The Dirty Independence Question

[kipper64]

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

The new myth.

The UK's economy is the size of 18 EU members.

Do you really think the EU is going to allow rUK free trade with the EU via the back-door of an un-bordered iScotland that's in the EEA/EFTA?

And you do know that EU rules say that border states have to operate a people & goods secure border, don't you?

Sorry for the late response - busy day!

You could argue the 'trade via the backdoor' with any EFTA country with it's own Free Trade arrangements with non-EU states.  I'm not really sure this would be a sticking point anyway, if negotiations take a tough route and UK has no single market access, but some businesses that operate between Scotland and rUK currently are able to do so, the EU doesn't really lose any face there as it's not a concession to the UK, and woukd benefit more from an iScotland being economically sounder in this hypothetical situation.

Regarding secure borders for people/goods for external states I do not remember that being part of the EFTA convention - maybe I missed that part.  Obviously EFTA =/= customs union, so EFTA states won't have abolished customs borders as all states within the EU do - however an iScotland would not be bordering an EU member state, so this would not require a "secure border" with England unless England joined the customs union and Scotland didn't (or vice versa).

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 

It really is the case that Scotland will be choosing free access to one or other of the rUK or EU - and where rUK is 4.5 times the size - or it will be choosing no meaningful trade difference at all (and so make indy for trade access pointless).

It really isn't the case at all.  The means to make it work are there.  Most businesses that operate UK wide would not want that to change as it'd harm both parties.  Either way the idea that rUK market is 4.5 times bigger for Scotland is a bit misleading as it's basically just internal trade within the nation/poltical unit that is the UK, it's quite a bit different to international trade with other countries/ the EU (though that's not to say it's not important).

 

 

[Comfy Bean]

5 minutes ago, russycarps said:

I couldn't give a single shit about the union.

My only issue with Scottish independence is that all the evidence I've read points to the fact that people will see a fall in living standards. And it will be the already vulnerable who will suffer the most.

That's all there is to it from my point of view. 

Has any of the evidence you've read pointed to many of these people, who you are rightly concerned about, wanting Indy or voting for anyone but the Tories yet they find themselves being governed by the conservative and unionist party ?

Perhaps they think that the Tories are not the party to improve their lot and they fancy a different path. 

I doubt you disagree with them.

May saying tonight it doesn't matter a shit what happens next in Scotland, your out the eu.

62% of folk should be having a think about that.

[LJS]

8 minutes ago, russycarps said:

I couldn't give a single shit about the union.

My only issue with Scottish independence is that all the evidence I've read points to the fact that people will see a fall in living standards. And it will be the already vulnerable who will suffer the most.

That's all there is to it from my point of view. 

Even if this is true Russy (and that is of course debatable - even more so than it was last time) the worst case scenario (as I see it) Is between a UK that might have the money to help the vulnerable but where a perma tory Government doesn't really prioritise the vulnerable and a Scottish government who might be a bit short of cash (particularly in the first few years) but who are more likely to be interested in trying to do the best for the vulnerable. 

I know where I'd rather take my chance.

[russycarps]

1 minute ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Has any of the evidence you've read pointed to many of these people, who you are rightly concerned about, wanting Indy or voting for anyone but the Tories yet they find themselves being governed by the conservative and unionist party ?

Perhaps they think that the Tories are not the party to improve their lot and they fancy a different path. 

I doubt you disagree with them.

May saying tonight it doesn't matter a shit what happens next in Scotland, your out the eu.

62% of folk should be having a think about that.

 

1 minute ago, LJS said:

Even if this is true Russy (and that is of course debatable - even more so than it was last time) the worst case scenario (as I see it) Is between a UK that might have the money to help the vulnerable but where a perma tory Government doesn't really prioritise the vulnerable and a Scottish government who might be a bit short of cash (particularly in the first few years) but who are more likely to be interested in trying to do the best for the vulnerable. 

I know where I'd rather take my chance.

If there was going to be a Tory government forever more then I'd agree with you. But sooner or later they'll fuck up/people will tire of them and labour will get back in again. It wasn't that long ago that we thought the tories were finished forever....

It just seems extreme to go for independence - and all the uncertainty and probable(possible) pain that will come with it - just to avoid a couple of terms of a Tory government.

I dunno. I have thought about this a lot. Would I vote for an independent London given the chance? I really wouldn't even though I would benefit greatly and would also see the back of the tories forever. I know it's not the same at all, but it's the same principle.

Anyway, i am not going to be as aggro in this thread as last time. I'm too busy fretting about Brexit.

I'll keep you updated on oil prices though (so long as it's a downward trend, natch )

 

[LJS]

6 minutes ago, russycarps said:

 

If there was going to be a Tory government forever more then I'd agree with you. But sooner or later they'll fuck up/people will tire of them and labour will get back in again. It wasn't that long ago that we thought the tories were finished forever....

It just seems extreme to go for independence - and all the uncertainty and probable(possible) pain that will come with it - just to avoid a couple of terms of a Tory government.

I dunno. I have thought about this a lot. Would I vote for an independent London given the chance? I really wouldn't even though I would benefit greatly and would also see the back of the tories forever. I know it's not the same at all, but it's the same principle.

Anyway, i am not going to be as aggro in this thread as last time. I'm too busy fretting about Brexit.

I'll keep you updated on oil prices though (so long as it's a downward trend, natch )

 

Appreciate your thoughts Russy. The truth is that none of these decisions are easy & very few of us have the absolute certainty of "knowing" we are right.

 

[LJS]

Some interesting thoughts here...

Brexit was an English vote for independence – you can’t begrudge the Scots the same

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/15/brexit-was-an-english-vote-for-independence-you-cant-begrudge-the-scots-the-same

 

 

 

[lost]

6 hours ago, LJS said:

Some interesting thoughts here...

Brexit was an English vote for independence – you can’t begrudge the Scots the same

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/15/brexit-was-an-english-vote-for-independence-you-cant-begrudge-the-scots-the-same

 

 

 

She's right that Brexiteers and Scottish Nationalists are the same but for her arguments to work she has to ignore that the welsh voted to leave too. It's British nationalism.

I also agree about the English going north to make their arguments to the Scots and how that went down. Its was similar with Cameron wheeling out Obama to tell us we'd be at the back of the queue with the bexiteers. 

Labour realised what it was doing wrong last time which is when they switched and pushed Gordon Brown out to do the campaigning. Its even the same with the picture of Sturgeon above she's fine being spotted with a Tory, its if they had of been English, that's what would of lost her votes with the nationalists.

Edited March 16, 2017 by lost

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Oh look! completely ignores everything  i said & just mindlessly repeated your own bullshit

Let's try again shall we?

 

 its not how deficits are measured anywhere else in the whole wide world - & specifically its not how the UK's deficit is ever presented - I love how you think your dead clever in twisting stats to your own ends.  

I made a statement about how much greater spending was than revenue. I didn't say that the percentage i quoted was the deficit.

I put it in the way i did because it shows in the starkest way how big the problem is that you dismiss as meaningless and able to be dealt with.

Just because you object to the facts being made clear doesn't give you the right to make up bullshit claims about what i said.

Scotland is spending 25% more than it raises in revenues.

Get used to it, and come up with a plan to deal with it.

 

11 hours ago, LJS said:

Oh & you never had anything to say about Euro membership. Were you lying about that too?

What else have you been lying about?

"Liar liar pants on fire. Lies are all you have."

 

Since 1999, applications to joining the EU have required a firm commitment to join the Euro. It is not a choice it's an obligation.

You cannot claim the Sweden get out. Sweden's terms of membership were set prior to 1999.

Go on, tell me again that Scots are the most dedicated Europeans not like those skeptical English.

Go on, tell me again that the SNP didn't claim it would get the biggest set of opt-outs of any EU state in the 2014 white paper.

And then listen to your first minister, who while demanding an indyref because Scotland will be leaving the EU hasn't even said that Scotland plans to join the EU.

[eFestivals]

8 hours ago, kipper64 said:

You could argue the 'trade via the backdoor' with any EFTA country with it's own Free Trade arrangements with non-EU states.

there's a paperwork border.

And for those states, there's a physical border too, by the fact that none are adjoining to non-EU states. The sea border is that physical border (and that would be the used as the basis for a special NI/Ireland deal is there is one).

The combination doesn't allow for the really-free movement of non-EU goods across their borders in the way that is being suggested by Scotland for its border with the rUK.

Would the EU allow that open door into their trade area? Can't see it myself. If they did they might as well pack up and go home.

And the EU get final say, even if Scotland isn't joining the EU. EFTA and EEA exist for seamless access the EU market, not to allow their member countries to undermine the EU market.

 

 

[pink_triangle]

8 hours ago, LJS said:

 where a perma tory Government doesn't really prioritise the vulnerable and a Scottish government who might be a bit short of cash (particularly in the first few years) but who are more likely to be interested in trying to do the best for the vulnerable. 

I know where I'd rather take my chance.

Does the Snp track record with taxation suggest the vulnerable are their main priority. The Snp are no different to torys and labour in terms of when they get in power, they are aware of who not to hurt too much to stay there. I don't see how the Snp (in an indie Scotland) will not screw over the poor with the electoral necessity to not upset those in the middle. 

[eFestivals]

8 hours ago, kipper64 said:

Regarding secure borders for people/goods for external states I do not remember that being part of the EFTA convention - maybe I missed that part.  Obviously EFTA =/= customs union, so EFTA states won't have abolished customs borders as all states within the EU do - however an iScotland would not be bordering an EU member state, so this would not require a "secure border" with England unless England joined the customs union and Scotland didn't (or vice versa).

It's not an EFTA or EEA Scotland that would need a border with EU states, it's an EFTA or EEA Scotland that would need a border with a non EU/EEA/EFTA rUK.

Trade across that border can be tariff free (on certain conditions), but it cannot be paperwork free in the way that current UK to EU exports (or rUK to Scotland exports) are.

And for that paperwork to be accurate and acceptable to the EU, checks have to be made at the point of entry (sea ports and airports for other EEA/EFTA states) to ensure that it's not being used as a backdoor into the EU.

For an EEA/EFTA Scotland, checks would need to be made at its rUK border.

(I'll just point out that not every crossing is required to be checked for contraband, but a proportion. It's still the introduction of a physical border at Scotland's want when previously there was none)

 

8 hours ago, kipper64 said:

It really isn't the case at all.  The means to make it work are there.  Most businesses that operate UK wide would not want that to change as it'd harm both parties.  Either way the idea that rUK market is 4.5 times bigger for Scotland is a bit misleading as it's basically just internal trade within the nation/poltical unit that is the UK, it's quite a bit different to international trade with other countries/ the EU (though that's not to say it's not important).

Businesses will want to keep their sales. People will internalise their markets no matter what businesses want.

Cos no one in the UK buys from France with identical confidence they'd have for a UK to UK trade. Exactly the same will crop up between rUK and iScotland; how big and how fast depends on how much we piss each other off.

Unfortunately for Scotland, they've already internalised their market to some degree over the years of the rise in nationalism, so they've less business to 'bring home' than will be the case in the opposite direction. It's another one of those things where the facts show a disadvantage to the Scottish position compared to the rUK position.

 

[LJS]

7 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Does the Snp track record with taxation suggest the vulnerable are their main priority. The Snp are no different to torys and labour in terms of when they get in power, they are aware of who not to hurt too much to stay there. I don't see how the Snp (in an indie Scotland) will not screw over the poor with the electoral necessity to not upset those in the middle. 

Just like 2014, I will not be voting SNP. You will no doubt argue that the SNP will inevitably win the first post-Indy election & you're probably right. But, the point is this isn't like a general election where we are voting on policies for the next 5 years. We're voting on how Scotland is governed for decades. The SNP will not rule forever so whether they are more or less likely to help the poor than anyone else is irrelevant in this vote. 

[eFestivals]

8 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Has any of the evidence you've read pointed to many of these people, who you are rightly concerned about, wanting Indy or voting for anyone but the Tories yet they find themselves being governed by the conservative and unionist party ?

Perhaps they think that the Tories are not the party to improve their lot and they fancy a different path. 

I doubt you disagree with them.

It's cuts you hate about the tories.

And your 'solution' is to give yourself bigger cuts than any tory will give you.

 

8 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

May saying tonight it doesn't matter a shit what happens next in Scotland, your out the eu.

Sturgeon saying she doesn't give a shit if someone's voted for the union, they'll be out of the UK (if Sturgeon can win).

Spot the difference? Nope, me neither. 

The winner of a vote get to win and the loser gets to lose.

 

8 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

62% of folk should be having a think about that.

nope, just about 3% of the whole-UK not-Scottish-only vote.

You know, the people on the losing side.

[LJS]

1 hour ago, lost said:

She's right that Brexiteers and Scottish Nationalists are the same

She quite clearly does not say that.

[eFestivals]

8 hours ago, LJS said:

a Scottish government who might be a bit short of cash (particularly in the first few years) but who are more likely to be interested in trying to do the best for the vulnerable. 

the Scottish govt isn't doing that when it's flush with money.

Why do you think it will when it's got fuck all money?

 

[eFestivals]

8 hours ago, russycarps said:

I'll keep you updated on oil prices though (so long as it's a downward trend, natch )

and it is.

10% just this month.

[LJS]

38 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I made a statement about how much greater spending was than revenue. I didn't say that the percentage i quoted was the deficit.

I put it in the way i did because it shows in the starkest way how big the problem is that you dismiss as meaningless and able to be dealt with.

Just because you object to the facts being made clear doesn't give you the right to make up bullshit claims about what i said.

Scotland is spending 25% more than it raises in revenues.

Get used to it, and come up with a plan to deal with it.

 

Since 1999, applications to joining the EU have required a firm commitment to join the Euro. It is not a choice it's an obligation.

You cannot claim the Sweden get out. Sweden's terms of membership were set prior to 1999.

Go on, tell me again that Scots are the most dedicated Europeans not like those skeptical English.

Go on, tell me again that the SNP didn't claim it would get the biggest set of opt-outs of any EU state in the 2014 white paper.

And then listen to your first minister, who while demanding an indyref because Scotland will be leaving the EU hasn't even said that Scotland plans to join the EU.

As the prof dude I quoted pointed out  the requirement to join the Euro is unenforced and pretty much unenforceable.

[eFestivals]

7 hours ago, LJS said:

Some interesting thoughts here...

Brexit was an English vote for independence – you can’t begrudge the Scots the same

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/15/brexit-was-an-english-vote-for-independence-you-cant-begrudge-the-scots-the-same

 

who's begrudging them a vote? no one at all.

I'm only seeing people saying either "go on then, fuck off" or "go for it" or "Scotland is allowed to make its choice".

It's only people like you who are suggesting anyone begrudges a vote.

There's *reasons* why some people think a vote right now isn't appropriate (just had one/middle of brexit/etc), but that's not 'begrudge'.

You wouldn't be trying to fan the flames of grievance, would you? Definitely not. :lol:

Pointing out to Scots that it would be the same economic stupidity as brexit but on a hugely greater scale is not begrudging, it's just pointing out that being stupid like Farage is being stupid like Farage.

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

Just like 2014, I will not be voting SNP. You will no doubt argue that the SNP will inevitably win the first post-Indy election & you're probably right. But, the point is this isn't like a general election where we are voting on policies for the next 5 years. We're voting on how Scotland is governed for decades. The SNP will not rule forever so whether they are more or less likely to help the poor than anyone else is irrelevant in this vote. 

if Scotland won't vote to help its poor when it's flush with money - and it hasn't - then it certainly won't do it when it's having a fucking humongous financial squeeze.

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, LJS said:

As the prof dude I quoted pointed out  the requirement to join the Euro is unenforced and pretty much unenforceable.

It's forced. Since 1999 the EU has compliance 'czars' to bring it about for those members obliged to do it by their terms of entry.

It's true that member states can be obstructive towards it, that do counteract the EU 'force' about it - but that 'obstructive' isn't done by a place that wants to believe itself a fully-committed partner to the EU project.

And of course, it all starts with that publicly made commitment to join the EU including the Euro - so while Scotland might avoid the Euro, it can't avoid committing itself to the Euro if it plans to join the EU,

I'd say it's the commitment to having to join the Euro that's going to cost indy some support, and that the facts of what might happen in avoiding it aren't going to count for much.

PS: but actually, I don't think this is going to matter. It appears to be the case that the SNP will be saying they don't plan to join the EU ... which avoids a few issues, but not many. The big ones still remain exactly as they were.

The biggest is still this: Scotland is spending 25% more than it raises in revenues.

Edited March 16, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

 

 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

 

 

yep, division is what this is all about.

And I'll just have you think for a moment about who started it.

Does Sturgeon have a witty line for how sovereignty at any cost isn't anything like Farage?

[russycarps]

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

 

 

almost as shocking as that stray hyphen....

 

[LJS]

Great piece from George Monbiot...

 "...Scotland could wait to find out what happens after Brexit, though it is hard to see any likely outcome other than more of this and worse. Or it could cut the rope, pull itself back into the boat, and sail towards a hopeful if uncertain future. I know which option I would take."

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/15/theresa-may-dragging-uk-under-scotland-must-cut-rope

 

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, LJS said:

 

Great piece from George Monbiot...

 

like all the 'great' pieces about Scottish indy, it's pretending there's no horrific downside.

When a govt with no credit history is spending 25% more than its revenues, there's going to be a horrific downside.