Sign in to follow this  
Alex MacLeod

EU In or Out

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

Ruth Davidson was actually pretty impressive in the BBC debate just before the referendum.  She repeatedly attacked the Leave side for their lack of any plans following a Brexit.  She said "it simply isn't good enough" nearly as often as the Leavers asked us to "take back control".  Sadly, the leaders of the UK Government and official opposition parties were as woefully inept in this referendum as they were in the last one.

But, yes, it is almost beyond belief that the Leave camp should expect No 10 to have the plan for us leaving the EU, after all, No 10 don't even have a plan for us staying.

Ruth Davidson is generally pretty impressive and deserves credit for the Tories' Scottish resurgence despite years of vilification from the SNP. She was asked today if she would be interested in becoming PM but (apart presumably from the obvious difficulty of not being an MP) made it quite clear that her aspirations lay in Scotland.

I think that one of several common features of the two recent referenda is that in neither case did the seceders have a remotely adequate plan for what would happen after the event if they were successful. The only difference is that this lot have got away with it. I would also mention to OQ that if the Brexiteers don't actually have an adequate exit strategy, that in no way changes the woeful inadequacy of the previous SNP one.

One thing I'm still a bit bemused at is how so many of the predictors - bookies, financial markets and especially the pollsters - got the outcome completely wrong. There were even some end of polling polls still predicting Remain on Thursday night and at the time that did seem unremarkable, given the expected late drift towards the status quo which frequently occurs in circumstances like this. In fact I've seen it reported that one result was so good for Remain that Cameron was told he was home and dry and there were also briefings to that effect. I woke up after 2am and had a quick look on my phone - to discover a completely different picture from the one which sent me to sleep at midnight.

Edited by Charles Bannerman
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25 June 2016 at 9:12 PM, DoofersDad said:

I'm in the 55-64 age bracket but voted to remain.  It seems that social media is alive with youngsters having a go at us oldies for ruining their future. But before folk get too carried away with criticising us oldies, I think there are a few points to bear in mind.

Firstly, if the young want to have a pop at anyone, how about starting with those in their own age group who couldn't be bothered to vote.  They could also have a pop at the Government for not allowing 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote in a referendum which so clearly affects their futures.

Secondly, whilst a referendum on such a big constitutional issue clearly does have more implications for the future of younger people, older people are likely to have children and grandchildren and will be well aware of the implications for them when deciding how to vote.

Thirdly, older people obviously have more experience of life and will look at issues in the light of that experience.   If you have lived through all our 40 years in Europe as an adult, you have a bit more experience of the project to know how it has delivered on expectations over the years.

Fourthly, the kind of angry reaction there has been displays a real arrogance.  There is almost an assumption that remaining in Europe was the correct choice and all the 17 million who voted to leave are either selfish or stupid.  The fact is, there is no right or wrong about this.  Nobody can possibly know whether we will be better or worse off in 20 years time by leaving the EU.   

Finally, and linked to the last point, everyone is entitled to their opinions and rather than vilify people for having different views, the constructive thing to do is to engage in civilised debate.  Rather than having a pop at the pensioner leavers, it would be better to criticise the Remain campaign for failing to appreciate and to address the extent and depth of the concerns people have regarding the EU (and immigration in particular).

Recriminations won't help.  We are where we are and the road ahead is not going to be easy.  What we need now is for folk on both sides of the debate to work constructively together to make the future work.

Indeed, if the 'couldn't be ersed' under 30 year olds had taken the trouble to submit their votes it could've added about 2 million to the Remain vote and we wouldn't be having all these recriminatory discussions.

I'd also like to ask this younger generation what benefits they think they're going to lose out on by us leaving the EU? Perhaps the unemployed youngsters of Greece could tell them how great the benefits of being in the EU are!

The reaction on social media from our younger generation only serves to highlight what an ageist society we have here in the UK - there is no value given to the experience and opinions of the older ones amongst us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CaleyCanary said:

The reaction on social media from our younger generation only serves to highlight what an ageist society we have here in the UK - there is no value given to the experience and opinions of the older ones amongst us. 

Interesting observation CC. It's also fair to say that, as they age and mature, people's views also evolve. For instance I remember the ultimately New Labour Gordon Brown rushing frantically around the Edinburgh University campus in the early 70s, rabidly promoting far left wing views. Similarly, it would be unwise for the SNP to assume that their younger Yessers are with them for life. These things change. Political views are a wee bit like young kids supporting Rangers - it's something they quite often grow out of.

  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How scary is this...........Mr Cameron has said nothing since Friday morning. George Osborne, the chancellor of the exchequer, has been silent. (This afternoon I texted several of his advisers to ask whether he would make a statement before the markets open tomorrow. As I write this I have received no replies.) The prime minister’s loyalist allies in Westminster and in the media are largely mute.

Apart from ashen-faced, mumbled statements from the Vote Leave headquarters on Friday, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove have also ducked the limelight; Mr Johnson is meeting friends and allies today, June 26th, at his house near Oxford in what are believed to be talks about his impending leadership bid. Neither seems to have the foggiest as to what should happen next. Today Mr Gove’s wife committed to Facebook the hope that “clever people” might offer to “lend their advice and expertise.” And Mr Johnson’s sister, Rachel, tweeted: “Everyone keeps saying ‘we are where we are’ but nobody seems to have the slightest clue where that is.”

http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2016/06/anarchy-uk

Does anybody think the Tories have abdicated?

  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a daily basis I calculate my sales converting the sales on my American web site to from dollars to British pounds

Usually I have to sell around $100 to gross £66 or so

Today I sold $87 dollars worth of books to gross £66

This below is a resume' of the conversion company review of the situation

Somewhat interesting - But from my point of view clouds and silver linings come to mind

XE Market Analysis: North America - Jun 24, 2016

Currency markets settled in a confused stasis after the dramatic moves during the Asian session as the reality of Brexit became increasingly apparent. Cable was sitting with a 7.8% net loss on the day, at 1.3700 as of the early European PM session, having shown a record-breaking 11% decline at the 1.3231 intraday low. GBP-JPY was also off is lows, but it still showing a net 11.4% decline. EUR-USD, meanwhile, was off by 2.2% and EUR-CHF was 0.5% for the worse, despite confirmed SNB intervention. Commodity and other high beta currencies, along with European currencies, have been the ex-sterling currency underperformers today. AUD-USD lost 3% and USD-CAD gain by over 2%. European currencies have also taken a beating, with the Norwegian and Swedish crowns and eastern European currencies all underperforming the euro, which itself is notably underperforming the other G3 currencies, with the yen and the dollar the Brexit safe haven currencies of choice.

[EUR, USD]
EUR-USD plummeted from levels above 1.1400 to a three-month low of 1.0911 before recouping to the upper 110s. The euro is set to remain an underperformer in forex markets amid post-Brexit concerns about the broader euro project. Resistance is at 1.1098-1.1100.

[USD, JPY]
USD-JPY dove to two-plus year lows of 99.00 from 106.81 before "magically" sprinting back to 102.00 in a heartbeat. Japan Finance Minister Aso reportedly said "no comment" on whether or not the MoF ordered intervention to stem yen gains earlier. Aso also said firm action on the yen will be taken if needed, though said it was premature to discuss joint intervention. He said that Japan will respond to FX moves, if needed, "more than ever" and is watching with a "sense of urgency." The BoJ presser said it will continue to closely monitor the markets after the referendum, ready to provide sufficient liquidity, "including using existing swap agreements."

[GBP, USD]
Sterling saw record-breaking losses as the UK opted for Brexit. Uncertainty now prevails. Will there be a general election (less than 200 of the 650 members of parliament supported Brexit)? Will Scotland and Northern Ireland vote to leave the UK (both having voted to remain part of the single market? What happens to investment, consumer spending etc during a "transition" period that could be more than two years? How long before the ratings agencies chop the UK's triple A status (S&P and Moody's issued informal warnings today)? What implications with this have on the broader European Project? Brexiters will celebrate their victory, but the near- to-medium term economic future is not looking bright for the UK. Risk-off positioning is likely to dominate for the foreseeable, with sterling to remain firmly under the cosh.

[USD, CHF]
EUR-CHF dove from levels above 1.0800 to a 10-month low at 1.0623 before recouping to the upper 1.07s. The reality of Brexit will likely maintain pressure on the cross and given the Swiss policymakers a headache. The SNB said after its quarterly policy review this month, that it is monitoring the impact of the Brexit issue on the "significantly overvalued" franc.

[USD, CAD]
USD-CAD rallied to a 23-day peak at 1.3099 as oil prices fell as the reality of Brexit sparked a risk-off panic in global markets. We expect the pair to remain underpinned. The May 23 high at 1.3188 provides a target, while support is at 1.3020 and 1.3000.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26 June 2016 at 9:59 PM, Charles Bannerman said:

Interesting observation CC. It's also fair to say that, as they age and mature, people's views also evolve. For instance I remember the ultimately New Labour Gordon Brown rushing frantically around the Edinburgh University campus in the early 70s, rabidly promoting far left wing views. Similarly, it would be unwise for the SNP to assume that their younger Yessers are with them for life. These things change. Political views are a wee bit like young kids supporting Rangers - it's something they quite often grow out of.

Have to agree Charles, as an ex-Rangers supporting youth you have picked a very valid example!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, CaleyCanary said:

Have to agree Charles, as an ex-Rangers supporting youth you have picked a very valid example!

I would just like to point out that it's Caley Canary and not myself who is the ex-Rangers supporting youth!:smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is amazing how quickly things can move in politics.  The Tories seem to have sorted themselves out and we have a new PM.  The top posts in May's cabinet seem to reflect a good mix of Leavers and Remainers.  I think we will see a real sense of purpose from a Government led by a woman who is a long way from your archetypal Tory.  I thought her brief speech was very interesting for a number of reasons but perhaps mostly for the emphasis on reaching out to the under-privileged in society.   Of course, words are easy and it is actions which matter, but I thought it was a pretty impressive start.

From a Scottish perspective, May's strong words in support of the Union are significant.  Whilst I am sure she will want to have the political leaders from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland closely involved in the Brexit discussions,it will be very much on the understanding that the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU and the negotiations are about leaving the EU and not about any part of the UK somehow staying in.  In response to May's phrase that "Brexit means Brexit", Angus Robertson has rather foolishly stated that the position of the Scottish Government is that "Remain means Remain".  I rather think he and his party are also going to be told in no uncertain terms that "No means No".  It looks as though the UK Government has quickly accepted the will of the people and is moving on decisively to deal with the reality.  For pity's sake, can't the Scottish Government finally do the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DoofersDad said:

 In response to May's phrase that "Brexit means Brexit", Angus Robertson has rather foolishly stated that the position of the Scottish Government is that "Remain means Remain".  I rather think he and his party are also going to be told in no uncertain terms that "No means No".  It looks as though the UK Government has quickly accepted the will of the people and is moving on decisively to deal with the reality.  For pity's sake, can't the Scottish Government finally do the same?

"Angus Robertson has rather foolishly".... what's the opposite of "oxymoron"?:lol:

But if Angus and his Caledonian Chums think they can split off the bit of the UK which, in a UK referendum voted Remain, why didn't they suggest the same in 2014 about the bits of Scotland that voted Yes and we would by now be shot of Glasgow and Dundee which would have had their Independence Days back in March?:smile: The other consideration is those now eternal SNP whinges (what IS that opposite of "oxymoron"?) about part of the UK being taken out of the EU against its will. They have also been on record as insisting that ALL parts of the UK should have to vote Leave before we left. So similarly, all parts of Scotland would presumably have to vote yes before any Scexit from the UK?

But to turn to politics as a whole - it really is a vicious, a filthy self-seeking business. Look what's happened of late.

Tories - that former P and J striker Gove shafts his pal Dave by backing Leave and then stabs his ally Boris by declaring his leadership candidacy. Gove in turn gets stabbed by Leadsom who (subsequent to becoming a mother of three:lol:) next gets shafted by The Times. But at least this leaves, fortunately, the outstanding candidate, the "difficult woman" May, a clear run. However Boris then inexplicably gets made Foreign Secretary, despite making von Ribbentrop look like a decent bloke, hence just about receiving carte blanche to start World War 3 all on his own.

Labour - Corbyn's stance on Europe was so fundamentally dishonest that it moved over 80% of Labour MPs to express no confidence in him but he still refuses to go. He then gets challenged for the leadership by Eddie Izzard Angela Eagle, kicking off an orgy of threats and thuggery by the Labour Party in England's Redneck wing who, if they were Scottish or American, would instead be supporting the SNP or Donald Trump. The threats continue through a lengthy NEC meeting which eventually decides that Corbyn doesn't have to get the support he doesn't have from MPs to stand again. The party, where you can buy a leadership vote for £3, looks on the brink of splitting. And the question continues - what is Labour actually FOR these days. What's the point of this party?

SNP - having already had their internal "Night of the Long Y-Fronts", they declare themselves for Remain.... but not TOO much for Remain, just in case too many Scottish Remain votes instead tip the overall result the "wrong" way, hence depriving them of the overall Leave which is their best opportunity for a perceived grievance since the Massacre of Glencoe. They get the result they want... UK-Leave/Scotland-Remain... and proceed to throw the predictable Hissy. The intensity of the said Hissy is, of course, WAY out of proportion with much of the 62% Remainers either not being all that fussed one way or another or actually being some of the LARGE proportion of SNP Leavers instead voting tactically. Meanwhile almost half of all secession supporting Weegies abstain ("didnae vote Jimmy") which is of course another form of tactical voting. This, which makes you wonder if Scotland really has more people strongly for Leave than strongly for Remain, is clearly way out of step with Wee Nicola's Hissy which, with delusions of Stateswomanship, takes her to Brussels where the Big Man says "Va 't en ma poule" ("**** off hen") and refuses to see her. Notwithstanding, they furiously persist with demanding a preferential Remain for Scotland. They are, of course, fully aware that Alex Salmond would attend the Last Night of the Proms before this happens, but in any case, they're really not all that fussed anyway. The main purpose of this is to get a NON which they can then use to stoke existing anti-British grievances. The pantomime continues.

Greens - well at least it gets a bit simpler here. The Lentil Munchers will simply do what the Nats tell them - including, in the event of a push for a second referendum that people don't actually want, dutifully voting for one in Holyrood since the Nats don't have a majority.

LibDems - do they till exist?

Edited by Charles Bannerman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right, mere weeks after a monumental fiasco fueled by rampant British nationalism and the self-interest of the Tory party, and with further economic misery a virtual certainty, let's all fall back into line with the ghost of Thatcher at the helm and the xenophobe Johnson as Foreign Secretary.

 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course desperately searching for another source of anti-Tory grievance now that the Bullingdon Posh Boys have gone will presumably push the rescuing of our dysfunctional schools, hospitals and police even further down the Nat agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bannerman you are truly beyond parody.   Do us all a favour and stick to your equally tiresome and ill-informed tripe on the merger. 

 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, ymip said:

Bannerman you are truly beyond parody.   Do us all a favour and stick to your equally tiresome and ill-informed tripe on the merger. 

 

Your reliance on vacuous invective and the absence of anything of substance would appear to suggest that you are a nationalist supporter?:smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is one issue that unites posters of all political hues on here it is that CB posts complete and utter sh*te on a daily basis.

Edited by dougiedanger
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, dougiedanger said:

If there is one issue that unites posters of all political hues on here it is that CB posts complete and utter sh*te on a daily basis.

If only it was merely on a daily basis......

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accusations of Charles's posts being sh*te would be rather more valid if anyone making those accusations actually bothered to make some kind of comment on the legitimate points he raises within his colourful phraseology.  It seems as though Nationalists no longer have any arguments other than those which have been shot to pieces several times already.

By the way Charles, in your lengthy email you made no comment on the current state of UKIP!  They appear to have got their wish of the UK leaving the EU, but, like many other parties, find themselves with leadership issues.  They also appear to have burdened themselves with rules which mean most of the high profile members of the party are ineligible to stand as leader.  Having got and then won the referendum they clearly need to refocus and define what the future role and vision of the party is to be.  At least that's not a problem the SNP are going to have any time soon.

 

  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

Accusations of Charles's posts being sh*te would be rather more valid if anyone making those accusations actually bothered to make some kind of comment on the legitimate points he raises within his colourful phraseology.  It seems as though Nationalists no longer have any arguments other than those which have been shot to pieces several times already.

By the way Charles, in your lengthy email you made no comment on the current state of UKIP!  They appear to have got their wish of the UK leaving the EU, but, like many other parties, find themselves with leadership issues.  They also appear to have burdened themselves with rules which mean most of the high profile members of the party are ineligible to stand as leader.  Having got and then won the referendum they clearly need to refocus and define what the future role and vision of the party is to be.  At least that's not a problem the SNP are going to have any time soon.

 

Yeh, DD has got it in one. With very few exceptions, I don't like politicians and despise the ridiculous and politically bankrupt SNP even more than they do the Tories. And I say so in terms which seem to make a fairly decent job of winding up Nats.... if their responses on here are anything to go by, limited as they are, with that persuasion's typical lack of any credible reasoning, to blank assertions and classic Cybernat rudeness.

However one thing that does detract a bit from the sport of exposing the abject weaknesses of Scottish Nationalism is that it's a wee bit like shooting fish in a barrel. The fish never have any response (although that analogy does break down if you accept that fish can't even indulge in rudeness, abuse and $113 unsubstantiated assertions.)

And "righ'eenuff" as we say in Inverness - I forgot about UKIP. Och well, they're eminently forgettable so we'll maybe leave it that way.

Edited by Charles Bannerman
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has actually become quite difficult to remember that this thread began life as "EU In or Out?" - which of course is a question that would again arise a) If the SNP were to find an excuse for a second referendum and b) They were also able sufficiently to aggrieve the population into voting yes.

Because the next question indeed would be whether or not a separate Scotland would actually be accepted as a member of the EU - of course on terms far less advantageous than Britain enjoyed before the Brexit vote? So it is indeed a question of In or out? And the reason is that, apart from Scotland being unable to meet various economic criteria for new members, the Spanish and a few others would jump to veto any application for their own internal political reasons. Then there's how each and every current EU member views Scotland on the basis of what it sees of the Scots - how acceptably Scotland is perceived. So what is the rest of the world's best insight into Scots in action? How they behave in their parliament of course - not the Edinburgh branch office but the real one in London - the one that the rest of the world recognises.

Yup.... Scotland is mainly showcased to the rest of the world by the uncouth and embarrassing antics of the Westminster 56, 55, 54, whose latest stunt has been to suggest to that world that Scots totally lack the kind of grace, finesse and common decency that allow even a political opponent with whom you don't agree to depart with a little decorum rather than the petty churlishness displayed by the 56, 55, 54 on Cameron's departure. Good Lord! Even Jeremy Corbyn gave the Nats a lesson in common decency! And that's before the more or less daily outbursts of public grievance-mongering which are now obliging the rest of the world to abandon their Harry Lauder caricature view of Scottish people and instead adopt the one displayed by the 56, 55, 54. Where on earth did the SNP get this graceless bunch from? Over the years I have had direct dealings with three of this 56, 55, 54, 53, 52 plus two compulsive priapists. I found one to be a politics obsessed geek, one to be so anonymous that it was more interesting engaging with a black and yellow wall and the third is simply a complete buffoon. However they have probably been selected by SNP Central because they are especially good at displaying the kind of gauche loutishness which has been synonymous with the SNP since 1314. And they are our global embarrassment.

If they do get their second referendum, it's worth looking at what the two options would entail, because the lie of the land for any second referendum would be very different from the first.

NO would involve continuing incorporation within a historically hugely successful country which will continue to have one of the biggest economies in the world and which, despite the challenges of Brexit, will still offer the huge benefits of scale and established status on a global basis - and be free from the massive constraints of Brussels. And there would be a much better deal than from the EU for the Scottish fishermen the SNP used to say so much about but whom they now conveniently ignore since their needs and views contradict the EU-grievance.

YES - well IF... and it's a huge IF... Scotland were to get into the EU it would be on the basis of the current deal that 58% of the Scottish electorate declined to endorse last month PLUS, among other things, using the Euro, adopting the Schengen Agreement and - alongside losing the Barnett Formula - also losing the rebate which it enjoyed when the UK was an EU member. And all of this for the sake of trading freely, in a post-oil/GTA environment, goods which are valued at just a quarter of what is currently traded across the border with the rest of the UK. That, of course, would become a very hard EU/ non EU border with passport controls, customs posts and currency exchange. Visiting your granny in Carlisle would be the least of your problems.

And that ... och I know - of course  it's just Project Fear II.... is just the grim situation IF Scotland DID get into the EU. If it DIDN'T... well what's plan B? Oops - I forgot. The SNP doesn't to Plan Bs!

Edited by Charles Bannerman
  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Charles, I see the red dot brigade are at it again.  They don't like what you say but seem quite incapable of making any argument against it,

I agree with much of what you say, but in my opinion I don't think that EU would block an application for membership from an independent Scotland.You are, however, quite right in that the terms of entry would not be as favourable as the UK electorate has just said "No" to. Also, the implications of an independent Scotland being an EU member and the UK not being a member are much more profound than most voters will have imagined.  I think the real issue here is that if an independent Scotland negotiated entry into the EU, the Scottish electorate would probably reject the package.  As you rightly point out, there are many Nationalists who voted Remain or who abstained because they knew that a UK vote to Leave and a Scottish vote to remain represented the best chance of a 2nd indy ref.  But in addition, there are many, like me, who voted Remain but who would not vote for an independent Scotland being in the EU if it compromised our relationship with the rest of the UK - and it undoubtedly would.  That being the case, the whole basis of the argument for a 2nd indy referendum would be undermined.

But of course, all of this assumes that there is a valid argument for a 2nd indy referendum when there patently is not.  Contrary to what the SNP repeatedly state, Scotland has not voted for Scotland to remain in the EU.  Their "Remain means Remain" refrain has no validity in this context. The question on the referendum ballot paper was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"  Scotland wasn't mentioned.  There was no mention of any bits of the UK which might vote to stay maybe being allowed to stay in the EU!  It wasn't just a Scottish vote.  It was a UK vote for an outcome for the whole of the UK and we, the voters of the United Kingdom, voted to leave.  I voted to remain but unreservedly accept the democratic will of the majority.

I do, however, accept the concept that "Remain" should mean "Remain".  And in doing so, I would point out that the only referendum we have had which has asked the Scottish voters specifically whether they want Scotland to remain in a Union or not was the 2014 Independence referendum when, on a very high turn out, the people of Scotland voted by a significant margin to remain in the UK.  If the SNP is so strong on "Remain means Remain" then they should finally accept that clear instruction from the electorate.  They should also recognise that by voting to remain in the UK we were voting to be bound by the democratic decisions made by the UK Government and the wider UK electorate.  The Scottish Government's refusal to accept the democratic will of the people in 2 referendums is making Scotland an international laughing stock, it is creating additional economic uncertainty and is damaging our country.  It really is no wonder that people are so scathing in their criticism of the SNP.

  • Agree 2
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

 

You are, however, quite right in that the terms of entry would not be as favourable as the UK electorate has just said "No" to.

 

Well, since I gave DD a green dot, I thought I'd better not just simply follow the practice of the red dotters and fail to elaborate:smile:

The separatists' strategy of trying to stir up resentment over the Brexit vote is fatally flawed in at least two fundamental ways. Firstly, it doesn't matter a toss if more people in Scotland voted Remain than Leave. Scotland wasn't being asked its views - the UK was and it voted to leave. Scotland has no more significance here than Inverness or Hilton or Bruce Gardens. None of these is a constitutional entity whereas the UK is. So what Scotland's "Wee Pretendy Parliament" (give Billy Connolly the red dot, not me chaps!) or the people whose interests it currently neglects collectively think doesn't actually matter any more than any other selectively chosen area. Otherwise, as I've said before, we could have got shot of Glasgow and Dundee on "Independence Day:lol:". Then there's the latest wonderfully disingenuous item of SNP sloganising - "Remain means Remain". Funny they should choose that rather than "No means No" which actually relates to a constitutionally relevant area - the one they chose. Then there's all this "outrage" at the outcome of the Brexit vote. The problem is, apart from separatist politicians, I'm wondering where all the alleged outrage actually is? I'm certainly not aware of it in a community where a third of SNP supporters voted Leave.

That nicely leads us on to the alleged cause of this "faux-outrage" and its manipulation towards a second secession referendum. How is this actually going to put right the loss of EU status which the UK has voted for? Well it ain't... because that is gone forever and can never be returned to, so get used to it chaps. IF the Nats were prepared to risk a second vote and IF they were to get lucky and IF they were to be accepted by an EU which includes states such as Spain which don't want to encourage this kind of thing, the most they could achieve is a vastly inferior EU deal even to the one we have just voted to leave. I'm talking using the Euro, I'm talking accepting the Schengen Agreement and I'm talking not getting the UK's current rebate - among others. And I'm also talking the creation of an economic and political discontinuity with the rest of the UK, with which we do 65% of our trade - compared with 15% of the EU. Customs posts, passport control, currency exchange on Scotland's ONLY border-  a "hard" one across an EU/non-EU divide.

This is the reality which maybe a few voters haven't woken up to yet - a reality which of course the separatists would simply dub Project Fear 2, but which really would mean that the separation deal on offer second time around would be vastly inferior to the one which was defeated and rejected 55.3 - 44.7. And that's before you also remember that in the intervening period the backside has irreversibly fallen out of the Oil/Grand Theft Auto.

As a result, following the June 23rd outcome, it's clear that the chances of and reasons for the Scottish electorate voting to break up the UK are even more remote than they were before.

Indeed the best case for separation is probably that we would be spared the embarrassment of 50-odd uncouth louts at Westminster whose only talent seems to be their ability to walk into the division lobby that SNP Central points them towards.

Edited by Charles Bannerman
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, dougiedanger said:

Take it to PM lads, no one reads yer p!sh any more.

What an articulate defence of the Separation Dogma!

Another fine example of the classic, coherent eloquence that makes the Separatist case so difficult to answer:cry:

 

Edited by Charles Bannerman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dougiedanger said:

Take it to PM lads, no one reads yer p!sh any more.

So, not only do you appear to have absolutely no reasoned argument against objective criticism of the SNP Government, you now want to keep that objective criticism out of the public domain.  What an excellent demonstration of the the fact that separatists know their arguments are nonsense!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 11:10 PM, DoofersDad said:

What an excellent demonstration of the fact that separatists know their arguments are nonsense!

That's the separatists who actually have arguments, even ones based on total fallacies like $113 a barrel.

Many, especially the Mel Gibsoners, fail to reach such a stage of sophistication and tend simply to fall back on traditional SNP yah-boo sloganizing and aggressive Cybernattery.

Edited by Charles Bannerman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.