[Closed] SNP & Brexit????

[quote="grumpysculler"]
I have never seen anybody from the SNP address what they think actually needs done.

Not looking in the right places then Not having any control over immigration makes it rather hard - but we attract plenty of Students and other folk - which is then completely undermined by westminster. Take the post office / shop in Laggan. Had been closed for a few years. bought by a( IIRC) canadian couple who built it up to a viable business and one well welcome there. Now being deported because of some stupid arcane rule change that occurred whilst they were here.

Or the American couple who bought a derelict building in inverness. turned it into a profitable hotel. Deportation letter landed on their doorstep this week. they followed all the advice they were given regarding immigration rules by the home office. Turns out this advice is wrong so they are going to be deported. Again Westminster not Holyrood.

In both these cases Holyrood is fighting on their behalf. the home office is refusing to play. Two businesses built from scratch over 5 years creting employment going to be destroyed.

Or my friend the US / Dutch woman now farming in the highlands - helping bringing back a derelict farm into use. Or my Danish Friend running a dressmaking business employing 4 scots.

epic steve - thats the other conundrum. around 20% of the SNP vote voted No in the independence referendum.

I don't understand either of these two positions but its a fact they both happened

Scotland would be in a better position if the Scottish Resistance threatened to blow some things up?

Yes, lets trivialise sectarian violence and also ignore the differences between the various freedoms that apply differently to different areas of the (current) EU.

Great advert for the SNP approach there...

Nicola says that the border between NI & Ireland can be treated the same as the border between Scotland and England. I suggest that it is rather different both in politics and in application of the acquis as they apply to the CTA both before and after Brexit.

Dragon - are you English and do you even live in Scotland?

For what its worth, No and Yes.

absolute no one is attracted to Scotland.

Said no one ever, but the reality is that the SNP claim they need greater immigration to grow the economy. I'm not totally convinced myself as it tends to hold down wages for the lower paid, but the SNP seem to be buying into the liberal consensus that all immigration is good.

For what its worth, No and Yes.

It was a joke, dragon 😉

it tends to hold down wages for the lower paid, but the SNP seem to be buying into the liberal consensus that all immigration is good.

as i assume this is ...

Theresa is giving evidence to the Brexit Committee

Hasn't read today's paper but welcomes contributions to the debate from all the devolved Parliaments
No grounds for a second Referendum, Scotland voted in 2014 and gave a clear decision
On the EU, should Scotland leave the UK it would no longer be part of either the EU or UK single markets and the UK single market is worth 4x to Scotland than is the EU

[quote=jambalaya ]Theresa is giving evidence to the Brexit Committee
Hasn't read today's paper but welcomes contributions to the debate from all the devolved Parliaments
No grounds for a second Referendum, Scotland voted in 2014 and gave a clear decision
On the EU, should Scotland leave the UK it would no longer be part of either the EU or UK single markets and the UK single market is worth 4x to Scotland than is the EU

Sorry, but from a woman whose biggest contribution so far has been a promise to deliver a "red, white and blue brexit deal" I treat anything she says with the absolute disdain it deserves.

That's fair enough Bob. She is however the Prime Minister.

[quote=jambalaya ]That's fair enough Bob. She is however the Prime Minister.

True, and unfortunate

With all this use of the word "inevitable" you'd think there was some certainty about a new independence vote? But there really isn't.

The polls say that the people in Scotland don't want one, and that if it happened the SNP would probably lose.

Salmond is talking it up, because
a) he likes the limelight and
b) a failed attempt would get rid of Sturgeon and might possibly bring him back as leader (again).

The fact that the SNP couldn't win independence in the face of;
-conservative government,
-economic turmoil,
-widely believed (although later proved wildy inaccurate) oil based economic powerhouse stories,
Should perhaps be an indicator that maybe the actual inhabitants of Scotland don't want it?

Even the addition of Brexit and an even _more_ conservative government hasn't moved the polls.

So why are we still talking about it?

Imagine if the energy put into this question could be harnessed into paying attention to what the SNP government is actually doing.
-Overseeing a massive decline in educational attainment (while withdrawing from international comparisons of educational attainment).
-Reducing the money available to help poorer students because Salmond wrote stuff on a rock.
-Money for health care appearing in two places in the scottish budget to make the SNP look good.
-Inept (or deliberate?) figures in the budget suggesting that money from Westminster is falling this year due to austerity when it is actually rising?
-Talking up the importance of 15% of exports to Europe and ignoring the 60% to the rest of the UK.

Even the document today has a caveat that says Sturgeon consulted her group of special brexit advisers (remember them) but nothing on whether they support what shes saying, and at least one has publicly said its all mince.

I live and work in Scotland, and as a leftie liberal theres not much choice when it comes to voting. Labour has imploded and gone alt-left, the Conservatives are Conservative, Lib Dems are reduced but coming back a little and then theres the SNP who talk left wing but do nothing to justify it.

Independence is a reasonable political position, and politicians will politik but the degree of doublethink, deceit and the "at any cost" attitude is really becoming too much.

Ohh that was long .. sorry.. 🙂

and she actually is delivering on the mandate delivered by the people (or those who voted)

edit

The polls say that the people in Scotland don't want one

since when has that mattered?

then theres the SNP who talk left wing but do nothing to justify it.

Didnt they just raise income on the filthy rich and corporation tax to fund better services?

@thm Nichola said it mattered (when she hope brexit would happen and bring it about), but now it's not so important, wonder why?

Was that through the introduction of the 50p rate like they said over and over? Oh, no then.

It only matters if the result goes one way!

Left wingers dont like raising taxes to pay for services, clearly!! Or the cop-out version, its too expensive to do, which considering the indi upheaval is a bit far fetched!

There are various ways in which Scotland's place in the European Single Market could be maintained. One option - in my view, the best option - is to become a full member of the EU as an independent country.

With all that this implies ie, giving up sovereignty over fiscal, monetary and political issues - an interesting take on the notion of "independence"!! You could make this up....

Why do people who know so little about a topic pontificate so much?

Does THM shout in empty rooms?

We don't know - please do tell us....

Good on NS for doing something about Brexit.
She does a lot more than the UK government.
At least she knows what she wants.

Really is she doing anything apart from a few speeches to her own folk? She pontificates with no power and only has to worry about the economy of central belt. UK government actually has to do the hard negotiations and have to take into account nearly ~60 million folk. All the while still doing the day to day of running a country in the UN, NATO, G20 etc.

jambalaya - Member
No grounds for a second Referendum

tjagain - Member
Does THM shout in empty rooms?

Why don't you just speak to him, instead of kidding on you don't read his posts?

dragon - Member
Really is she doing anything apart from a few speeches to her own folk? She pontificates with no power and only has to worry about the economy of central belt. UK government actually has to do the hard negotiations and have to take into account nearly ~60 million folk. All the while still doing the day to day of running a country in the UN, NATO, G20 etc.

Oh the burdens of power! Poor little UK, those nasty nats should just leave alone eh? 😆

Perhaps, but the precedent is set, referendums are no longer required to be legally binding, for them to be erm, legally binding...

Sort of correct (as UK Government is drafting and Parliament will be creating the laws which will take us out of the EU, Repeal Bill etc) but I put the odds very very low on the UK Parliament actioning a non-bining Scottish Indy Ref 2.

Seems difficult to me for them not to act on it, considering they(almost every MP) have set them selves up with this Brexit thing as proponents of direct democracy.

Who knows how it'll all work out, but you'd have to think the SNP have some sort of plan, with the way they are going about things, ie setting themselves up for direct constitutional confrontation with Westminster.

If they don't they'll end up with egg on their face.

Joe 😀

Trivial to ignore seosam, it's not a National Referendum, just a small subset of the country.

I'm taking about Brexit.

The UK government position is far from convincing.
NS has at least published a plan for her country and people.

seosamh77

I have him blocked. All I see is

THM said something stupid.

Why don't I engage with him? History. He deliberately goaded me on here and succeeded in his aim of making me lose my temper so the mods rightly banned me. His nasty sneering condescension irritates me no end. Its easier on all concerned - me and the mods to simply block him.

It also gives me a good laugh that he posts within seconds of virtually every post I make on here.

jambalaya - Member
Trivial to ignore seosam, it's not a National Referendum, just a small subset of the country

Jamba - westminster does not have to agree to any sort of referendum in Scottish independence. If they refuse all it does is make it harder to hold one ( but not impossible) and give the SNP an open goal

I wouldn't be too sure about a 'no' vote next time, and I wouldn't trust polls too much based on what we've seen this year, here and overseas. How many of them turned out to get the results right?

FWIW, a straw poll of my extended family, which consists of: wife, FiL, MiL, SiL- all well-educated, all enjoyed or are enjoying a good income or pension, and all were ardently 'no' in the last ref.

All of them would now vote yes if the ref was re-run, and I'll quickly summarise why:

-Westminster is now frankly admitting that this is going to cost us actual money in the form of tariff access, and we'll see more of this truth begin to emerge over the next few months. Costing Scotland money was what Project Fear used to best effect.

Hence, what have we got to lose now? Its costing us anyway, and we're going to lose out in other 'social chapter' ways.

So, why not just take our chances and push for EU membership as an independent nation and see where we get? If its WTO rules- its not going to cost us any more, is it? Thats looking like where Brexit is going to deposit us anyway.

My parents are the same cody. To remain in the EU is very important to them as they are of the wartime generation. They actually campaigned for NO last time. Next time they would vote yes. the puzzle is that altho I have seen this shift anecdotally in a few places it doesn't seem to be reflected in the polls

tjagain - Member
seosamh77
I have him blocked. All I see is

YOu asked - I replied. I probably shouldn't have made the comment tho - you are right.

So Cody, how do you reconcile the desire to be independent (and all that implies) with the requirements for being a new member state (and all that implies)?

Joe - let it be, the clue is in "again"

tjagain - Member
YOu asked - I replied. I probably shouldn't have made the comment tho - you are right

Personally I'd rather discuss with people from the opposite side. Let's me see the holes in either side of the argument, of which there are plenty on both sides btw. You don't really get that in an echo chamber, which is something the first ref should tell people.

THM- you summarised my once-held position exactly (I posted just that viewpoint on here some years ago.)

And that was why I was anti-independence for such a long time prior to the IndyRef- I saw no point in 'unshackling' from one, to 'reshackle' with another. I couldn't see independence in that, and it seemed pointless to me......

......as long as we still had EU access via the relationship with Westminster, of course. But if/when that goes, I'd rather take my chances with Europe. I can see what's in the wind for the country now, and don't like it.

I agree - hence debating with the others and its one of the best things about this place - its not an echo chamber. However THM deliberately goads me and does not debate in any meaningful way unless he has changed dramatically. I find his sneering condescension greatly irritating. I'll bet ther are plenty of those comments on this thread aimed at me. I ain't unblicking him to be sure tho.

Jamba and I disagree greatly - but he remains civilised and polite ( more so that I do to my shame)

[img] [/img]

requirements for being a new member state

Looking at that map would suggest the expansionist nature of the EU means it wouldn't be much of a problem.

You also have the added point that as a member of the EU, England could really withhold access to englands markets. Well unless we go down the suicidal route of complete isolation that many would like.

Ok Cody, but you will swap a relatively high (people can debate how high) levels of devolved power for significantly less. On top of that policy will be set to suit economies with whom Scotland is not synchronised. There is nothing logical in those two positions.

Tj, in fairness you've had him on block since you started back on here, time for a second chance I feel! 😆

Jamba - westminster does not have to agree to any sort of referendum in Scottish independence. If they refuse all it does is make it harder to hold one ( but not impossible) and give the SNP an open goal

If this where true you would have held them in the past, again and again. The SNP wouldn't even discuss it they'd just get on with it.

As I have said elsewhere the EU is heading South financially and at an increasing pace. It's my view membership will look a very unattractive proposition. As for Junker's remarks, not anything I'd rely on if I where you.

Not at all Jamba - look at the Canada situation - repeated referenda turn folk off. They have one more chance and they know it.

Well, Joe, enjoy the austerity required first and then the subservience to F'furt later - loads to blame then!!. Honestly are the English REALLY that bad?!?

devolved power for significantly less

Which applies to the UK leaving the EU, what exactly are they planing on doing with this new found power? Lowering corporation tax seems to be about it, well I guess you can also add the other thing on the wishlist, which seems to be hoping America imposes Btip as quickly as possible, doing what? handing more power to corporations...

I'm starting to see a theme here...

teamhurtmore - Member
Well, Joe, enjoy the austerity required first and then the subservience to F'furt later - loads to blame then!!. Honestly are the English REALLY that bad?!?

The English aren't bad at all, let's not go down that route, it's nothing to do with, however much you try to paint it, the English being bad.

But we are talking subservience to Washington or Brussels here. I'm with Brussels myself. (Even at that I don't think we need immediate entry either, even if we don't get to be the successor state.)

teamhurtmore - Member
Ok Cody, but you will swap a relatively high (people can debate how high) levels of devolved power for significantly less.

No, we won't....so at present, we're all bound by EU law anyway, which heavily affects domestic policy (a key plank of the Brexit argument). That being the case, and what we have up here is what flows down from Westminster to us via that route, we don't really stand to lose. Not much of significance anyway. And the gains are worth it.

On top of that policy will be set to suit economies with whom Scotland is not synchronised. There is nothing logical in those two positions.

Logic seems to be in short supply just about everywhere these days, I'm afraid. It seems to work for the rest of the EU, so why not Scotland?

Joe - I am/was a remainer, especially since we had such an awesome deal. Access to the SM, (the benefits of FoM) without the nonsense of the €. So we had max autonomy over the levers of power combined with minimum costs (financial and otherwise). I approach Scotland in the same way - how do you get the most benefit, with the lowest costs and risks. What you have now is FAR, FAR superior to becoming part of the Euro Zone with ALL THAT THIS IMPLIES

NS knows this, hence what is happening now is just sh!t-stirring - although as I said earlier, today's paper was at least largely factually correct.

Lowering corporation tax seems to be about it,

Remind me what wee eck's views on this were pre-indi vote?

Let it be on the other issue - having some else to blame, that's the trend you should be spotting.

What you have now is FAR, FAR superior to becoming part of the Euro Zone with ALL THAT THIS IMPLIES

You're missing a step- its not about what we have now, its what we'll have post-Brexit.

But we are talking subservience to Washington or Brussels here.

C'mon be sensible

Logic seems to be in short supply just about everywhere these days, I'm afraid. It seems to work for the rest of the EU, so why not Scotland?

C'mon be sensible - the € has delivered catastrophic results for peripheral (hint) states. It has been a total disaster for two reasons (1) the EA does not qualify for a single currency and (2) if it did it requires full monetary, fiscal and political union - for no other reason that to recycle the surpluses generated in the core.

The nats ignored many inconvenient truths last time, but they are taking it to an all time high by thinking that the EU and EZ membership is a solution. That is folly in the extreme. No one would fall for such idiocy. Hang on a moment...

You're missing a step- its not about what we have now, its what we'll have post-Brexit.

Yes, Brexit is bllx for all of us, you included. But two wrongs don't make a right. That is just adding fuel to the fire. The only benefit would be to have more scapegoats for domestic shortcomings - which must obviously be appealing for the SNP. Like Joe, others will tire of simply blaming the English.

teamhurtmore - Member
But we are talking subservience to Washington or Brussels here.
C'mon be sensible

How do you see britains "trade deal" with america playing out? What's their hand there, other than to bend over and take what's offered? particularly if they bite their nose off in regards to the EU free market.

So how does independence in Europe mean less control than we have now? Does westminster do nothing? No - all those powers that at the moment are reserved for westminster would come to holyrood. Nothing extra would go to the EU

Oh flip - thats a reply to a quoted THM post - seosamh77 you see my point? What do any of those quoted posts bring to the debate apart from being intended to irritate people

teamhurtmore - Member
blaming the English.

Yes, Brexit is bllx for all of us, you included. But two wrongs don't make a right. That is just adding fuel to the fire. The only benefit would be to have more scapegoats for domestic shortcomings - which must obviously be appealing for the SNP. Like Joe, others will tire of simply blaming the English.

I know, big yin, I know.....its not going to end well. That much is obvious.

You can see, though, why the attraction of getting away from all of this mince is going to get very appealing, though? Say: everything suddenly costs 20% more (a very crude example, not real world) and at the same time, suddenly 'loyalty' becomes something more real than just the vague concept that's trotted out at the regular events of pomp and circumstance. You'd think....is this how it was meant to turn out? Is it how I [i]want[/i] it to turn out?

As said above, I was anti for a long, long time, but the apparent slide to the right for UKIP appeasement and the spectre of EU-loss changed my mind. I'm sad, very sad tbh, to say that I was right- and I'm not often right. But its all very definitely coming to pass.

So how does independence in Europe mean less control than we have now?

Joe, you see what gets missed with blockers!! At least, TJ is not accusing people of coming on here despite being ignorant of the facts. 😉 Love LWers ability to ignore the economic destruction of the young and middle and lower classes in peripheral states. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Cody - I think Brexhsit is a very bad idea. However, we will get through it despite the unnecessary costs, uncertainty and time wasted. Making rash decisions in the heat of the moment is rarely a good idea and this is all that Sturgeon is doing right now, either that or simply mischief making. My money is on the latter as she is not stupid - notice how she doesn't want a second vote!!

teamhurtmore - Member
What you have now

Well that's the crux here, what is that? I see no plan at all.

Remind me what wee eck's views on this were pre-indi vote?

You know I'm not an SNP supporter, so I'm not beholden to wee ecks views. The SNP are at their zenith, outwith the constitutional question, scotlands politics will belong in a land of coalitions and compromise.

You might not be, but dont pretend that cutting corporation tax was only a one-sided idea

By what you have now, I mean the balance between the obvious benefits of being part of a successful union with high and increasing levels of devolved power and lower risk. Some can see a good thing when its in front of their noses!

I don't, the SNP are clearly a right wing party in sheeps clothing, imo.

As we've seen over the past few years or so, politics does actually change pretty fast at times.

Chancers is a better description IMO

teamhurtmore - Member
By what you have now, I mean the balance between the obvious benefits of being part of a successful union with high and increasing levels of devolved power. Some can see a good thing when its in front of their noses!

Aye, but we also look on in amazment as to why the obvious solution that will benefit all is completely ignored. ie exploring options of allowing Scotland to remain in the EU and the UK at the same time, it's complex yes, but it's a solution that could keep all happy. We look at the reaction to that and the utter refusal to even consider it and wonder, wtf...

teamhurtmore - Member
Chancers is a better description IMO

No great argument from me there. Never have had! 😉

well the paper was light on that bit - good luck.

to stop wondering, just recall what membership of the EU involves - its not the unique situation that the UK has enjoyed up until now

teamhurtmore - Member
well the paper was light on that bit - good luck.

I've not actually read the paper tbh(I will), but I get the jist just from what has been happening over the last few months. And with the UK governments blanket refusal it would seem folly to put effort into that route.

It sets out the situation well and is factually correct. But unsurprisingly it gets lost in terms of setting out the "how" bit. Why? Because it doesn't work. Note how membership of the Euro never gets mentioned or conditions of entry - all the tricky stuff. Keep it nice and high level and hope people forget the tough questions - worked for the Brexshiteers so cant blame her.

to stop wondering, just recall what membership of the EU involves - its not the unique situation that the UK has enjoyed up until now

Conditions for membership

The EU operates comprehensive approval procedures that ensure new members are admitted only when they can demonstrate they will be able to play their part fully as members, namely by:

complying with all the EU's standards and rules
having the consent of the EU institutions and EU member states
having the consent of their citizens – as expressed through approval in their national parliament or by referendum.
Membership criteria – Who can join?

The Treaty on the European Union states that any European country may apply for membership if it respects the democratic values of the EU and is committed to promoting them.

The first step is for the country to meet the key criteria for accession. These were mainly defined at the European Council in Copenhagen in 1993 and are hence referred to as 'Copenhagen criteria'. Countries wishing to join need to have:

stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;
a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;
the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.
The EU also needs to be able to integrate new members.

In the case of the countries of the Western Balkans additional conditions for membership, were set out in the so-called 'Stabilisation and Association process', mostly relating to regional cooperation and good neighbourly relations.

What is negotiated?

The conditions and timing of the candidate's adoption, implementation and enforcement of all current EU rules (the "acquis").

These rules are divided into 35 different policy fields (chapters), such as transport, energy, environment, etc., each of which is negotiated separately.

Other issues discussed:

financial arrangements – such as how much the new member is likely to pay into and receive from the EU budget (in the form of transfers)
transitional arrangements – sometimes certain rules are phased in gradually, to give the new member or existing members time to adapt.
Oversight by the EU institutions

Throughout the negotiations, the Commission monitors the candidate's progress in applying EU legislation and meeting its other commitments, including any benchmark requirements.

This gives the candidate additional guidance as it assumes the responsibilities of membership, as well as an assurance to current members that the candidate is meeting the conditions for joining.

The Commission also keeps the EU Council and European Parliament informed throughout the process, through regular reports, strategy papersSearch for available translations of the preceding link••• , and clarifications on conditions for further progress.

I'm only looking at that from a laymans view, but it doesn't seem like it's insurmountable.

I will give you 5 and then point out the key stumbling block. Its all there in black and white.

Spain? If not, you'll need to spell it out.

4 think goals of independence - on the phone to someone in hospital now!

Jambalaya

just a small subset of the country

Again with this sneering crap. Let's just clarify this once and for all

Scotland IS a country despite what you think

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/geography/beginner-s-guide/administrative/the-countries-of-the-uk/index.html

Your sneering little Englander approach is blatant trolling at best and down right ignorance at worst

Doesn't one of the 35 policy fields includes holding budget deficit of 3% of GDP or less?

the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

Ah the yoyo?

that's just politics

The euro area includes those EU Member States that have adopted the single currency. But the euro area is not static – under the Treaty, all EU Member States have to join the euro area once the necessary conditions are fulfilled, except Denmark and the United Kingdom which have negotiated an 'opt-out' clause that allows them to remain outside the euro area.
Sweden is also expected to join the euro area in the future, but has not yet qualified.

well just take the swedish approach and fiddle with the requirements as not to qualify.

ninfan - Member
Doesn't one of the 35 policy fields includes holding budget deficit of 3% of GDP or less?

Tres bien - well spotted

Bon chance

But first step is to ignore the first referendum and the wishes of the majority of Scots - chicken and egg and all that.

Either way, bloody barking decision!! 😉

Details, ninfan, details - you just do a technical default. Simples.

we're getting into that discussion about democracy again... ie how long should a vote make people beholden to a particularly result.

well the answer to that is easy, till they change their mind. (It's a fundamental tenet of democracy imo.)

yes, democracy, damned inconvenient isnt it!?!

teamhurtmore - Member

Details, ninfan, details - you just do a technical default. Simples.

The road out of deficit just requires a little imagination, it is not set in stone.

teamhurtmore - Member
yes, democracy, damned inconvenient isnt it!?!

Perfectly happy to follow whatever result. Won't stop me campaigning to change that result however. Absolutely nothing undemocratic about that.

You may have a point if I was phoning up my Irish cousins asking for the location for the Semtex and armalite stores that were never handed in, but I'm not! 😆 (Joke for any spooks reading! 😆 )

Actually, we had better stop all this, we dont want anyone feeling left out!

Xmas drink with son and his GF now. A bientot

I'll take that as conceding defeat!

Enjoy! 😉

Spanish PM says no special Brexit deal for Scotland (pesky Catalonian thing it seems, who knew 😉 )

http://www.politico.eu/article/spain-rejects-nicola-sturgeons-scottish-brexit-plan/