Brexit thread - what happens next

V F · 2 Aug 2016 at 13:31

scorza said:
Since the vote? It's the SNP - all they do is make mischief which somehow gets Westminster bending over backwards to try and appease them.

Once in a generation both Salmond and Sturgeon said.

yonderblue · 2 Aug 2016 at 13:37

Cosimo said:
Misleading nationalistic claptrap as it's UK income.

That's your opinion others as available. Until the Treasury open the books which it never will this is the tip of the iceberg as what Scotland actually contributes to this rotten union and what it gets back in pocket money to spend. Better together my a**e.

yonderblue · 2 Aug 2016 at 13:38

V F said:
Once in a generation both Salmond and Sturgeon said.

Boring......

Things have moved and changed on the political landscape, When there is another indyref you will just have live with it.

[TW]Fox · 2 Aug 2016 at 13:43

yonderblue said:
Boring......

Things have moved and changed on the political landscape, When there is another indyref you will just have live with it.

Things change constantly in the political landscape. you can't just keep asking until you get your own way.

yonderblue · 2 Aug 2016 at 13:45

[TW]Fox;29857652 said:
Things change constantly in the political landscape.

Exactly, Is there is another indyref then so be it. If the Union is that strong what's to worry about. Though Project Fear will not work quite so well the next time with all the broken promises.

Basher · 2 Aug 2016 at 13:50

yonderblue said:
That's your opinion others as available. Until the Treasury open the books which it never will this is the tip of the iceberg as what Scotland actually contributes to this rotten union and what it gets back in pocket money to spend. Better together my a**e.

If the books were opened, it would reveal that Scotland are massively dependant upon a very volotioe oil market that is in long term decline. The fact is that Scotland could not financially survive on its own.

Mr Jack · 2 Aug 2016 at 13:53

Calabi said:
So who here actually believes that it takes over 5 months to prepare for the negotiations?

5 months strikes me as a highly optimistic timetable. Just recruitment alone is likely to take longer than that.

[TW]Fox · 2 Aug 2016 at 13:54

Basher said:
. The fact is that Scotland could not financially survive on its own.

And the rest of the UK is happy to fund that because it makes us all stronger being part of the UK.

The UK is better for Scotland, it's better for England, it's better for Wales and it's better for Northern Ireland.

yonderblue · 2 Aug 2016 at 14:08

Basher said:
If the books were opened, it would reveal that Scotland are massively dependant upon a very volotioe oil market that is in long term decline. The fact is that Scotland could not financially survive on its own.

How do you know seen the books ?.

Basher · 2 Aug 2016 at 14:11

yonderblue said:
How do you know seen the books ?. The Westminster is doing a grand job with £1.6+ Trillion debt on the books off the books it could be over £5+ Trillion.

Are you suggesting that Scotland isn't heavily reliant on oil revenue?

That's the point I'm making. Being so reliant on a commodity that is volotile is not a great place to be.

naefeart · 2 Aug 2016 at 14:15

yonderblue said:
How do you know seen the books ?.

Errr you haven't noticed that oil revenues have plummeted, and with it the income the SNP said would allow Scotland to be prosperous in it's independance?

I believe the oil revenue accounted for the majority of their financial argument.

PlacidCasual · 2 Aug 2016 at 14:23

yonderblue said:
How do you know seen the books ?.

The Scottish executive used to publish a breakdown of public spending and income on an annual basis with North Sea oil revenues included and excluded. Back in the noughties Scotland always ran at a deficit without oil revenues but was ~~often~~ occasionally (not always) positive with them. North Sea oil income has plummeted it wouldn't be unreasonable assuming other forms of spending and income are largely the same that we're close to the excluding oil case and therefore deficit.

I haven't bothered to see if the Scottish Government prints the same detail I assume they do, it is probably a legal requirement.

So in the past, yes we could see the books, I assume we can still see the books, I personally haven't.

edit: so I had a look Scottish wonga and North Sea revenues have decreased by £7Bn a year at first glance, the deficit seems to be £11Bn to £13Bn with/without Scoil (I'm TM-ing that btw).

Xordium · 2 Aug 2016 at 14:31

[TW]Fox;29857717 said:
And the rest of the UK is happy to fund that because it makes us all stronger being part of the UK.

The UK is better for Scotland, it's better for England, it's better for Wales and it's better for Northern Ireland.

Are you quite sure the rest of the UK is happy to fund that? I wouldn't put that to a referendum in the UK if I were you.

Any evidence to back up the rest of those claims?

yonderblue · 2 Aug 2016 at 15:31

Xordium said:
Are you quite sure the rest of the UK is happy to fund that? I wouldn't put that to a referendum in the UK if I were you.

Any evidence to back up the rest of those claims?

No chance, That's like the Daily Mail readers opinion of how things are.

Gilly · 2 Aug 2016 at 15:37

[TW]Fox;29857717 said:
And the rest of the UK is happy to fund that because it makes us all stronger being part of the UK.

The UK is better for Scotland, it's better for England, it's better for Wales and it's better for Northern Ireland.

We were also stronger as part of the EU...

StriderX · 2 Aug 2016 at 15:40

Gilly said:
We were also stronger as part of the EU...

The EU however wasn't as strong with us in it, we practically stopped/heavily slowed the integration of EU states to the shiny (totally infallible) superstate.

Now they can enslave the rest of the EU to the EURO and collapse in a totally unforeseen manner, nah but seriously, was it right that the UK hindered the EU?

Xordium · 2 Aug 2016 at 20:41

StriderX said:
but seriously, was it right that the UK hindered the EU?

According to most member states yes. They appreciated a counterweight against the unchallenged proposed excesses that some countries would have forced everyone to adopt. We provided a healthy brake. When making big decisions it never hurts to rethink things and slow down.

FoxEye · 2 Aug 2016 at 21:00

StriderX said:
The EU however wasn't as strong with us in it, we practically stopped/heavily slowed the integration of EU states to the shiny (totally infallible) superstate.

Removed your second paragraph, but I basically agree with this bit.

We weren't committed to the EU even whilst we were a part of it. We were on the fringes, we were opposed to long-term ambitions of the core members, which is essentially a federal Europe.

And when I say we, I mean "our governement(s) were opposed", rightly or wrongly.

I also think they are better off without us slamming on the brakes all the time. They are free now to open the throttle and drive straight off into the sunset - or off the cliff, depending on your viewpoint

delta0 · 2 Aug 2016 at 21:13

It was often cited that the UK created a good balance in the EU. EU now will just drive off the cliff as mentioned above. They will go protectionist and tax mad amongst all the other agendas they have for the closer union. Even less freedom is coming for those that remain.

englishpremier · 3 Aug 2016 at 08:23

delta0 said:
It was often cited that the UK created a good balance in the EU. EU now will just drive off the cliff as mentioned above. They will go protectionist and tax mad amongst all the other agendas they have for the closer union. Even less freedom is coming for those that remain.

Which is what its members want, otherwise it wouldn't happen.