General Politics Thread

[Baxter Parp]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/berlin-attack-nigel-farage-sparks-fury-with-comments-about-husband-of-murdered-mp-jo-cox-a3424606.html

Berlin attack: Nigel Farage sparks fury with comments about husband of murdered MP Jo Cox

Lower than scum.

[jmothecat]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/berlin-attack-nigel-farage-sparks-fury-with-comments-about-husband-of-murdered-mp-jo-cox-a3424606.html
Berlin attack: Nigel Farage sparks fury with comments about husband of murdered MP Jo Cox
Lower than scum.

What an utter arsehole.

[strichener]

1 hour ago, renton said:

You are being unfair. Certainly on the White paper, the demand for a currency union was a hostage to fortune, and a bad mistake, even if it made sense economically in the short term, but here any plan to keep Scotland in both the UK and the EU is massively dependent on Westminster compliance and given it's the ScotGov originating the plan, then it follows that it's them who are asking to be accommodated.

Not just Westminster compliance but EU compliance as well.  The amount of accommodation and extra administrative burden that this will require will probably see it sink.

1 hour ago, Baxter Parp said:

You're wrong, the mandate is to keep Scotland and it's people in the EU as per the referendum.

Well then they had better go and write a new proposal, this one doesn't meet this mandate.  Again I put it to you that you haven't even read the document.

1 hour ago, renton said:

They have a mandate for both. They did pass that Holyrood motion to the effect of gaining support for keeping Scotland in the single market. They won an election who's manifesto included the option of having another go in the event of a change in circumstance that included the type of hard Brexit we are seeing now.

I'm not sure where you are getting the clarity that the SNP couldn't win another one from.

Yes, the mandate in the referendum was for remaining in the EU.  The parliament vote on remaining in the single market.  Why the difference?  Opinion polls since brexit have not shown any increased support for independence, hence the SNP attempting to increase the WestminsterBAD, EUGood campaign.

Interestingly they make comment on how well Norway does in trade with the EU (nearly 7 times the amount that Scotland does) and then go on to state that they do this whilst having tariffs on food and agriculture.

[Baxter Parp]

8 minutes ago, strichener said:

Yes, the mandate in the referendum was for remaining in the EU.  The parliament vote on remaining in the single market. 

So that's a mandate for staying in the EU and a mandate for staying in the single market.  Cheers.

[renton]

Just now, strichener said:

Not just Westminster compliance but EU compliance as well.  The amount of accommodation and extra administrative burden that this will require will probably see it sink.

Well then they had better go and write a new proposal, this one doesn't meet this mandate.  Again I put it to you that you haven't even read the document.

Yes, the mandate in the referendum was for remaining in the EU.  The parliament vote on remaining in the single market.  Why the difference?  Opinion polls since brexit have not shown any increased support for independence, hence the SNP attempting to increase the WestminsterBAD, EUGood campaign.

Interestingly they make comment on how well Norway does in trade with the EU (nearly 7 times the amount that Scotland does) and then go on to state that they do this whilst having tariffs on food and agriculture.

Of course, but that's Scotland's "place" just now, reliant heavily on the goodwill and good sense of pretty much everyone else to make our way in the world.

As for the rest, it's important to note that there has been no Brexit, so opinion polls are still polling hypotheticals. It's worth noting in the general panic at the referendum, IndyRef polling shot up. That needle can be moved. For what it's worth, I think Sturgeon is honest enough about wanting to succeed with this strategy, for a start it's a gradualist's wet dream. Second it avoids a do or die referendum. There is nothing wrong with any of that, it's sound politicking. Yet I also think she's playing it straight when she says she'll go for another IndyRef if Westminster shoots this down. Full on nuclear Brexit would be vastly damaging to the Scottish economy, and probably kills independence dead itself (where is the appetite for Indy when the UK is a pariah hawking around the world with it's suitcase of trinkets, begging for trade deals? That level of uncertainty is far more damaging than any created by Indy itself).

So, she has a couple of strategies to pursue, and it's no surprise she is pushing the least risky one, but that doesn't mean she's not committed to the other.

[AntonyP]

9 hours ago, renton said:

You are being unfair. Certainly on the White paper, the demand for a currency union was a hostage to fortune, and a bad mistake, even if it made sense economically in the short term, but here any plan to keep Scotland in both the UK and the EU is massively dependent on Westminster compliance and given it's the ScotGov originating the plan, then it follows that it's them who are asking to be accommodated.

No such plan is possible. The idea can be filed in the Fiction section just like the White Paper. Scotland will have to leave the UK to be in the EU if the UK leaves. Without leaving Scotland is not eligible to be in the EU.

It is the SNP doing their usual thing of making things up and then declaring them not only possible but what will happen.

[AUFC90]

2 minutes ago, AntonyP said:

No such plan is possible. The idea can be filed in the Fiction section just like the White Paper. Scotland will have to leave the UK to be in the EU if the UK leaves. Without leaving Scotland is not eligible to be in the EU.

It is the SNP doing their usual thing of making things up and then declaring them not only possible but what will happen.

^^^^Needs to find out what the word 'impossible' means.

[NotThePars]

No such plan is possible. The idea can be filed in the Fiction section just like the White Paper. Scotland will have to leave the UK to be in the EU if the UK leaves. Without leaving Scotland is not eligible to be in the EU.
It is the SNP doing their usual thing of making things up and then declaring them not only possible but what will happen.

Aye but on the surface this strategy is win/ win for the SNP. If WM agrees then, as renton says, the gradualist approach to indy is immeasurably strengthened. If, as most people expect, WM vetoes it then it gives the SNP tons of ammunition to portray WM as ignoring the strong Remain majority here.

[AUFC90]

Just now, NotThePars said:

 

Aye but on the surface this strategy is win/ win for the SNP. If WM agrees then, as renton says, the gradualist approach to indy is immeasurably strengthened. If, as most people expect, WM vetoes it then it gives the SNP tons of ammunition to portray WM as ignoring the strong Remain majority here.

 

This, it's all pretty easy for the SNP to spin it whereas the UK government and the unionist parties in Holyrood need to watch how they play it.

[AntonyP]

9 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

You're wrong, the mandate is to keep Scotland and it's people in the EU as per the referendum.

A meaningless mandate since they are powerless to do anything about it. It is quite funny seeing them claiming they have a mandate to keep Scotland in the EU since Scotland would not be in the EU if the people had voted for their ultimate goal, Independence.

The mandate was loaded anyway, since Scotland never had 'a will' in the first place. It was just an excuse to ignore the wishes of the majority and keep pushing for Independence.

[AntonyP]

7 minutes ago, AUFC90 said:

^^^^Needs to find out what the word 'impossible' means.

^^^^ Needs to find out what 'gullible' means...

Political parties love people like you who will blindly believe everything they say without questioning the validity.

[AntonyP]

8 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

 

Aye but on the surface this strategy is win/ win for the SNP. If WM agrees then, as renton says, the gradualist approach to indy is immeasurably strengthened. If, as most people expect, WM vetoes it then it gives the SNP tons of ammunition to portray WM as ignoring the strong Remain majority here.

 

It is not something that Westminster can agree to. It could agree to devolve almost all powers to Scotland (which would be counterproductive as it will spiral costs by having to replicate multiple services where as one exists now to cover the entire UK), but that would have no effect on the EU or the Single Market, both of which would require Scotland to actually be Independent to join them.

[AUFC90]

7 minutes ago, AntonyP said:

^^^^ Needs to find out what 'gullible' means...

Political parties love people like you who will blindly believe everything they say without questioning the validity.

Yeah yeah, I believe ALL politicians tell the truth and I blindly follow the SNP, except my support for independence has absolutely nothing to do with political parties or what they say or do. You sound like one these mouth breathers that voted against independence because Alex Salmond would be king of Scotland forever. I'm just completely mental regarding opinions i form, by looking and listening to things,whereas you have all the facts spoonfed by the establishment which completely means you're right about a future that absolutely no one knows what will happen for sure but......FACTS and that.

Edited December 20, 2016 by AUFC90

[AntonyP]

Just now, AUFC90 said:

Yeah yeah, I believe ALL politicians tell the truth and I blindly follow the SNP, except my support for independence has absolutely nothing to do with political parties or what they say or do. You sound like one these mouth breathers that voted against independence because Alex Salmond would be king of Scotland forever. I'm just completely mental about opinion i formwhereas you have all the facts spoonfed by the establishment which completely means you're right about a future that absolutely no one knows what will happen for sure but......FACTS and that.

Started with the insults I see. The universal sign of an argument being lost.

It is funny seeing you call me a mouth breather when it is abundantly clear that I have a better understanding of the situation than you do.

I would not have voted for Independence because the incompetent SNP never put together a credible plan to achieve a better Scotland. They just shouted freedom, everything will be better, nothing bad will happen and everyone will do as we tell them to. I live in the real world and can see that the whole thing  was doomed to fail because no one had a plan, just like will happen with the Brexit shitshow.

[AUFC90]

Just now, AntonyP said:

Started with the insults I see. The universal sign of an argument being lost.

It is funny seeing you call me a mouth breather when it is abundantly clear that I have a better understanding of the situation than you do.

I would not have voted for Independence because the incompetent SNP never put together a credible plan to achieve a better Scotland. They just shouted freedom, everything will be better, nothing bad will happen and everyone will do as we tell them to. I live in the real world and can see that the whole thing  was doomed to fail because no one had a plan, just like will happen with the Brexit shitshow.

I think we'll just stop there.

[lichtgilphead]

8 hours ago, strichener said:

Not just Westminster compliance but EU compliance as well.  The amount of accommodation and extra administrative burden that this will require will probably see it sink.

Uh, won't this point also apply to any UK company that wishes to export goods to the EU after Brexit?

For example, if I was a toy manufacturer, my toys would have to comply with the current EU Toy Safety requirements across the UK and the rest of the EU. After Brexit, I'll have to comply with the new (watered down?) UK specific version of BS:EN 71 in the UK, but still comply with EU requirements elsewhere in the EU.. Why won't this "accommodation and extra admisistrative burden" be a problem in our new isolationist UK?

 

[strichener]

20 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Uh, won't this point also apply to any UK company that wishes to export goods to the EU after Brexit?
For example, if I was a toy manufacturer, my toys would have to comply with the current EU Toy Safety requirements across the UK and the rest of the EU. After Brexit, I'll have to comply with the new (watered down?) UK specific version of BS:EN 71 in the UK, but still comply with EU requirements elsewhere in the EU.. Why won't this "accommodation and extra admisistrative burden" be a problem in our new isolationist UK?
 

I wasn't talking about the transferability of standards but of the re-writing of rules and implementation of legislation should the rUK be outside the single market whilst Scotland was inside and wanting there to be no hard border between the two.

Edited December 20, 2016 by strichener

[jakedee]

Uh, won't this point also apply to any UK company that wishes to export goods to the EU after Brexit?
For example, if I was a toy manufacturer, my toys would have to comply with the current EU Toy Safety requirements across the UK and the rest of the EU. After Brexit, I'll have to comply with the new (watered down?) UK specific version of BS:EN 71 in the UK, but still comply with EU requirements elsewhere in the EU.. Why won't this "accommodation and extra admisistrative burden" be a problem in our new isolationist UK?

Just go down the Chinese route [emoji57]

[lichtgilphead]

3 minutes ago, strichener said:

I wasn't talking about the transferability of standards but of the re-editing if rules and implementation of legislation should the rUK be outside the single market whilst Scotland was inside and wanting thete to be no hard border between the two.

Erm, the standard I refered to is currently referenced within the applicable legislation in every single country in the EU. I deliberately picked it because it is originally based upon a British Standard (the clue is in the BS:EN designation)

If the rUK is outside the EU and Scotland inside the EU, then the hard border (for toys) will apply to rUK exports to the whole of the EU (including Scotland). Why won't this be a problem for the rUK exporter?

 

 

 

[lichtgilphead]

15 minutes ago, jakedee said:

Just go down the Chinese route

Under the current EU legislation, the importer into the EU is responsible for the safety of the goods, not the manufacturer (when the manufacturer is outside the EU)

Can you explain how this will work in the new isolationist UK?

Edited December 20, 2016 by lichtgilphead
edited to clarify by adding "(when the manufacturer is outside the EU)"