The Brexit Thread

[PapofGlencoe]

15 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Look it goes without saying of course we would be worse off initially. No two ways about that. I accept the pain for the long-term gain is my mindset. On the other side of the coin Brexit is going to be equally as painful financially for us. One different with Brexit is that after the hardship we are still slaves to Westminster ruled over by fat Etonian toffs. No thank you.

A hard border between Scotland and England - well if it has to be it has to be. What important services do you speak of that you think would be cut?

all of them if we're still running a 8-11% deficit.  maybe even more if independence is initially worse which is what you're suggesting.

you'd need to cut billions of pounds just to be sustainable.  up to whatever government of the day to decide which services it would affect.  At least we can decide which ones via democracy though.

if we have less money to go round it goes without saying it affects people.  I'm coming round to the idea that this polity idea of us Scots is a fallacy.  having less money won't improve social care or things that really matter.  Large sections of our own people jump queues with private healthcare every day while normal people go years without proper care.  Cuddly goody two shoes Scotland held back is a crutch.  After independence the crutch will be something else.  Just get back to real issues that affect people, i say.

 

Edited October 23, 2019 by PapofGlencoe

[Caledonian Craig]

2 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

all of them if we're still running a 8-11% deficit.  maybe even more if independence is initially worse which is what you're suggesting.

you'd need to cut billions of pounds just to be sustainable.  up to whatever government of the day to decide which services it would affect.  At least we can decide which ones via democracy though.

if we have less money to go round it goes without saying it affects people.

 

The whole of the UK runs at such a deficit and rolls on regardless without cutting of services. And like I say tough times are coming if/when Brexit comes regardless. Which do you prefer? Tough times following independence and then the caveat of self-governing and being able to negotiate our own deals and way in this world. Or tough times following Brexit followed by remaining firmly under the thumb and treated like dirt by Westminster?

[PapofGlencoe]

3 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

The whole of the UK runs at such a deficit and rolls on regardless without cutting of services. And like I say tough times are coming if/when Brexit comes regardless. Which do you prefer? Tough times following independence and then the caveat of self-governing and being able to negotiate our own deals and way in this world. Or tough times following Brexit followed by remaining firmly under the thumb and treated like dirt by Westminster?

the whole UK does not run at that ridiculous rate of deficit.  and it has cut many services.  

it depends how you look at it.  we are able to spend far more than we should be able to - that's not really being treated like dirt.  As things stand we are subsidised.  like it or not.  we may not have been for many years but we are now and there's little sign it's going to change anytime soon.

instead of being nationalistic about it, maybe we should simply look at this financially.  Do we get more to spend on things?  yes.  so why voluntarily make people's lives worse?  the SNP might want to do X, Y, and Z but if they don't have the funds, you can't do it.

 

 

[Caledonian Craig]

2 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

the whole UK does not run at that ridiculous rate of deficit.  and it has cut many services.  

it depends how you look at it.  we are able to spend far more than we should be able to - that's not really being treated like dirt.  As things stand we are subsidised.  like it or not.  we may not have been for many years but we are now and there's little sign it's going to change anytime soon.

instead of being nationalistic about it, maybe we should simply look at this financially.  Do we get more to spend on things?  yes.  so why voluntarily make people's lives worse?  the SNP might want to do X, Y, and Z but if they don't have the funds, you can't do it.

 

 

There are many ways of looking at things though. Look at money raised from Scottish people's taxes that goes to Westminster and gets frittered away on HS2, Westminster refurb, Buckingham Palace refurb etc etc and all of that would no longer happen and be money into the Scottish coffers. What would Westminster do with Trident? They would not want it stored anywhere near London and no doubt would want it kept where it is. That could be arranged but only through a big payment which would help too. There are options out there of that I am sure for raising funds.

[Caledonian Craig]

9 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

the whole UK does not run at that ridiculous rate of deficit.  and it has cut many services.  

it depends how you look at it.  we are able to spend far more than we should be able to - that's not really being treated like dirt.  As things stand we are subsidised.  like it or not.  we may not have been for many years but we are now and there's little sign it's going to change anytime soon.

instead of being nationalistic about it, maybe we should simply look at this financially.  Do we get more to spend on things?  yes.  so why voluntarily make people's lives worse?  the SNP might want to do X, Y, and Z but if they don't have the funds, you can't do it.

 

 

And can I ask you if Scotland is such a liability financially explain why Westminster are fighting tooth and nail to keep hold of it? And it has nothing to do with nostalgia or anything to do with affection. The Tories exist for personal wealth accumulation so a skint Scotland is not the Tories cup of tea.

[PapofGlencoe]

1 minute ago, Caledonian Craig said:

There are many ways of looking at things though. Look at money raised from Scottish people's taxes that goes to Westminster and gets frittered away on HS2, Westminster refurb, Buckingham Palace refurb etc etc and all of that would no longer happen and be money into the Scottish coffers. What would Westminster do with Trident? They would not want it stored anywhere near London and no doubt would want it kept where it is. That could be arranged but only through a big payment which would help too. There are options out there of that I am sure for raising funds.

craig those are one off investments.  And there's not really too many ways of looking at it.  The figures are quite clear and this is before Brexit has happened and the potential of being out the EU for a period/hard border with the UK/independence shock.

and the sad fact is it's not our taxes that pay for it.  We're in deficit.  both in real and comparative terms with England.  hugely.

If there are alternative figures that show we can raise billions of pounds why are the SNP not trumping this.  They should be putting forward clear economic cases for independence - not just what Brexit may cost.

I'm becoming less convinced independence has an economic case that clearly will help our people.  as things stand, we can have flags and our country without a cost.  if foreigners think anything worse of us for it, i couldn't care less.

If the SNP can show we'll be economically no worse off, i'm all for it.  It's in their court but hearing very little.

[PapofGlencoe]

5 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

And can I ask you if Scotland is such a liability financially explain why Westminster are fighting tooth and nail to keep hold of it? And it has nothing to do with nostalgia or anything to do with affection. The Tories exist for personal wealth accumulation so a skint Scotland is not the Tories cup of tea.

because Britain would look an absolute laughing stock losing a third of its land mass and would inevitably look weaker.

A few billion here and there doesn't drown the UK they way it would us.  Half its power is soft already.  It won't want to knock it further by losing one of its intrinsic parts.

[Caledonian Craig]

5 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

because Britain would look an absolute laughing stock losing a third of its land mass and would inevitably look weaker.

A few billion here and there doesn't drown the UK they way it would us.  Half its power is soft already.  It won't want to knock it further by losing one of its intrinsic parts.

Sorry but those aren't reasons that Westminster Tories would give a stuff about. After all they have a complete laughing stock as PM.

And I am not after independence to give other countries a knock. I am after independence for Scotland's long-term benefit.

Anyway you are entitled to vote No and I feel that is how you will always be impelled to vote and that is your choice.

[PapofGlencoe]

1 minute ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Sorry but those aren't reasons that Westminster Tories would give a stuff about. After all they have a complete laughing stock as PM.

And I am not after independence to give other countries a knock. I am after independence for Scotland's long-term benefit.

Anyway you are entitled to vote No and I feel that is how you will always be impelled to vote and that is your choice.

im a member of the SNP and a yes voter as things stand.  i'm considering my position given the lack of an economic case being proposed.

Fair enough.  I think they would hold their nose and subsidise a few billion for the sake of their egos on a world stage but i could be wrong.

[Caledonian Craig]

1 minute ago, PapofGlencoe said:

im a member of the SNP and a yes voter as things stand.  i'm considering my position given the lack of an economic case being proposed.

Fair enough.  I think they would hold their nose and subsidise a few billion for the sake of their egos on a world stage but i could be wrong.

Economic cases for the unknown is very hard. If IndyRef 2 is to happen then I'd presume then the economic cases would be made.

And remember that this deficit you speak of is whilst we are in a union. That is hardly a shining beacon of hope for the union is it? Also Scotland are something like 47th in the world table of highest exporters (or something like that) above other countries that have coped very well as an independent country in this world so I see no reason why we can't.

[hampden_loon2878]

7 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

For me independence is the end goal. Independence with EU membership or independence without the EU I would tske both options over what we have. This union must,be terminated.

Me also but would ideally like to go down the Norwegian model

[hampden_loon2878]

theres whispers going that blackfords seat is at risk if there were to be a GE tomorrow, i feel sorry for katie forbes as she may have to deal with the fallout of his actions 

[bonny78]

God what a mess.  Only Nigel can save us now. 

[TDYER63]

1 hour ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

theres whispers going that blackfords seat is at risk if there were to be a GE tomorrow, i feel sorry for katie forbes as she may have to deal with the fallout of his actions 

Thats  strange,  he was in parliament today telling Boris to ‘bring an election on’. 
Would he be that keen if his seat was at risk ? 
Also, did you not say fairly recently that the SNP would win back a lot of voters at the next election?  I thought I remembered you saying that as it made me feel quite positive. Or have I got that wrong, it is quite possible I have. 

[Caledonian Craig]

9 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

Thats  strange,  he was in parliament today telling Boris to ‘bring an election on’. 
Would he be that keen if his seat was at risk ? 
Also, did you not say fairly recently that the SNP would win back a lot of voters at the next election?  I thought I remembered you saying that as it made me feel quite positive. Or have I got that wrong, it is quite possible I have. 

Blackford does hold a pretty slim majority in his constituency and Westminster parties do tend to target key SNP figure's seats. They did it with Angus Robertson and Alex Salmond so they will probably do the same again. However, the SNP will increase their seat count at the next GE - I am very confident of that.

[aaid]

5 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Blackford does hold a pretty slim majority in his constituency and Westminster parties do tend to target key SNP figure's seats. They did it with Angus Robertson and Alex Salmond so they will probably do the same again. However, the SNP will increase their seat count at the next GE - I am very confident of that.

Blackford's majority is 6000 which is about as slim as he is.    The Tories are second and their vote will only go one way and that's down.  The Lib Dems might push them for second place but I can't see them coming close to unseating Blackford.    If you're a Brexit supporting Tory, you're hardly likely to vote for the Lib Dems who want to revoke.  At least the SNP only want another referendum on the EU.

[hampden_loon2878]

24 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

Thats  strange,  he was in parliament today telling Boris to ‘bring an election on’. 
Would he be that keen if his seat was at risk ? 
Also, did you not say fairly recently that the SNP would win back a lot of voters at the next election?  I thought I remembered you saying that as it made me feel quite positive. Or have I got that wrong, it is quite possible I have. 

Yes i do think that the snp will win a lot of seats back in a GE, look at the last week or so, there is a concentrated effort to vilify blackford I’ve seen a few posts”this man doesn’t speak for me” on social media from folk you wouldn’t think hold strong political persuasions.as Caledonia craig says, they did it with Angus Robertson with great effect,  blackford and katie forbes have done a great job across there so hopefully these whispers are part of the unionist plot. I stand by what i say in that sometimes its best to stay quiet or stay low from time to time in politics as constantly being at the forefront of a decisive issue like brexit make you a target

[hampden_loon2878]

7 minutes ago, aaid said:

Blackford's majority is 6000 which is about as slim as he is.    The Tories are second and their vote will only go one way and that's down.  The Lib Dems might push them for second place but I can't see them coming close to unseating Blackford.    If you're a Brexit supporting Tory, you're hardly likely to vote for the Lib Dems who want to revoke.  At least the SNP only want another referendum on the EU.

There was a poll doing the rounds for his constituency that had the libdems at the fore, it could have been fabricated as i cant see any pollsters that have carried out any local polls

[aaid]

12 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

There was a poll doing the rounds for his constituency that had the libdems at the fore, it could have been fabricated as i cant see any pollsters that have carried out any local polls

It would be strange if they were. Obviously Charlie Kennedy held the seat for years but I suspect that was down to a large personal vote built up over the years.   I wouldn't put anything past the Lib Dems, fabricating polls would be right up their street.

In 2017 when the SNP took a haircut across Scotland, Blackford's vote was only 3000 less than Kennedy got in 2010 which was peak Lib Dem when they got into coalition.

Edited October 23, 2019 by aaid

[exile]

18 hours ago, Dave78 said:

<waves to PIAK from a former colonial region of the UK, which now has a GDP of nearly twice that of Scotland, mainly thanks to the opportunity afforded by the EU>  

 

Brexit on hold as the UK has to wait while the EU does its democratic duty to consult its constituent nations such as Ireland, Estonia and so on, on the same day Johnson tells Blackford straight out that the Scottish Parliament has no role in the decision. 

Edited October 23, 2019 by exile

[phart]

19 hours ago, Dave78 said:

<waves to PIAK from a former colonial region of the UK, which now has a GDP of nearly twice that of Scotland, mainly thanks to the opportunity afforded by the EU>  

 

But Scotland has been a part of the same EU for the same length of time. So why would being in the EU be a variable when it's a constant?

[TDYER63]

12 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

Yes i do think that the snp will win a lot of seats back in a GE, look at the last week or so, there is a concentrated effort to vilify blackford I’ve seen a few posts”this man doesn’t speak for me” on social media from folk you wouldn’t think hold strong political persuasions.as Caledonia craig says, they did it with Angus Robertson with great effect,  blackford and katie forbes have done a great job across there so hopefully these whispers are part of the unionist plot. I stand by what i say in that sometimes its best to stay quiet or stay low from time to time in politics as constantly being at the forefront of a decisive issue like brexit make you a target

The SNP are a target no matter what. If they had sat back quietly they would be criticised for being useless and only caring about independence.

 I voted remain admittedly not with a huge passion and am a bit ambivalent and bored by it all now. But when such a large percentage of the country voted to Remain I personally feel the SNP should be vocally supporting the country’s overall position. 

I can however understand your concern .   
 

 

[TDYER63]

16 hours ago, PapofGlencoe said:

im a member of the SNP and a yes voter as things stand.  i'm considering my position given the lack of an economic case being proposed.

Fair enough.  I think they would hold their nose and subsidise a few billion for the sake of their egos on a world stage but i could be wrong.

Can I ask what has changed your opinion from 5 years ago? The economic case wasnt much different then ? 
 

16 hours ago, PapofGlencoe said:

craig those are one off investments.  And there's not really too many ways of looking at it.  The figures are quite clear and this is before Brexit has happened and the potential of being out the EU for a period/hard border with the UK/independence shock.

and the sad fact is it's not our taxes that pay for it.  We're in deficit.  both in real and comparative terms with England.  hugely.

If there are alternative figures that show we can raise billions of pounds why are the SNP not trumping this.  They should be putting forward clear economic cases for independence - not just what Brexit may cost.

I'm becoming less convinced independence has an economic case that clearly will help our people.  as things stand, we can have flags and our country without a cost.  if foreigners think anything worse of us for it, i couldn't care less.

If the SNP can show we'll be economically no worse off, i'm all for it.  It's in their court but hearing very little.

I would argue that when those one off investments are complete they will be replaced with new ‘ one of investments ‘ that probably are of no use to Scotland whatsoever. 

[aaid]

9 hours ago, phart said:

But Scotland has been a part of the same EU for the same length of time. So why would being in the EU be a variable when it's a constant?

Both Ireland and the UK acceded to the EU on the same day.  Ireland however made a conscious decision to become fully integrated with the EU and to align its economy to it, to an extent that the UK didn't..

its hypothetical of course but it allows you to draw parallels between where Scotland might be had she entered as an Independent state, in particular as at time - and indeed currently -  had resources way in excess of Ireland. 

Its not all down directly to the EU.  Using per capita GDP as a measure, you generally find that small countries - in terms of population with successful economies tend to have higher GDP than larger ones.  In Ireland's case, though it was through EU  membership that they turned their economy around  

Ceteris paribus, it's hard to argue that had Scotland joined at the same time, that Scotland wouldn't be sitting in the same place as Ireland. 

Edited October 24, 2019 by aaid

[Ally Bongo]

Not to mention Scotland's economy is controlled by another country