Brexit Negotiations

[Wendy Saintss]

Scotland Keeping the pound (sterling) was/is within our rights as I've pointed out.
Leaving the UK was a process to be implemented over a transition period. As things stood in 2014 if rUK had remained in the EU we could have negotiated both processes (Independence & joining the EU as an independent country) over say the 4¹⁄₂ year period of notice the UK gave the EU.
Next!

All totally irrelevant to my point!

Next!

[jaybee]

Was there not some dubiety with regards to whether Scotland would be able to join as an independent Country?

[Bud the Baker]

1 minute ago, Wendy Saintss said:

 

All totally irrelevant to my point!

Next!

 

I had assumed you had made a typo cos "for the UK to *actually* (not just an intent) cease being members of the UK" makes no sense.

If you replace the first UK with Scotland it both makes sense and is relevant - like I said calm down!  

[Wendy Saintss]

Carry on making a fool of yourself, you really are as you even admitted yourself thichasfcuk.

 

Not very good at the trolling, but thichasfcuk.

 

Still not able to provide any proof, but how could you as wee Andy can't as he makes it up when he's shown up for what he is, thichasfcuk.

 

No need to reply as I'll still be laughing at you again [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

 

You’re easily amused mr internet gangster!

 

Maybe should get a life thicko! [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

 

And try learning how to tell the time! [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

[Wendy Saintss]

I had assumed you had made a typo cos "for the UK to *actually* (not just an intent) cease being members of the UK" makes no sense.
If you replace the first UK with Scotland it both makes sense and is relevant - like I said calm down!  

My point was that the Yes campaign saying that they knew what currency they would use and that they would remain in the UK provides nothing more than Leave also stating that they knew what currency they would use and that they intended leaving the EU!

[Bud the Baker]

The only country to voice any objection was Spain because of the Catalan Independence issue - it needs all 28 (or 27) member countries to agree before a new member can join the EU. Nothing was guaranteed but given that the EU is an inclusive organisation and is continually looking to make closer trading deals like Canada (2016) and Japan (2019) I feel that Scotland could have negotiated entry during whatever transition period we had with rUK.

[Bud the Baker]

4 minutes ago, Wendy Saintss said:

 

My point was that the Yes campaign saying that they knew what currency they would use and that they would remain in the UK provides nothing more than Leave also stating that they knew what currency they would use and that they intended leaving the EU!
 

 

My initial reply was to @oaksoft saying "There was no guarantee of currency" which as I pointed out was George Osborne exceeding his powers.  

[oaksoft]

19 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

Carry on making a fool of yourself, you really are as you even admitted yourself thichasfcuk.

Not very good at the trolling, but thichasfcuk.

Still not able to provide any proof, but how could you as wee Andy can't as he makes it up when he's shown up for what he is, thichasfcuk.

No need to reply as I'll still be laughing at you again

Either join in or butt out.

You are adding nothing to a pretty interesting discussion.

[oaksoft]

13 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

My initial reply was to @oaksoft saying "There was no guarantee of currency" which as I pointed out was George Osborne exceeding his powers.  

OK so on the currency issue you correctly mention that Scotland could have kept the pound.

What was the specific plan for after that 18 month period? What did the white paper say about our currency after that?

As I recollect, it said nothing and it was symptomatic of a flaw in Salmond - he just wasn't interested in detail. Unfortunately for Yes, the public were worried about stuff like that. That's why Sturgeon is trying to fix it by announcing that we'd have our own currency. That is a step forwards. Whether people want to vote for that or not is another issue.

On the EU point, yes Spain said they would vote against it. Nobody gave any explicit encouragement to Scotland that we could remain in the EU. There were many comments about us having to apply to become a new member and therefore having to accept the Euro. People didn't like this uncertainty either.

Uncertainty over currency and the EU were core problems for Salmond. Personally, I think he didn't think Scots would vote Yes unless we kept the pound and financial parity with RUK and he believed the EU and the UK would simply cave on both issues. He thought people would accept that these things would be dealt with after the vote and that nobody would seriously be worried about them. He was spectacularly wrong on both policy areas.

The problem for Yes is that I just don't see an appetite now for IndyRef2 after the fear over Brexit. Timing is everything and IMO this feels like a project for 20 years down the line. I think this will end up being a once in a generation vote and IMO it failed because of Salmond.

Edited March 5, 2019 by oaksoft

[beyond our ken]

55 minutes ago, Wendy Saintss said:

 

Are typos the best you can do thicko?

 

You should stick to trying to learn to tell the time mr internet gangster!

 

 

When you triumphantly declare “next” you really should be on the money with detail

[Bud the Baker]

40 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

OK so on the currency issue you correctly mention that Scotland could have kept the pound.

What was the specific plan for after that 18 month period? What did the white paper say about our currency after that?

As I recollect, it said nothing and it was symptomatic of a flaw in Salmond - he just wasn't interested in detail. Unfortunately for Yes, the public were worried about stuff like that. That's why Sturgeon is trying to fix it by announcing that we'd have our own currency. That is a step forwards. Whether people want to vote for that or not is another issue.

On the EU point, yes Spain said they would vote against it. Nobody gave any explicit encouragement to Scotland that we could remain in the EU. There were many comments about us having to apply to become a new member and therefore having to accept the Euro. People didn't like this uncertainty either.

Certainty over currency and the EU were core problems for Salmond. Personally, I think he didn't think Scots would vote Yes unless we kept the pound and financial parity with RUK and he believed the EU and the UK would simply cave on both issues. He thought people would accept that these things would be dealt with after the vote and that nobody would seriously be worried about them. He was spectacularly wrong on both policy areas.

The problem for Yes is that I just don't see an appetite now for IndyRef2 after the fear over Brexit. Timing is everything and IMO this feels like a project for 20 years down the line. I think this will end up being a once in a generation vote and IMO it failed because of Salmond.

Yeah there were no guarantees about what would have happened to Scotland in that alternative universe but the moon would not have fallen from the sky the morning after we voted Yes. If we had voted Yes I feel all the EU countries apart from Spain would have accepted the result and our application to join as an Independent nation with no issues so Spain would've been left looking churlish and on the outside, no doubt there would've been many compromises made during whatever transition period occurred with both the rUK & the EU but I feel it could've been achieved, we wouldn't really have been in a position of strength but I still think in the long run it would've been worth it to leave what even Ruth Davidson agrees is a country geared around London & the Home Counties.

*********************

Meanwhile in the universe we actually live in we'll have to see what Deal/No Deal the UK ends up with personally I'm beginning to feel TM stands a reasonable chance of getting her deal passed if she can get any sort of fudge on "the backstop" from the EU as I think the ERG/DUP will see her deal as the best they can get and the number of Labour MPs willing to back her/abstain seems to exceed the number of pro-Europe Tory MPs likely to do the opposite.

As you say timing is everything and to me Sturgeon's attempt to clarify the issue of the Scottish £ at the weekend signals an attempt to deal with this problem in advance of IndyRef2. A choice on Independence before the UK leaves the EU would be a one between two uncertain futures, there is no "safe" option like there was in 2014 - FREEEDUUUM!

Edited March 5, 2019 by Bud the Baker

[Cornwall_Saint]

3 hours ago, Wendy Saintss said:

Those against Brexit but backing Scexit and vice versa have some explaining to do.

I support both Scottish independence and staying in the EU.

One of those reasons is down to seeing Westminster more as a dictator than the EU. The Brexit vote was the perfect example of “Big country wants it, big country gets it”. 2 countries voted to remain, two to leave, but the beast that is England will always win due to its much larger population. Three countries could put in a totally different party (say, SNP, Plaid Cymru and Sinn Fein), yet the English alone could still vote for a Tory/Labour majority. When passing laws the English MPs could outdo the three other countries each time, even if SNP/Plaid/Sinn all linked together on voting.

With the EU, there is much more in terms of agreeing on things before passing them as law. The EU doesn’t make all our laws (a very Brexit claim), I think it was around 4,000 of our 34,000 laws, which is only around 12% of our laws. Only 72 of those laws were against what Britain wanted, not even 1% of laws here were forced on Britain against their will. In addition you have 27 countries to trade with tariff-free. Over half of Scotland’s exports are to the EU. It’s often stated that most of our exports are to England, but most of this is the trade route itself as most of our ports are shut - it’s a tweaked figure in reality.

[Wendy Saintss]

My initial reply was to [mention=4199]oaksoft[/mention] saying "There was no guarantee of currency" which as I pointed out was George Osborne exceeding his powers.  

And the point of my reply was that that issue was irrelevant when comparing the Leave and Yes campaigns!

Leaving that aside, the SNPs new position of introducing a Scottish pound trashes their own proposal of 2014!

[Wendy Saintss]

I did join in, FFS thichasfcuk has competition. [emoji33][emoji23]

When the big hand is at 12 and the wee hand is at 3, what time is it?

Cowardly cockless: half past 5! [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

Oh no, he’ll be PMing me now asking for a fight and threatening to put me in hospital! [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji8]

[Wendy Saintss]

When you triumphantly declare “next” you really should be on the money with detail

Just in case he threatens to put me in hospital? [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

He wouldn’t know what time or date to turn up for his fight anyway! [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

[Bud the Baker]

23 hours ago, Wendy Saintss said:

 

And the point of my reply was that that issue was irrelevant when comparing the Leave and Yes campaigns!

Leaving that aside, the SNPs new position of introducing a Scottish pound trashes their own proposal of 2014!

 

Grown up parties evolve their policies to take into account of circumstances & peoples worries, besides once the rUK has left the EU the £Sterling will be a far less attractive option.

Back in 2014 we appointed Tommy Craig as manager - you're surely not suggesting we fire OK & re-appoint TC? 

Edited March 6, 2019 by Bud the Baker

[melmac]

Be great to see Wales after Brexit, nobody with any cash or jobs; they'll be trading like medieval times. f**k em, deserve all that's coming their way; wots up pussycat?

[beyond our ken]

16 hours ago, Wendy Saintss said:

 

Just in case he threatens to put me in hospital?

He wouldn’t know what time or date to turn up for his fight anyway!

 

That's academic since you wouldn't know if it's in the UK or Europe.

[Doakes]

I'm becoming more and more convinced that a majority of people just follow trends, rather than actually considering ramifications 

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, Doakes said:

I'm becoming more and more convinced that a majority of people just follow trends, rather than actually considering ramifications 

Oh you are definitely correct in that regard. Most people either lack the ability or incentive to seriously research into things before forming an opinion so they go with what others they respect are saying - safety in numbers. The evidence of that is all over the internet when someone questions them they can't defend their position and resort to abuse rather than accepting that changing your opinion in the face of new evidence is a reasonable thing to do.

 

[oaksoft]

6 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Sounds like the behaviour of the religious. 

Religion is much more insidious than that.

It focusses on exploiting poverty and a lack of education and uses classic control techniques to ensnare people.

If I was king, I would ban all organised religions.

Politicians haven't quite reached that level yet to be fair to them.

 

Edited March 6, 2019 by oaksoft

[DougJamie]

2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Religion is much more insidious than that.

It focusses on exploiting poverty and a lack of education and uses classic control techniques to ensnare people.

If I was king, I would ban all organised religions.

Politicians haven't quite reached that level yet to be fair to them.

 

So it wouldnt be God Save the King then, as apparently he makes Kings .

Also if you were King then my knighthood nomination would be fecked

[oaksoft]

49 minutes ago, DougJamie said:

So it wouldnt be God Save the King then, as apparently he makes Kings .

Also if you were King then my knighthood nomination would be fecked

It certainly would

[Doakes]

3 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Oh you are definitely correct in that regard. Most people either lack the ability or incentive to seriously research into things before forming an opinion so they go with what others they respect are saying - safety in numbers. The evidence of that is all over the internet when someone questions them they can't defend their position and resort to abuse rather than accepting that changing your opinion in the face of new evidence is a reasonable thing to do.

 

Even more so face to face. Had debates in work where pro indy types can’t explain the difference between the European Union and the United Kingdom. Or there’s an inability to explain why they would support one form of union, but reject another. 

Online, they can somewhat hold a debate as long as they have access to websites where they can pull up random bits of information that supports their political stance. I don’t necessarily blame them, there’s an absolute information overload. Nobody can take it all in. I just wish people would start to look at the future from a less polarised position. It’s kinda vital that we get this right...

[jaybee]

On 3/5/2019 at 5:05 PM, Cornwall_Saint said:

I support both Scottish independence and staying in the EU.

One of those reasons is down to seeing Westminster more as a dictator than the EU. The Brexit vote was the perfect example of “Big country wants it, big country gets it”. 2 countries voted to remain, two to leave, but the beast that is England will always win due to its much larger population. Three countries could put in a totally different party (say, SNP, Plaid Cymru and Sinn Fein), yet the English alone could still vote for a Tory/Labour majority. When passing laws the English MPs could outdo the three other countries each time, even if SNP/Plaid/Sinn all linked together on voting.

With the EU, there is much more in terms of agreeing on things before passing them as law. The EU doesn’t make all our laws (a very Brexit claim), I think it was around 4,000 of our 34,000 laws, which is only around 12% of our laws. Only 72 of those laws were against what Britain wanted, not even 1% of laws here were forced on Britain against their will. In addition you have 27 countries to trade with tariff-free. Over half of Scotland’s exports are to the EU. It’s often stated that most of our exports are to England, but most of this is the trade route itself as most of our ports are shut - it’s a tweaked figure in reality.

I realise that you are one of the more sensible posters on here, however I really have to take issue with you on two of the three points stated above. I can't and would not argue with the first as you have every right as indeed does everyone else to have a view and if they wish use that view in a vote.  The second paragraph however utilises what I view as selective reasoning and more importantly ignores three crucial points, firstly the UK is one United Kingdom as far as Europe is concerned, so there are no separate country votes. Just as an aside the Big country gave Scotland the option of voting on independence, I feel sure they didn't want to, but they did, but I assume failing to acknowledge this is part of the selective reasoning.  Secondly, the government stated they would bow to the will of the people regarding the referendum result; which I believe is how Democracy works, (of course they and most others thought it would be a resounding remain vote) So, did they carry out the will of the people? No they didn't and so far; still seem to be looking for a way to renege on their promise aided I might add by people like yourself who want what they want  and never mind Democracy.  Thirdly and it is small point, not all Scottish laws arise from London as Scotland has its own legal system, I think the laws you refer to are in relation to the UK government being the one that deals with Europe.  I mean I could use your 'The EU doesn’t make all our laws (a very Brexit claim)' and substitute Westminster for the EU and then also substitute Scottish for Brexit and it would have the same validity.

The second paragraph is quite clearly a pro- european attempt to justify staying in the EU and I have no problem with that, excerpt we have decided to leave, ergo it has no relevance. 

I read multitudes of justifications for not leaving; or only partly leaving and keeping the customs union and lots of other seemingly sensible suggestions, but again they are irrelevant, if the government honours its promise on the referendum. However that is still to be seen?