Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Maybe they've got more to lose economically, but they've got more to gain in regards to sovereignty and self-determination and whatnot, too.

Yeah, this. When it comes to sovereignty over the self economy often takes the back seat (and yeah, I agree that it is better to be poor and decide your own future, and slightly less poor and with your life in the hands of others).

Except for you know... the UK having WAAAAY too much sway over the EU...

It is one of the things I find odd about the whole "self-determination" angle... They pretty much had that under the EU.

[scriver]

We're talking about Scotland in this case.

And the UK has had a lot of influence in the EU, that is definitely true. They have used that influence mostly to force exceptions from EU law in the UK, as opposed to France/Germany/Italy and such countries who have used their influence to force laws that benefit themselves upon the rest of the EU. The UK used their sway to make the EU leave them alone, the Germano-Franks used their sway to make other countries dance to their flute. I by no means like the UK's attitude of "yeah sure, you do that, we'll just not ourselves" but I much prefer it to the unabashed self-interest shown by other powerful countries in the "union".

[Sheb]

Here we go again. Sturgeon announce new Scotxit referendum.

Scotland has a £15bil annual deficit paid for by British taxes. I'd be very shocked if Sturgeon actually wanted to get out of the UK, more likely just wants to make a noise and get more money for Scotland.

The UK as a whole as a budget deficit of £170 billion. Scotland's account for about 8% of the UK's population IIRC, so their share of the current deficit is around £ 13 billion.

[Starver]

"No Scotland, don't split from the Union just because you don't like the way it controls you.." being said by people who ignored "No UK, don't split from the Union just because you don't like the way (you think) it controls you..." is a little hilarious, though...

Not the only reason to/not to leave, but it's similar across most of the field.  (Scotland's free tuition/prescriptions aren't even something it gains from the UK, BTW. and if it is in poorer financial status than E+W¹ then it will become a net beneficiary the way 'we' complained about being a net donor to the EU pot..) . Given Scotland's state as pretty much civilised and pretty much English-speaking, it'd indeed make a good surrogate for London's environs, in many ways. If Europe doesn't splinter, I could actually see it happy to assiimilate Scotland... A bit of effort needed, but could be deemed worth it to further snub the hostile elements of 'Westmister', at the very least.



¹ Not going to mention NI. Scotland finds a way to go it 'alone', NI will probably say "Fuggit" and decide to go it alone in an "orphaned Unionist" enclave member of the EU, even if they still don't want to join Eire officially, just be a neighbouring EU state...

[Neonivek]

Wales you better get off your butt and do something!

[Codician]

<snip>

<snip>

<snip>

Scotland is basically autonomous now anyway. They have their own system of parliament which determines both Scottish and English (British) matters. That's one of the main reasons their deficit is fucking crazily high.

I hope Scotland gets independence, but they will choke on it.

Here we go again. Sturgeon announce new Scotxit referendum.

Scotland has a £15bil annual deficit paid for by British taxes. I'd be very shocked if Sturgeon actually wanted to get out of the UK, more likely just wants to make a noise and get more money for Scotland.

The UK as a whole as a budget deficit of £170 billion. Scotland's account for about 8% of the UK's population IIRC, so their share of the current deficit is around £ 13 billion.

I don't know where you got £170bil from. UK has a budget deficit of £67.6bil (although apparently it's only maybe £19~bil).

So, the UK's deficit is 10~%. Scotland deficit is 25%.

It's not population, it's taxation and the Scots don't have as much work.

Not the only reason to/not to leave, but it's similar across most of the field.  (Scotland's free tuition/prescriptions aren't even something it gains from the UK, BTW. and if it is in poorer financial status than E+W¹ then it will become a net beneficiary the way 'we' complained about being a net donor to the EU pot..) . Given Scotland's state as pretty much civilised and pretty much English-speaking, it'd indeed make a good surrogate for London's environs, in many ways. If Europe doesn't splinter, I could actually see it happy to assiimilate Scotland... A bit of effort needed, but could be deemed worth it to further snub the hostile elements of 'Westmister', at the very least.

Scotland being (probably) assimilated by the EU is another major problem of the EU. It will just be another Greece with a huge debt sink and no way to really fix the problem.

[hector13]

Scotland is basically autonomous now anyway. They have their own system of parliament which determines both Scottish and English (British) matters. That's one of the main reasons their deficit is fucking crazily high.

That's why they are being taken out of the EU against their will and have a Tory government they didn't vote for, then? Autonomy ftw.

Scotland has about 9% of the MPs in parliament, whereas England has ~82%. Scottish MPs can cast deciding votes every now and again, they certainly have no way of controlling it.

Then we can argue that the continued use of the Barnett formula means that changes in spending in England influence levels of spending in the rUK, including Scotland, meaning that while the things they vote on might only directly affecting England in regards to policy, they will indirectly affect Scotland regarding pennies.

Here we go again. Sturgeon announce new Scotxit referendum.

Scotland has a £15bil annual deficit paid for by British taxes. I'd be very shocked if Sturgeon actually wanted to get out of the UK, more likely just wants to make a noise and get more money for Scotland.

The UK as a whole as a budget deficit of £170 billion. Scotland's account for about 8% of the UK's population IIRC, so their share of the current deficit is around £ 13 billion.

I don't know where you got £170bil from. UK has a budget deficit of £67.6bil (although apparently it's only maybe £19~bil).

So, the UK's deficit is 10~%. Scotland deficit is 25%.

Or 4% and 9.5%, respectively. Where are you getting your numbers?

Not the only reason to/not to leave, but it's similar across most of the field.  (Scotland's free tuition/prescriptions aren't even something it gains from the UK, BTW. and if it is in poorer financial status than E+W¹ then it will become a net beneficiary the way 'we' complained about being a net donor to the EU pot..) . Given Scotland's state as pretty much civilised and pretty much English-speaking, it'd indeed make a good surrogate for London's environs, in many ways. If Europe doesn't splinter, I could actually see it happy to assiimilate Scotland... A bit of effort needed, but could be deemed worth it to further snub the hostile elements of 'Westmister', at the very least.

Scotland being (probably) assimilated by the EU is another major problem of the EU. It will just be another Greece with a huge debt sink and no way to really fix the problem.

What are your thoughts on the UK likely losing free (in the sense of no tariffs or the like) access to one of the largest open markets in the world?

[Codician]

That's why they are being taken out of the EU against their will and have a Tory government they didn't vote for, then? Autonomy ftw.

Scotland has about 9% of the MPs in parliament, whereas England has ~82%. Scottish MPs can cast deciding votes every now and again, they certainly have no way of controlling it.

Then we can argue that the continued use of the Barnett formula means that changes in spending in England influence levels of spending in the rUK, including Scotland, meaning that while the things they vote on might only directly affecting England in regards to policy, they will indirectly affect Scotland regarding pennies.

Scotland ruined any chance of a Labour government by voting for the SNP, so good job on that I guess.

Scottish MPs determine Scottish policy (for example: free tuition fees) whereas British ones have very little choice in Scottish policy.

Again, SNP ruined any chance of a Labour government. If they didn't want that, they shouldn't've voted for that.

Or 4% and 9.5%, respectively. Where are you getting your numbers?

That's deficit versus GDP, I'm talking about deficit versus total public spending. Scotland spends £60~bn and has a £16~bn deficit. The UK spends £740~bn and has a £70~bn deficit.

What are your thoughts on the UK likely losing free (in the sense of no tariffs or the like) access to one of the largest open markets in the world?

It won't.

Germany relies on the UK as open trade provides them directly with around 750~k jobs and likely from that provides other industries with a lot more. A loss of an open trade deal would cause Germany a LOT of harm and would result in a tit-for-tat war regarding tariffs.

[Frumple]

The UK relies (or relied, anyway) on a great deal of trade they (or at least its politicians) functionally told to bugger off, too, though. I'm not sure I'd be so confident that germany (or whoever) won't decide to take an economic hit for non-economic reasons. Or a short term one for long term gains sans the UK (or with less of em, I guess). Not sure I'd even call it a particularly bad idea, at this point. An unstable economic partner is sometimes worse than not having that partner at all.

And the UK is trying to sign itself up for a decade or three of trade renegotiations...

[hector13]

That's why they are being taken out of the EU against their will and have a Tory government they didn't vote for, then? Autonomy ftw.

Scotland has about 9% of the MPs in parliament, whereas England has ~82%. Scottish MPs can cast deciding votes every now and again, they certainly have no way of controlling it.

Then we can argue that the continued use of the Barnett formula means that changes in spending in England influence levels of spending in the rUK, including Scotland, meaning that while the things they vote on might only directly affecting England in regards to policy, they will indirectly affect Scotland regarding pennies.

Scotland ruined any chance of a Labour government by voting for the SNP, so good job on that I guess.

Scottish MPs determine Scottish policy (for example: free tuition fees) whereas British ones have very little choice in Scottish policy.

Again, SNP ruined any chance of a Labour government. If they didn't want that, they shouldn't've voted for that.

Scottish folks have realized that British parties aren't going to look out for their interests.

Even had Labour won every single seat in Scotland, Scotland would've had a Tory government that they didn't vote for. I'm not sure how you can say with a straight face that Scottish voters ruined any chance of having a non-Tory government.

What are your thoughts on the UK likely losing free (in the sense of no tariffs or the like) access to one of the largest open markets in the world?

It won't.

Germany relies on the UK as open trade provides them directly with around 750~k jobs and likely from that provides other industries with a lot more. A loss of an open trade deal would cause Germany a LOT of harm and would result in a tit-for-tat war regarding tariffs.

Germany is not the EU. I don't think they have enough sway to influence enough of the other 26 members to allow the UK access without conditions - specifically the Four Freedoms - and even if they did, there are non-EU member countries in the EEC who will probably then demand the same treatment.

Merkel also said shortly after the referendum that Germany wouldn't accept the UK having access to the single market sans Four Freedoms.

[Radio Controlled]

Newsiest news:

Decision on Article 50 should rest with PM, not Parliament, says public
More than half of people say that the decision on invoking Article 50 is the Prime Minister’s to make

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The High Court is currently considering whether the Prime Minister has the legal right to invoke Article 50 – thereby triggering the beginning of the process for withdrawal from the European Union – without having to have a Parliamentary vote.

Many who voted Leave at the referendum believe that the case is not about Parliamentary sovereignty – as those who have brought the case about suggest – but a way of overturning the result of the referendum. Whilst the voting public backed Brexit by a rate of 52% to 48%, three quarters of MPs backed the campaign to remain in the European Union. If responsibility for invoking Article 50 rests with Parliament, so the thinking goes, then Brexit can be blocked by having MPs vote against it.

But what does the public think about that? New research by YouGov shows that the majority of the public believe the decision on Article 50 is the Prime Minister’s to make. Just over half (54%) say that the Prime Minister should be able to activate Article 50, compared to 30% who believe that the power to activate it should rest with Parliament. A further 17% of people don’t know.



Leave voters overwhelmingly back the PM’s right to call the shots on Article 50 by a rate of 83% to 7%. By contrast, Remain voters are much more likely to say that Parliament should make the decision, but the gap is much narrower at 57% to 31%.

Broadly speaking, those groups that want the Prime Minister to make the decision were those who tended to back Brexit at the referendum, whilst those who say it should rest with Parliament backed Remain.

Those groups that don’t follow this trend are 25-49 year olds, middle class people, Liberal Democrats and Scots – all of which tended to favour Remain at the referendum but now back the PM to decide on Article 50. The first two strongly back the right of the PM to make the decision, whilst the latter two are more narrowly in favour (and are subject to small sample size caveats).

Brexit: UK faces £350m-a-week 'divorce bill' as result of leaving the EU
According to new analysis, a total of £18 billion could be owed to cover shared liabilities

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Britain could be forced to pay the European Union a “divorce bill” of €20 billion (£18 billion) in the wake of the Brexit vote.

The “upper estimate” to separate from the bloc would cover the UK’s shared EU liabilities including, unpaid debt of €241 billion (£217 billion), and €63.8 billion (£57.5 billion) in pension liabilities, according to new analysis conducted by The Financial Times (FT).

The study is the first attempt to put a realistic “price tag” on leaving the EU with some EU officials even warning that the cost could be substantially higher.
Former UK Trade Minister Lord Livingston said the cost spread over a year equates to £350 million a week.

In the run-up to the June referendum, Vote Leave repeatedly claimed £350 million was sent to the EU each week. It also claimed this money could be used to increase NHS funding if Brexit was successful.
However, just hours after the Brexit announcement, Ukip leader Nigel Farage said: “I can’t and I would never have made that claim – it was one of the mistakes that the Leave campaign made.”
[...]

And some 'bonus' material (warning, daily mail headline):

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Codician]

The UK relies (or relied, anyway) on a great deal of trade they (or at least its politicians) functionally told to bugger off, too, though. I'm not sure I'd be so confident that germany (or whoever) won't decide to take an economic hit for non-economic reasons. Or a short term one for long term gains sans the UK (or with less of em, I guess). Not sure I'd even call it a particularly bad idea, at this point. An unstable economic partner is sometimes worse than not having that partner at all.

And the UK is trying to sign itself up for a decade or three of trade renegotiations...

The reality of it is that that's not politics. It's very unlikely that Germany will bother doing that.

Scottish folks have realized that British parties aren't going to look out for their interests.

Even had Labour won every single seat in Scotland, Scotland would've had a Tory government that they didn't vote for. I'm not sure how you can say with a straight face that Scottish voters ruined any chance of having a non-Tory government.

Then the union breaks.

People won't vote for a Labour that won't be able to support the British people. It would've been an SNP-Labour coalition government, with SNP deciding all the terms.

Germany is not the EU. I don't think they have enough sway to influence enough of the other 26 members to allow the UK access without conditions - specifically the Four Freedoms - and even if they did, there are non-EU member countries in the EEC who will probably then demand the same treatment.

Merkel also said shortly after the referendum that Germany wouldn't accept the UK having access to the single market sans Four Freedoms.

Germany has a ridiculously large amount of influence within the EU. Then again, one of the principle problems with the EU is that it's impossible to understand what the hell is going to happen considering how opaque it is to outsiders (and, honestly, to insiders as well).

Merkel has said a lot of things through the years, including that multiculturalism has failed. She's a politician, nothing more.

[hector13]

Scottish folks have realized that British parties aren't going to look out for their interests.

Even had Labour won every single seat in Scotland, Scotland would've had a Tory government that they didn't vote for. I'm not sure how you can say with a straight face that Scottish voters ruined any chance of having a non-Tory government.

Then the union breaks.

People won't vote for a Labour that won't be able to support the British people. It would've been an SNP-Labour coalition government, with SNP deciding all the terms.

That was certainly the rhetoric from the Tories at the time, which England fell for hook, line and sinker.

I recall being in Lincoln a few weeks prior to the election, and seeing Tory ads with Eddie in Salmond's shirt pocket.

Kinda shows you how much UK parties care about Scotland, since Salmond had stepped aside months prior, with Sturgeon as the leader at the time.

Germany is not the EU. I don't think they have enough sway to influence enough of the other 26 members to allow the UK access without conditions - specifically the Four Freedoms - and even if they did, there are non-EU member countries in the EEC who will probably then demand the same treatment.

Merkel also said shortly after the referendum that Germany wouldn't accept the UK having access to the single market sans Four Freedoms.

Germany has a ridiculously large amount of influence within the EU. Then again, one of the principle problems with the EU is that it's impossible to understand what the hell is going to happen considering how opaque it is to outsiders (and, honestly, to insiders as well).

Merkel has said a lot of things through the years, including that multiculturalism has failed. She's a politician, nothing more.

So's May, and everyone else involved in Brexit. They all have their jobs to think about pre- and post-Brexit.

The reality is that the EU has a lot more to lose by giving the UK a good deal than they will by, as you say, giving them a boot up the arse for leaving the club.

The prominence of political parties that either want to weaken the EU or have their country outright leave it means an example needs to be made.

[Starver]

I don't begrudge Leavers for trying every tactic they can to hold off even the faintest of challenges to their wishes.  There's up to 38% of people who can see defeat being snatched from the jaws of victory. (Also why it appears the words "overwhelming majority" have been retasked to describe "barely scraped past those bothered to vote otherwise", because they really want it to be so, and like "Crooked Hillary" or any other soundbite meme you could mention it just aims to transcends reality.)

If Leave had lost 35% to 38% they'd be pursuing a rematch at the next opportunistic moment, at least as quickly as the Scindependencers have with their wider margin of 38% to 47% loss.

[Neonivek]

Merkel has said a lot of things through the years, including that multiculturalism has failed. She's a politician, nothing more.

No no no. We already established long ago that no one has ever said that in the UK and there is no racial tension!

Edit: And we are still correct she is in Germany!

---

Frankly I wouldn't mind another vote... but given the economic turmoil there is an argument to be made that people would vote against it only because of current economic hardship and not because that is what they actually believe.