consequences which must be explained in full to people in advance. I fear this is not happening, nor will it to provide an informed choice.

 

1 hour ago, coconut doug said:

 

I'm not "blithely asserting" anything, It matters not whether the leaving Nato is a good idea or not in this conversation. What matters is that we might do it and that we have the right to do it and that it may cause problems for us and our neighbours, nevertheless it is our choice. Similarly we might choose to no longer be the repository for nuclear weapons, this might cause problems too. I'm not advocating leaving Nato and i am not ignorant of of Scotland's vital geopolitical position, so vital in fact that we could influence things massively if we aligned with Russia. I'm not advocating that btw before you tell me i'm ignorant of what Putin does and the implications of aligning with a uber capitalistic regime.

 

I for one cannot think of anything more daft than that. Whether or not you advocate it. 

 

If you want independence that is fine. But it comes with responsibilities to others and importantly our neighbours. This is often ignored. Scotland will find itself having to manage what is best from the reasonably possible. It is not an ala carte menu but what can be achieved by the limitations we place upon ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
On 22/05/2019 at 15:15, JamboX2 said:

 

One issue faced by Scotland is that the Treaty of Amsterdam require any new members to be in Schengen. Whilst before then it was optional. Only two EU nations have permanent opt-outs: UK and Ireland. As they have CTA. 

 

So Scotland would, on applying, have to adopt Schengen and not CTA. As it is in the treaties and all new members are obliged to join, I'd argue this will prove to be a difficult ciricle to square.

 

Scotland would not have to adopt Shengen any more than it would have to adopt the Euro. Several other countries are not in Shengen despite the treaty of Amsterdam. In any case the EU statutes allow countries to remain o/s until conditions are met, same as the Euro.

 

Under Schengen between Schengen members yes.

 

Nothing to do with Shengen. Under Shengen lorries can and normally do pass over borders without stopping. This is not what happens between Sweden and Norway where one country is an EU member and the other is not.

 

 

Because at present it is a border with no requirement to stop for checks. There are added costs to trade via these borders called tariffs. That would increase the cost of Scottish goods going south and UK goods north. Which will hit businesses and consumers in the pockets.

Stopping at a border does not mean you have to pay a tariff, though it will mean extra costs. Studies show that these typically add around 1% to the cost of goods though there will be considerable variation in that. The relative cost though will remain the same though because goods entering or leaving rUK for EU will have the same checks as those between Scotland and rUK.

 

On 22/05/2019 at 15:15, JamboX2 said:

 

This would not have been an issue in 2014.

 

No, but it was always a strong possibility that rUK would leave the EU and Scotland would not. The idea that we would become independent and then change our minds because our former co-nation changed their direction is ludicrous. This is why we want indy, so we can make our own decisions.

 

On 22/05/2019 at 15:15, JamboX2 said:

 

There's environmental costs for lorry parks to as they sit idling away. 

An average 8 minute delay could mean a significant environmental problem. This however may well be more than offset by more direct links between Scotland and Europe reducing the need for vehicles to travel from Dover through England to Scotland.

 

 

It is therefore not beyond us to do similar in Ireland either. Yet that is not on the menu. My point to you is simple: there are consequences which must be explained in full to people in advance. I fear this is not happening, nor will it to provide an informed choice.

I think people understand the principles involved. We are already suffering from a collapse in the Pound and we already expect that if Brexit goes ahead standards will fall and prices will go up. For many that is acceptable if we can take back control of our money, borders and laws. I don't think the people in Scotland see it the same way and so it may prove to be irreconcilable. Explaining things in full is not possible since we do not know exactly what is going to happen and what the relationships might be. 

 

I for one cannot think of anything more daft than that. Whether or not you advocate it. 

What about starting a war on a false prospectus resulting in 1 million dead and then continuing to support and vote for the psychopaths who started it?

 

If you want independence that is fine. But it comes with responsibilities to others and importantly our neighbours. This is often ignored. Scotland will find itself having to manage what is best from the reasonably possible. It is not an ala carte menu but what can be achieved by the limitations we place upon ourselves.

 

Are you saying that Scotland is and Indy supporters are irresponsible and don't respect our neighbours? Are you seriously arguing this in the context of Brexit, Nigel Farage, Ukip and much of the Tory party? Have you not yet understood that independence means taking responsibility for ourselves and succeeding or failing as a result of our own actions?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Class of 75
On 21/05/2019 at 07:53, Hunky Dory said:

 

That wasn't the point.  BlankFrank stated that if Scotland gained independence, they'd be crawling back to England within a few years after realizing that they made a massive mistake.

 

Yet, there has NEVER been a recorded case of this actually happening hence the list of countries that gained their independence, one way or another, from Britain.

Yep but have you actually seen some of these countries or been to them? Many are in a worse state than they were under British rule. Ireland actually considered coming back into the Commonwealth due to it financial instability. The difference here is that Scotland was part of that Empire it is not all England so the independence being sought is different than what has been experienced before. That was my point.  Anyway, that is my opinion I know people won't agree and fair enough that is what it is all about. Each to their own 

Edited by Class of 75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×