Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Sturgeon plans to announce new Scottish referendum


crazypabs
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, copydude said:

Something like 80% of our legislation comes from Brussels. So much that no-one can keep up with it. From the amount of cinammon in a Danish pastry to the typeface on a motorcycle number plate. Do you know how the smoke is regulated on an Arbroath Smokie? If Scotland doesn't want to be self-governing what's the point of this referendum? 

"Something like 80% of our legislation comes from Brussels". No it doesn't.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36473105

https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/

"The typeface on a motorcycle number plate". Nope, typeface is optional. Belgium still hasn't adopted, for instance.

"Do you know how the smoke is regulated on an Arbroath Smokie"? As a matter of fact I do. The manufacturers of the Arbroath smokie actually pushed for PGI status for their particular delicacy. THEY told the EU how a smokie is correctly smoked, and where it must be done to qualify as being an Arbroath Smokie. The EU then took that information and laid out the manufacturing requirements to qualify as an Arbroath Smokie, and granted PGI protection. Thanks for that perfect example of confirmation bias!

As I've posted before, Westminster's influence far exceeds that of Brussels, I don't have a problem with the vast majority of EU directives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

4 hours ago, onlooker said:

Immigration may have been a lightning rod issue, but IMHO it was much to do with perceived economic deprivation. How else do you explain that the English counties just south of the Scottish border (with minimal immigrants) all voted for Brexit, but the adjacent counties in Scotland voted Remain? Maybe that 10% of GDP Barnett transfusion into the Scottish economy had an effect? Northumberland and Cumbria (and all the other deprived English regions) were voting Brexit to make a point, which Westminster has clearly now noticed.

And how will Brexit help those deprived areas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, copydude said:

Mrs May is threatened by a smaller UK, but though this sounds of consequence, is it really? The numbers I've seen (assuming they are roughly accurate) don't really suggest Scotland or UK would have a vast problem splitting economies. In fact, smaller, more manageable, locally responsive units should work better.

This  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AThirdWay said:

And how will Brexit help those deprived areas?

Lower exchange rate, better trade policies, better regional policies.

If our deprived areas have a future, it is in manufacturing, where a realistic exchange rate would help. But IMHO the trade deficit we have always had with the EEC/EU is clear evidence that the single market is not working to our benefit, in fact the reverse. And the UK's large contribution to the EU budget will be available to spend on our regions.

After Brexit, maybe all our deprived areas could have their own Barnett Formula.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, onlooker said:

Lower exchange rate, better trade policies, better regional policies.

If our deprived areas have a future, it is in manufacturing, where a realistic exchange rate would help. But IMHO the trade deficit we have always had with the EEC/EU is clear evidence that the single market is not working to our benefit, in fact the reverse. And the UK's large contribution to the EU budget will be available to spend on our regions.

After Brexit, maybe all our deprived areas could have their own Barnett Formula.

If Brexit is a success, what lower exchange rate? Again, what makes you think Westminster will be able to agree better trade policies, and in what way does the EU stop better regional policies at the moment?

Why do you think Brexit will improve our trade deficit, and what in the world makes you think that Westminster will spend any EU savings in deprived areas? The reason they ARE deprived areas is because Westminster doesn't support them. Why would that change?

The existence of the Barnett formula owes nothing to the EU, what you suggest could be done now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AThirdWay said:

If Brexit is a success, what lower exchange rate? Again, what makes you think Westminster will be able to agree better trade policies, and in what way does the EU stop better regional policies at the moment?

Why do you think Brexit will improve our trade deficit, and what in the world makes you think that Westminster will spend any EU savings in deprived areas? The reason they ARE deprived areas is because Westminster doesn't support them. Why would that change?

The existence of the Barnett formula owes nothing to the EU, what you suggest could be done now.

I prefer asking more basic questions, like "Why should we be a net contributor to the EU budget" (and don't say it is a membership fee, when it is just a cash transfer to other EU countries).

Or why we, as an industrialized trading nation should be so bad at our job, that we have always run such large trade deficits with the rest of the EU.

Answers, please?

Getting back to your questions. The exchange rate IMHO is a function of our deficit. It is likely to improve, but (just like in 1993-7) the lower rate is providing a buffer to the big changes going on. As to trade and regional policies, the combination of not having to contribute to the EU budget, and being able to import at World prices should be a boost to our trade and regional position. The reason some areas of the UK are deprived is not primarily due to a lack of Govt spending, but is due to the lack of competitive industry. It is at least partly a function of the large trading deficit with the rest of the EU. So when that is eradicated, the deprived areas will improve.

The continuing existence of the Barnett Formula is entirely due to pressure from Scotland. I would have thought that if Sturgeon actually wanted independence, she would say to Westminster - "End the Barnett Formula, we will spend in Scotland only what we raise in Scotland". You would be on the road to independence, quick as a flash, job done. Yes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in the day, well 2014:

Quote

...Both sides of the Scottish referendum debate are agreed on one thing: it is a once-in-a-lifetime issue. David Cameron underlined this message on Tuesday when he told people in Scotland independence would be a "painful divorce". Alex Salmond pledged there would be no second referendum for "a generation", even if he lost by one vote. ...

..However, Vernon Bogdanor, from Kings College, London, said a second vote after a no was not impossible: "If there's a close no, Salmond could change his mind. If he wins a big majority in 2016, he could say there's an irresistible force in Scotland." ...

...

Charlie Jeffery, professor of politics at the University of Edinburgh, believes that even if politicians wanted a second referendum, it is unlikely to be shared by the Scottish public.

"If you asked the people of Scotland if they wanted another referendum in another couple of years I think the result would be an impolite one," he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/17/scottish-independence-referendum-yes-no-agree-once-in-lifetime-vote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this day and age:

Quote

Dr Sean Lang (Senior Lecturer in History at Anglia Ruskin University said: "2014 already seems like another world. The main protagonists of Indy1 (as it will no doubt become known), Alex Salmond, David Cameron and Jim Murphy, have all passed from the political scene and for the first time the battlefield is entirely led by a group of strong female leaders – Nicola Sturgeon, Theresa May, Ruth Davidson and Kezia Dugdale.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/scottish-indyref2-might-not-go-12735923

Labour just need, Rebecca Long-Bailey to give Corbyn a nudge.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/jeremy-corbyn/news/83231/rising-star-rebecca-long-bailey

Leanne Wood, Caroline Lucas and... oh ********; that still leaves Tim. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/03/2017 at 11:29 PM, onlooker said:

I prefer asking more basic questions, like "Why should we be a net contributor to the EU budget" (and don't say it is a membership fee, when it is just a cash transfer to other EU countries).

Or why we, as an industrialized trading nation should be so bad at our job, that we have always run such large trade deficits with the rest of the EU.

Answers, please?

Getting back to your questions. The exchange rate IMHO is a function of our deficit. It is likely to improve, but (just like in 1993-7) the lower rate is providing a buffer to the big changes going on. As to trade and regional policies, the combination of not having to contribute to the EU budget, and being able to import at World prices should be a boost to our trade and regional position. The reason some areas of the UK are deprived is not primarily due to a lack of Govt spending, but is due to the lack of competitive industry. It is at least partly a function of the large trading deficit with the rest of the EU. So when that is eradicated, the deprived areas will improve.

The continuing existence of the Barnett Formula is entirely due to pressure from Scotland. I would have thought that if Sturgeon actually wanted independence, she would say to Westminster - "End the Barnett Formula, we will spend in Scotland only what we raise in Scotland". You would be on the road to independence, quick as a flash, job done. Yes?

One addresses the other. We are a net contributor so that the EU can invest in less developed member states, increasing their GDP and therefore their international purchasing power. We then sell to them, reducing our trade deficit.

What makes you think we won't be contributing to the EU budget after Brexit, and why would tariff free trade, or WTO tariffs, improve our trade deficit? It would ruin it, surely? That would then destroy your argument re. the regions.

You are correct about the Barnett Formula, the SNP have been calling for Full Fiscal Autonomy for years, and I am of the opinion that a 'Devo-Max' option on the referendum paper in 2014 WOULD have meant a generation before the next referendum. Cameron wanted a binary choice.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, AThirdWay said:

One addresses the other. We are a net contributor so that the EU can invest in less developed member states, increasing their GDP and therefore their international purchasing power. We then sell to them, reducing our trade deficit.

What makes you think we won't be contributing to the EU budget after Brexit, and why would tariff free trade, or WTO tariffs, improve our trade deficit? It would ruin it, surely? That would then destroy your argument re. the regions.

You are correct about the Barnett Formula, the SNP have been calling for Full Fiscal Autonomy for years, and I am of the opinion that a 'Devo-Max' option on the referendum paper in 2014 WOULD have meant a generation before the next referendum. Cameron wanted a binary choice.....

My personal take from the EU referendum result was that, aside from immigration, many of those Britons who voted for Brexit objected to money going to build motorways in Bulgaria, when it could have been spent building infrastructure in Stoke on Trent. Investment in Eastern Europe has just enabled a large chunk of their workforce, and many who don't intend to work, to upsticks and move to the UK. Our trade deficit with the rest of the EEC/EU has remained remarkably stubborn since joining, and IMHO is due to the non tariff barriers we hear about. And the single market was never extended to include services, which we were always promised. This trade deficit is an important point in my view - why should we pay a brass farthing for access to get free trade with the rEU if we are not benefitting from it. We would be suckers. I see no reason to continue contributing to the EU budget after Brexit. In fact, maybe VW can pay to export their cars to us?

At the last Indyref, politicians were talking in a $100/bbl oil World. We are not going to see that again. The financial deal across the UK in future has to be fair. Make full fiscal autonomy a goal for Scotland. Is anybody suggesting that now? Why doesn't the SNP replace Barnett with raised domestic income tax rates?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/03/2017 at 10:07 AM, onlooker said:

My personal take from the EU referendum result was that, aside from immigration, many of those Britons who voted for Brexit objected to money going to build motorways in Bulgaria, when it could have been spent building infrastructure in Stoke on Trent. Investment in Eastern Europe has just enabled a large chunk of their workforce, and many who don't intend to work, to upsticks and move to the UK. Our trade deficit with the rest of the EEC/EU has remained remarkably stubborn since joining, and IMHO is due to the non tariff barriers we hear about. And the single market was never extended to include services, which we were always promised. This trade deficit is an important point in my view - why should we pay a brass farthing for access to get free trade with the rEU if we are not benefitting from it. We would be suckers. I see no reason to continue contributing to the EU budget after Brexit. In fact, maybe VW can pay to export their cars to us?

At the last Indyref, politicians were talking in a $100/bbl oil World. We are not going to see that again. The financial deal across the UK in future has to be fair. Make full fiscal autonomy a goal for Scotland. Is anybody suggesting that now? Why doesn't the SNP replace Barnett with raised domestic income tax rates?

I can't seriously believe you think improving the infrastructure of a country would encourage people to leave? 

You blame the trade deficit on non-tariff arrangements, but the trade deficit with Europe existed before those agreements. What makes you think it will not be there after the we leave the EU? A quick Google will show that our exports to the EU since 1998 have risen by >50%. Brexit will almost certainly hit those exports, and perhaps quite considerably so. Do you think those that lose their businesses and jobs would share you opinion that we do not benefit from the EU. You also forget that exports rely very heavily on imports. What are we going to make these exports with, if not imported material? From where does the raw material come to produce the 1.5m cars made in the UK? Maybe VW would pay to export their cars, but the automotive manufacturers in this country would have to pay more for almost every single component required to build their cars. How do you think VW would view an import tax on all those Nissan's/Honda's/Vauxhall's we export to the EU? What about the manufacturers themselves? It's a no-win situation I'm afraid.

FFA is not on the table, although the SNP mention it now and then. FFA would have to be fair, and a major sticking point would be things like Trident's replacement. The Scottish Government simply doesn't want it, how do we work that through FFA? Refurbishing Westminster/Buckingham Palace? I think you'd be hard pushed to find 1 in a 10 Scots who think we should pay for that.... etc. etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, AThirdWay said:

I can't seriously believe you think improving the infrastructure of a country would encourage people to leave? 

You blame the trade deficit on non-tariff arrangements, but the trade deficit with Europe existed before those agreements. What makes you think it will not be there after the we leave the EU? A quick Google will show that our exports to the EU since 1998 have risen by >50%. Brexit will almost certainly hit those exports, and perhaps quite considerably so. Do you think those that lose their businesses and jobs would share you opinion that we do not benefit from the EU. You also forget that exports rely very heavily on imports. What are we going to make these exports with, if not imported material? From where does the raw material come to produce the 1.5m cars made in the UK? Maybe VW would pay to export their cars, but the automotive manufacturers in this country would have to pay more for almost every single component required to build their cars. How do you think VW would view an import tax on all those Nissan's/Honda's/Vauxhall's we export to the EU? What about the manufacturers themselves? It's a no-win situation I'm afraid.

FFA is not on the table, although the SNP mention it now and then. FFA would have to be fair, and a major sticking point would be things like Trident's replacement. The Scottish Government simply doesn't want it, how do we work that through FFA? Refurbishing Westminster/Buckingham Palace? I think you'd be hard pushed to find 1 in a 10 Scots who think we should pay for that.... etc. etc.

Well the infrastructure has improved, along with a lot of other things, but the people have left. e.g. More than 10% of the population of Lithuania lives in the UK. Must be a lot easier for them to get out. My point was that despite all the money UK people have been forced to spend in eastern Europe, the inhabitants would still prefer to move in next to me. I want our money back.

The graph in this source shows the value of British exports going up by about 45% between 1998 and 2013, while EU imports into the UK have gone up by about 100%:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http:/www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/uktrade/uk-trade/december-2014/sty-trade-rotterdam-effect-.html

UK exports to the EU vs RoW was in the ratio 55/45 in 1999, but was 44/56 by 2015, as the slump in the much of the EU became established. (See the 3rd graph in http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11702554/Bad-news-for-the-Yes-side-The-EU-matters-far-less-for-UK-exports.html

You can argue however you like about how integrated business and manufacturing is, and how the EU could make life difficult for us after leaving, but the simple fact is that we must trade to survive, and our trade with the rest of the World provides our dinner, whereas the trading arrangements we have with the EU are a net cost. Just have to cut back on the BMWs and Champagne.

I can't believe you think the refurbishment of the HoP and Buck House is a financial burden on a national scale - they are the most important tourist draws in the most important tourist city in the UK. The visitors to London pay for the refurbishment thousands of times over. Anyway we paid for an unneccessary gas chamber in Holyrood. Even Trident is small beer, especially as it buys our seat on the Security Council. Giving up our nuclear weapons would be a major abdication of our responsibilities for World peace, and I thought the Remain case was that Brexiteers were the Little Englanders? However, I don't have a problem with an independent Scotland sending the nuclear subs down south, and being ejected from NATO as a result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/21/2017 at 9:25 PM, onlooker said:

 More than 10% of the population of Lithuania lives in the UK.

I think that may be 'working population'.  Still a fair percentage of course.  35% of Poland's population live abroad. 10% of Latvia's working population left the country post-EU. Bulgaria's population is also in demographic meltdown.

I have no problem with the People's Republic of Sturgia either, but the idea that it will be all sweetness and light within the EU seems a little naive. Surely it was a happy chance that RBS had millions of UK taxpayers to call upon. Otherwise Scotland would have had the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to wind up like Greece or Cyprus or Iceland. And ignoring the contradiction in terms. I don't see how any nationalist party could work with the EU. Poland and Hungary are having a massive fight with Brussels at the moment. Both these countries were asset stripped by multinationals during the EU's drang nach osten. Poland couldn't protect its own shipyards or its own coal resources.

Ms Sturgeon, like our poster 'A Third Way', suggests that EU membership will be a formality following independence. This simply isn't the case. There's a queue for starters, then an accession programme . . . not mention the resistance of many existing member states to any further expansion. Separatist Catalonia was quickly disabused of the same silly notion. So presenting Indyref2 as a one or the other is plain wrong.

Edited by copydude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, copydude said:

I think that may be 'working population'.  Still a fair percentage of course.  35% of Poland's population live abroad. 10% of Latvia's working population left the country post-EU. Bulgaria's population is also in demographic meltdown.

I have no problem with the People's Republic of Sturgia either, but the idea that it will be all sweetness and light within the EU seems a little naive. Surely it was a happy chance that RBS had millions of UK taxpayers to call upon. Otherwise Scotland would have had the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to wind up like Greece or Cyprus or Iceland. And ignoring the contradiction in terms. I don't see how any nationalist party could work with the EU. Poland and Hungary are having a massive fight with Brussels at the moment. Both these countries were asset stripped by multinationals during the EU's drang nach osten. Poland couldn't protect its own shipyards or its own coal resources.

Ms Sturgeon, like our poster 'A Third Way', suggests that EU membership will be a formality following independence. This simply isn't the case. There's a queue for starters, then an accession programme . . . not mention the resistance of many existing member states to any further expansion. Separatist Catalonia was quickly disabused of the same silly notion. So presenting Indyref2 as a one or the other is plain wrong.

I was basing that number on the Google link:

[PDF]Migration profile: Lithuania

www.iom.lt/images/.../1427792338_7TMOMigration%20profile%20Lithuania.pdf

Lithuania, 615,000 people have left the country since 19901. On average ... Approximately, 50 percent of emigrants moved to the UK and 15 percent to Ireland.

But I have no idea how anybody knows. Who collects the information, and how recent is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, copydude said:

I think that may be 'working population'.  Still a fair percentage of course.  35% of Poland's population live abroad. 10% of Latvia's working population left the country post-EU. Bulgaria's population is also in demographic meltdown.

I have no problem with the People's Republic of Sturgia either, but the idea that it will be all sweetness and light within the EU seems a little naive. Surely it was a happy chance that RBS had millions of UK taxpayers to call upon. Otherwise Scotland would have had the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to wind up like Greece or Cyprus or Iceland. And ignoring the contradiction in terms. I don't see how any nationalist party could work with the EU. Poland and Hungary are having a massive fight with Brussels at the moment. Both these countries were asset stripped by multinationals during the EU's drang nach osten. Poland couldn't protect its own shipyards or its own coal resources.

Ms Sturgeon, like our poster 'A Third Way', suggests that EU membership will be a formality following independence. This simply isn't the case. There's a queue for starters, then an accession programme . . . not mention the resistance of many existing member states to any further expansion. Separatist Catalonia was quickly disabused of the same silly notion. So presenting Indyref2 as a one or the other is plain wrong.

You prefer the UK's response to the 'financial crisis' to Iceland's?

http://www.worldfinance.com/infrastructure-investment/government-policy/failing-banks-winning-economy-the-truth-about-icelands-recovery

Personally I think Iceland got it right, we got it wrong. Instead of the generations that caused the problems taking the hit, we have chosen to bundle it onto future generations....

I'm not entirely sure why you think the SNP can't work with the EU, surely EVERY national government works with the EU? Unless you think it is the Scottish Nationalist Party, not the Scottish National Party? It's plain that currently Westminster is the nationalist parliament, Holyrood the internationalist :lol:

As for accession, can I remind you that the Berlin wall fell in 1989, East Germany became part of the EU in 1990? Accession requires only that the applicant country meets the required criteria.

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/glossary/terms/accession-eu_en

There is no queue, there are simply applicant countries. Or do you think no country will be able to join until Turkey has been dealt with? There are many welcoming voices being heard in the EU. Spain's opposition is to a Scotland WITHIN the UK getting special status, they acknowledge that an independent Scotland would be treated the same as any other nation.

https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/8702/european-politicians-extend-hand-friendship-scotland-after-brexit-vote

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/14/spain-independent-scotland-would-be-at-the-back-of-eu-queue

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2017 at 7:04 PM, AThirdWay said:

You prefer the UK's response to the 'financial crisis' to Iceland's?

http://www.worldfinance.com/infrastructure-investment/government-policy/failing-banks-winning-economy-the-truth-about-icelands-recovery

Personally I think Iceland got it right, we got it wrong. Instead of the generations that caused the problems taking the hit, we have chosen to bundle it onto future generations....

I could not agree more with Iceland's response to their crisis. The point is that they would not have had the luxury of determining such a response within the EU. Why are Greek pensioners having to pay to recapitalise failed banks? Why is Greece paying for the excesses of French and German banks? And even Iceland was arm-twisted by the EU to pay compensation to Icesave banksters in Europe, even though they were functioning within an EU regulated framework in London and Amsterdam. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, copydude said:

I could not agree more with Iceland's response to their crisis. The point is that they would not have had the luxury of determining such a response within the EU. Why are Greek pensioners having to pay to recapitalise failed banks? Why is Greece paying for the excesses of French and German banks? And even Iceland was arm-twisted by the EU to pay compensation to Icesave banksters in Europe, even though they were functioning within an EU regulated framework in London and Amsterdam. 

 

..the reason Greece are being penalised is because they are in the EU..they should never have joined ...like us ..the public were not on the ball ..they were not aware ...they are now ..that is why we have BREXIT ...the thinking pubic are aware ...the brainwashed elite sheep wish to remain ....go BREXIT and go GREXIT....:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/03/2017 at 6:04 PM, AThirdWay said:

You prefer the UK's response to the 'financial crisis' to Iceland's?

http://www.worldfinance.com/infrastructure-investment/government-policy/failing-banks-winning-economy-the-truth-about-icelands-recovery

Personally I think Iceland got it right, we got it wrong. Instead of the generations that caused the problems taking the hit, we have chosen to bundle it onto future generations....

Iceland did get it right, but when Greece tried to do the same thing, Germany sent in the viceroys, remember?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, EUBanana said:

Iceland did get it right, but when Greece tried to do the same thing, Germany sent in the viceroys, remember?

...and people wonder why BREXIT is a good thing....BREXIT is our way out of slavery.......do the pseudo left left wing liberal elitists and champagne socialists not get it..has academic education stunted (or indoctrinated)  their common sense....?....:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, South Lorne said:

...and people wonder why BREXIT is a good thing....BREXIT is our way out of slavery.......do the pseudo left left wing liberal elitists and champagne socialists not get it..has academic education stunted (or indoctrinated)  their common sense....?....:rolleyes:

Aye, that'll be what it is. Far better a UK.gov slave than a eu slave   ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.