Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.

[LongTimeLurker]

29 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

..., "the EU has most of the leverage in negotiations" is more than a bit of a stretch.

The self-inflicted decision to leave the EU means the other party in these negotiations can now make unilateral decisions and will do so with its long term interests in mind rather than the future vitality of the City of London's. The UK has also lost its veto rights over future European legislation and treaties and can no longer influence the future direction of the EU in that regard to its own benefit on financial services. 

Edited December 26, 2020 by LongTimeLurker

[The_Kincardine]

9 minutes ago, Ross. said:

When Brexit fails to fix the issues the UK is facing, regionalisation and a shift towards some form of federalism will be the next step. Special trade zones or the like will be spread across the country. The financial sector won’t be slow in demanding their own.

There is much merit in this idea - certainly within the UK, or more specifically, GB.

Making it more parochial, the idea that Scotland should be treated as a single economic, social and political entity is utter nonsense.  You and I have travelled enough and worked abroad enough to know that Natterism's premise that, 'North of the Tweed is different' is the cant of the small-minded and the xenophobic.

My notion to resolve this, as I have said before, is to make a Caledonian Transnistria where all the glengarried-up daft wee tartan gonks can walk their wee Westies in jimmy bunnets to their hearts' content.

Your idea is more radical but has some merit - especially as large swathes of Scotland have more in common with England than with their fellow Jocks - but my idea is more practical.

[Thistle_do_nicely]

 

[The_Kincardine]

10 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

The self-inflicted decision to leave the EU means the other party in these negotiations can now make unilateral decisions and will do so with its long term interests in mind rather than future vitality of the City of London's. The UK has also lost its veto rights over future European legislation and treaties and can no longer influence the future direction of the EU in that regard to its own benefit on financial services. 

I agree with you that Brexit was an own goal.  Four-ish years on and I still berate those who thought it was a good idea.

I also agree that the EU choking Britain's FS industry would be a dent but the true truth is that the EU setting themselves up in competition to 'London' is not a good look - which is why I expect a deal to be done.  There is simply no capacity within the EU wrt capital, liquidity or expertise to replicate what Britain offers.

[Miguel Sanchez]

We're gonna build a wall, and the English are gonna pay for it.

[Guest Jedi]

2 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

Well it's the opposite of that.

If there's a second referendum and if it is won by those who want to leave the Union and if iJock goes on to join the EU - and completing this entire process is unlikely to happen before 2035 - then we now know some of the terms under which the relationship between Scotland and rUK will be conducted and it will mean an EU border from the Tweed to the Solway.

The result of Thursday's deal shows, clearly, that an independent Scotland (if it goes on to join the EU) will no longer have free movement of people, good, services and capital within Great Britain - Scotland's overwhelmingly largest market - and this is massively regressive both economically and socially.

This won't worry the Natter zealots but it is an unsellable proposition to the middle of the road voters.

Its not though....the trade between Scotland and England is a two way street. The English economy will also need to have a trade route to Scotland. Scotland would be dealing with England under the same terms as any other EU country. 

If a Westminster govt tried to 'punish' Scotland by trying to place tariffs on Scottish goods, or indeed saying that people resident in Scotland didn't have a right to live and work in England (unless they had the Australian points tally), they could be in breech of the laws which this 'deal' has just set up and be taken to arbitration as they would treating Scotland differently to other EU nations.

Don't disagree that the process for iScotland to join the EU would take some time, and indeed require the establishment of a Central Bank as lender of last resort and Scottish currency, but 'if' Scotland joined the EU, although negotiations with England on trade as well as debt would be required, it would still be on the same trading terms this deal sets out, and given that there is no hard border between (non-EU) N.Ireland and (EU) Republic, the precedent has been set. There isn't a hard border between non-EU Switzerland and EU France and Germany either as example.

Edited December 26, 2020 by Jedi

[ICTJohnboy]

1 hour ago, The_Kincardine said:

Again, this isn't in the gift of iJock.  I prefer to deal in what we know and Thur's deal says otherwise wrt Scotland and England.

What happened on Xmas Eve rendered the idea of Scottish Independence a fairytale notion for the zealots and the xenophobes.

 

Would you use these words to describe the people of the Tory County of Buckinghamshire who voted for Brexit?

[TonyHendrix]

2 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

Well it's the opposite of that.

If there's a second referendum and if it is won by those who want to leave the Union and if iJock goes on to join the EU - and completing this entire process is unlikely to happen before 2035 - then we now know some of the terms under which the relationship between Scotland and rUK will be conducted and it will mean an EU border from the Tweed to the Solway.

The result of Thursday's deal shows, clearly, that an independent Scotland (if it goes on to join the EU) will no longer have free movement of people, good, services and capital within Great Britain - Scotland's overwhelmingly largest market - and this is massively regressive both economically and socially.

This won't worry the Natter zealots but it is an unsellable proposition to the middle of the road voters.

You don’t half type some amount of shoite.

My country just found out today that Brexshit has cost Scotland £9,000,000,any sane Scottish person has got to gtf out of this detestable Union that never was.

Dont bother posting hogwash about the Darian Scheme,it’s a load of bullshit,try posting how much money Westmonster has taken out of Scotland since 1900.

This was when Merry Old England decided to run a chart to find out what they,us,Ireland and Wales were putting into the economy,after 21 years they stopped doing it after finding out that Scotland,per head of population was putting in more than double of what the other 3 were putting into it.

Then we had the Gavin McCrone Report where the Labour Party got together with the Tory scum and kept secret the amount of money that they were pilfering from us.....for 30 years,1975 until 2005.

£64 billion over 30 years,interest rates were variable from 5.6% to 11.4%,total sum £274 billion.

Yet we still have folk voting for Unionists,wtf,aye that also includes a fair number of Celtic fans who utterly disgrace Scotland,imo they should hang their heads in shame.

Imo,it’s brilliant that the SNP have 41% of Rangers FC voters who vote for the SNP,anyone doubting this should check out Facebook and Twitter,long may it continue and Scotland will be rewarded by our freedom from breaking away from a foreign country.

 

Edited December 26, 2020 by TonyHendrix

[Guest Jedi]

The UK has just made trading (which accounts for 52% of their exports) with the EU much more difficult, due to the red tape involved when before there was very little, and also the requirement to ensure that at least 40% of parts are of UK or EU origin, which will affect business and lead to an increase in tariffs in their 'tariff free deal'. As far as the City of London dwarfing all EU finance capitals combined not so sure. 

If you look at the major economies-USA, China, Japan, India etc when they look to Europe (as a continent), it is still easier for them to deal in finance with a trading block of 27 nations which they have existing arrangements in place with, rather than 'rely' on London.

Again, a Scottish entry to the EU is not a 'given', and still requires to go through various hoops, but it is a better alternative long term, to being outside the EU as part of a status quo UK.

[Guest Jedi]

I don't think we need to go back to Darien on the issue of could Scotland survive economically as an Independent nation or not....even David Cameron admitted that, yes, Scotland could be independent 'economically', it was the 'social  ties' side breaking up which he rather thought was a bad idea.

Ultimately the No campaign will probably focus on the social ties argument (again), in addition to it being too much upheaval to follow up Brexit with Independence...and probably the difficulties in joining the EU. 

An economic argument against Indy will be more difficult for them to make, as will the hard border.

 

[The_Kincardine]

30 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

Anyway Kincardine ducked out of honouring £50 worth of bets and has a nerve showing his face in this sub.

Nonsense.  I made a deal with Ludo and honoured it.

8 minutes ago, Jedi said:

The English economy will also need to have a trade route to Scotland. Scotland would be dealing with England under the same terms as any other EU country. 

If there's a referendum and if Scotland votes to leave the UK and if Scotland joins the EU- a good 15 year process - then the terms of the future relationship between iJock and rUK were set out on Thursday.

This means no free movement of labour, capital or services within GB.

A tragic situation and one only supported by the Natter zealots.

8 minutes ago, ICTJohnboy said:

Would you use these words to describe the people of the Tory County of Buckinghamshire who voted for Brexit?

A vote for Brexit was tragic - only topped by the daft wee tartan gonks who support Scexit.  They are, as I have said times without number, two cheeks of the same odious arse.

So yes.  Of course I would.

[Jacksgranda]

5 hours ago, Colkitto said:

Good grief! 

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-55455532

[The_Kincardine]

6 minutes ago, Jedi said:

As far as the City of London dwarfing all EU finance capitals combined not so sure. 

If you look at the major economies-USA, China, Japan, India etc when they look to Europe (as a continent), it is still easier for them to deal in finance with a trading block of 27 nations.

You clearly haven't a fucking clue about what 'finance capitals' means.

[TonyHendrix]

11 minutes ago, Andrew Driver said:

There is a mistaken belief that Scotland once went bankrupt and it was England that stepped in to save us with the Treaty of Union. This myth that Scotland needed, and still needs, the rest of the U.K. to survive is not true. Here’s what actually happened and why the treaty came about:

(All of this is readily available in Scottish history books. I would recommend Scotland’s Story by Tom Steel, where (pages 143 to 148) refer particularly to the Actions of William of Orange in respect of the Darien Company and demonstrate how, by his aggression against Scotland he almost succeeded in bankrupting us.)

During the period prior to 1695, all overseas colonies were designated English and trade was restricted to English Merchant Companies. Scottish Merchants were not allowed to trade with them, despite the fact that Scotland was part of the United Kingdom, (although without a United Government), and despite the fact that it was mainly Scottish explorers who opened the English colonies up for colonisation.

In 1695 the Scottish Merchants petitioned King William of Orange and were granted his Royal Assent for “The Scottish Africa and India Company”, which would be allowed to trade with the colonies. Immediately the English East India Company reduced its charges making it impossible for the new Scots Company to compete.

The Scots were forced to look for an alternative. They decided on a scheme to run mule trains between a port on the Pacific and another on the Caribbean, across the Isthmus of Panama using land that they thought, had not been colonised by any other country. (This was disputed by Spain who claimed it as theirs.) Effectively this would greatly reduce the travelling time between China, India and Scotland and save massively on shipping costs.

In 1698 the Scots changed the Company name to “The Darien Company” and opened it for investment. Many English Merchants, who were now receiving much less in bonuses from the East India Company’s reduced rates, withdrew their money from it and invested in the Scottish Company. The Scots raised £400,000.00 in only 2 weeks! That’s £40 million in today’s money! The English House of Lords complained to King William of Orange, who reneged on his Royal Consent and withdrew it. He threatened the English Merchants with being charged with treason if they didn’t withdraw their money from the Scottish Company and re-invest it in the English Company. They withdrew their money. William also prevented European investors from taking part by making it known that any investment in the Scottish company would be treated as an act of aggression and they would respond. (Spain today?)

Scotland went ahead on its own. £300,000.00 was raised by public subscription and two “Dutchmen Heavy Cargo Ships” were bought from Holland. 1200 settlers with supplies were sent to Darien Land.

William of Orange immediately sent the English Navy to blockade the Caribbean colonies thereby denying the Scots access or assistance. The Spanish Navy joined the English and between them they prevented food and medical supplies reaching the Scottish base. During a skirmish one of the two Scots boats was attacked and sunk. The Scottish settlers were forced to leave, and travelled home via New York. Of the original 1200 settlers, some 800 never made it back home.

There is no record to show how many died in Darien Land, or on the journey to New York, or on the way back across the Atlantic. Disease was a significant factor but the assertion that the failure was entirely Scotland’s fault due to a bad choice of site, and the subsequent illness, is not well founded. It’s more likely the deliberate action of the English Parliament and King William, by means of the English Naval blockade, caused its failure, and nearly bankrupted Scotland.

Although the venture cost Scotland between ¹/3 and ½ its National Assets, it wasn’t bankrupt and continued to trade successfully for the next 7 years.

William of Orange (Senior) was the husband of Mary, the sister of James VII who was deposed in 1689. James was Catholic and Mary was Protestant. When James was deposed his daughter Mary, who was married to her cousin, William of Orange (Jnr), was invited to reign with William as King and Queen. They were both Protestant. She died in1694; and when William died in 1702 he was succeeded by Queen Anne, who was Mary’s sister. James (The old Pretender), who was Anne’s brother and Father of Bonnie Prince Charlie was the rightful heir to the throne at this point.

In 1703 the English Passed an Act of secession by which the crown would pass, on Anne’s death to Sophie the German Electress of Hanover. This infuriated the Scottish Government because the Monarch on the throne in England was from the Scottish Stuart line. They immediately brought in an Act to say that only the Scottish Government would be responsible for appointing the King of Scotland. In retaliation, in 1705, The English Parliament, under Queen Anne, introduced the Alien Act, which disinherited all Scots nobles with lands in England. (Through this most Scots Nobles stood to lose a very large amount of land and income.) But Queen Anne had put a clause in the Act. It stated that if the Scots withdrew their Act and formed a Union with England, the Nobility would get their lands back.

Effectively she blackmailed them. She also bribed them, by offering to pay them back any personal money they had lost on the Darien Scheme, provided they agreed to sign up to the Treaty of Union. There is a register in the Scottish National Archives that details all money paid out – right down to “Two shillings and six pence, (12½p), to the Town Clerk in Linlithgow. The Scottish Nobility agreed to Queen Anne’s conditions in order to receive their money and lands back, and signed the Treaty of Union against the wishes of the Scottish people

Rabbie Burns called it, “Bought and sold for English Gold.”

The “Edinburgh Mob” rioted and drove the nobles out of Parliament House to prevent them signing it. Later they also drove them out of St. Giles, where they had also tried to sign it. It was eventually signed in a cellar used to store Sedan Chairs further down the Royal Mile. That cellar is now a ladies toilet in a Royal Mile Café.

So, the truth is we were never bankrupt. The Scots nobles were bullied by Queen Anne’s threats, and bribed by her into signing the Treaty of Union. The Ordinary people didn’t want it. They did not trust the Westminster Government to keep its word. As events turned out, they were correct.

The English Government, in 1707 under the Treaty of Union, promised, (in writing, and signed by the English Parliament) to dissolve both the Scottish Government and the English Government and form a new U.K. Government with a written Constitution

It never happened!

Instead the Scottish Government was dissolved but the English Government at Westminster was not, and it has continued ever since under the former unwritten English rules based only on the Magna Carta and subsequent Acts of Parliament. In effect, the Scottish Members of Parliament moved to London and were given seats in the ENGLISH Parliament. They still sit in the ENGLISH Parliament today.

Absolutely spot on,and the aftermath in Edinburgh saw rioting that lasted for months,they knew what it meant to have their freedom taken away from them,it wasn’t the first time England had invaded Scotland,nor  sadly was it the last either.

 

[Guest Jedi]

Oh I do know that there are several 'finance capitals' around the world...its the notion that the world's leading economies are, and will be, in hoc to the City of London exclusively, psot-Brexit, I'm not so sure about.

[The_Kincardine]

To be a Nat is to argue that black is white and that shite tastes like sugar.

Good to see screeds of posts confirming this.

[The_Kincardine]

1 minute ago, Jedi said:

the world's leading economies are, and will be, in hoc to the City of London exclusively, psot-Brexit, I'm not so sure about.

And I get called the drunk.  Go to bed.

[TonyHendrix]

1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said:

You clearly haven't a fucking clue about what 'finance capitals' means.

Nope,Jedi certainly has a clue,he knows like many others know that London is a city within a city,see the Spiders Web on You Tube.

The crooks that run London invest their £££ in offshore accounts this is why the Russians are taking over the place,do you understand that?

Nicola and Co know exactly what the Russians are doing,everyone bar the Tories understand.

[TonyHendrix]

19 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Nonsense.  I made a deal with Ludo and honoured it.

If there's a referendum and if Scotland votes to leave the UK and if Scotland joins the EU- a good 15 year process - then the terms of the future relationship between iJock and rUK were set out on Thursday.

This means no free movement of labour, capital or services within GB.

A tragic situation and one only supported by the Natter zealots.

A vote for Brexit was tragic - only topped by the daft wee tartan gonks who support Scexit.  They are, as I have said times without number, two cheeks of the same odious arse.

So yes.  Of course I would.

15 years.

OMG,we have a right comedian on here tonight,an absolute cracker son.

Try 5 max,take that from someone who actually knows what I’m typing about.

To be honest,it’s sad to see even a Unionist like you come out with such diatribe as you post,no way are you for real son.

[The_Kincardine]

37 minutes ago, Andrew Driver said:

William of Orange (Senior) was the husband of Mary, the sister of James VII who was deposed in 1689.

If you can't get that basic detail right then the rest of your post of shame is pointless.

Mary- wife of William of Orange - was daughter of James VII.  There is a massive difference between a sister and a daughter when it comes to succession and that makes all the difference wrt the Williamite revolution. If you can't grasp that then you really shouldn't be posting.

Stupid wee Natter fuckwit.

Edited December 26, 2020 by The_Kincardine