Forum menu
The SNP are also committed to removing the nuclear deterrent
Yes thats a fun one. What happens if Westminster does play hardball - apart from we are both wporse off? Play hardball - take your subs out of our country now!
Go on Dazh - who is going to invade scotland ( apart from the english? 😉 )
What is the threat we are going to need that army and navy for? Personally I cannot see one.
How much money is this that the government won’t get? Not huge maybe £200k… old school you take from me i take from you? As i said above somewhere its all about social contracts and trust and for me they are currently not being honoured.
I was the one that spoke about taking action, drowned out by all the pointless squabbling over Scottish independence.
While your actions will help you financially, if a large amount of people did this, then its the services that Governments are supposed to provide to the public that will suffer...which is what the likes of the tories want. Mentioning social contracts and trust are irrelevant words to this Government. I keep mentioning the different economies operating, and as long as our overlords sectors of the economy works, they couldn't care less about the rest.
What is the threat we are going to need that army and navy for? Personally I cannot see one.
I agree. Judging by this squabble, It seems that UK citizens as it currently stands are more than capable of fighting amongst themselves so do not to require an actual military force.
apart from the english? 😉
That's exactly what I was talking/joking about. Seriously though, it sounds ridiculous until you imagine an English nationalist government lead by someone like Farage or some other unhinged narcissist with the pitch forked hordes stood behind them.
This is the document on the scottish governments position in 2014. details the answers to a lot of questions. seeing as we seem to be hung up on the military I have quoted it
https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-future/
Scotland's defence forces
The Scottish Government has carried out an initial assessment of forces levels in the years following independence[261].
Defence capabilities at the point of independence
Maritime forces
One naval squadron to secure Scotland's maritime interests and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and contribute to joint capability with partners in Scotland's geographical neighbourhood, consisting of:
two frigates from the Royal Navy's current fleet
a command platform for naval operations and development of specialist marine capabilities (from the Royal Navy's current fleet, following adaptation)
four mine counter measure vessels from the Royal Navy's current fleet
two offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) to provide security for the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). However, as the Royal Navy only has four OPVs currently[262], a longer lead time for procurement might be necessary
four to six patrol boats from the Royal Navy's current fleet, capable of operating in coastal waters, providing fleet protection and also contributing to securing borders
auxiliary support ships (providing support to vessels on operations), which could be secured on a shared basis initially with the rest of the UKThese arrangements will require around 2,000 regular and at least 200 reserve personnel.
Land forces
An army HQ function and an all-arms brigade, with three infantry/marine units, equipped initially from a negotiated share of current UK assets, and supported by:
a deployable Brigade HQ
two light armoured reconnaissance units
two light artillery units
one engineer unit deploying a range of equipment for bridging, mine clearance and engineering functions
one aviation unit operating six helicopters for reconnaissance and liaison
two communication units
one transport unit
one logistics unit
one medical unitSpecial forces, explosives and ordnance disposal teams will bring the total to around 3,500 regular and at least 1,200 reserve personnel.
Air forces
Key elements of air forces in place at independence, equipped initially from a negotiated share of current UK assets, will secure core tasks, principally the ability to police Scotland's airspace, within NATO.
an Air Force HQ function (with staff embedded within NATO structures)
Scotland will remain part of NATO's integrated Air Command and Control (AC2) system, initially through agreement with allies to maintain the current arrangements while Scotland establishes and develops our own AC2 personnel and facility within Scotland within five years of independence
a Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) squadron incorporating a minimum of 12 Typhoon jets based at Lossiemouth
a tactical air transport squadron, including around six Hercules C130J aircraft, and a helicopter squadron
flight training through joint arrangements with alliesIn total this would require around 2,000 regular personnel and around 300 reserve personnel.
drowned out by all the pointless squabbling over Scottish independence.
Sorry - thats partly my fault. I'll shut up
Schrödinger’s Scotland. Simultaneously a drain on England and yet not allowed to leave. 😀
6 billion removed from the uk economy on the first day of trading since brexit.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_nVk25ZvTkU
When I say Army, I should have said armed forces.
Why does the right-wing always want to fight folk?
And in that list TJ, I'd be happy without the Typhoon's - fast-jets are a recipe for a never-ending bill.
Military hardware, pernonel and equipment are expensive, hence why it's better to pool your resourses between 27 countries in a surgical/strateigic manner, than it is to run the whole show (and cost) from one country.
That might sound like the dreaded 'EU' army according to the racists, whilst conviniently forgetting that every individual member has a veto in mulitlateral military conflict.
A particular member can go ahead on thier own, see the Iraq war. but they won't nessesarily have the backing of the union as a whole.
Why does the right-wing always want to fight folk?
Don't know, you should a
ask one of them.
Interesting post BTW TJ
Anyway we’re off topic. The point is that the parallels between brexit and scottish independence are very close, and decrying one whilst supporting the other is pretty daft.
Yet that's exactly what you're doing, saying that Scotxit is near-impossible after brexit has already happened. Isn't that "pretty daft" then?
Why on earth does Scotland need a military? Whats the realistic threat?
To deal with our most hated and most ancient of enemies, the Scots.
Well El Bent as our friends across the pond say "no taxation without representation" i have had no government representation since 2010 and never had any local representation (live in Rishis constituency) my EU representation has been removed.
Schrödinger’s Scotland. Simultaneously a drain on England and yet not allowed to leave. 😀
File it along with Schrödingers Remainers. Drawbridges up. ‘If you don’t like Brexit then seeya, go live in the EU*
*Unless you want to go and live in the EU, that is.
If remain had won the referendum then we wouldn't have this useless cockwomble as 'prime minister' with his coterie of polyps as ministers during the worst national crisis in 80 years.
I rest my case.
Dougiedog - a lot of this stuff has had loads of smart folk looking at it for years. Unlike brexit.
Personally I would be much less ambitious with the military or have none at all.
The point is that the parallels between brexit and scottish independence are very close
only somone who does not understand would say so. Scottish independence is about being social democratic, internationalist and outward looking. Brexit is none of those things
So parallel but opposed?
saying that Scotxit is near-impossible
It's near impossible to say.
Scottish independence is about being social democratic, internationalist and outward looking.
Yeah, and Brexit was about creating a progressive socialist Britain. YOU might imagine it as that, just like dazh imagines his social UK but that doesn't mean you'll get it.
Might as well imagine a social democratic internationalist and outward looking UK.
Scotxit
As pointed out, it'll never happen as I'm totally sober and it still look me 3 attempts to say it.😁
Molgrips - given the party driving it are exactly that and the population have a huge majority that are, that pretty certainly is the direction of travel. Remember tories do well here to get 20% of the vote. UKip got under 2% at all bar one euro election where they got 6%
Scotxit
Brexit - Exbrit
That 6b isn't -6bn from UK economy!!!
It's the loss of the city's cut on the tiny margins of trading 6bn shares. Equity trading isn't what it used to be before electronic trading, and reduction of middlemen.
This is real but it was expected and although the loss is non-trivial its not huge. (The loss is also the small number of equity traders and their salaries, plus clearing house operations)
And remember that the banks that remain big in equities are principally the big American banks and any profits go to the mothership.
But big money in the city isn't this, it's the more sophisticated stuff that it's so good at and takes decades/centuries to establish.
its just the first sign and the first steps.
Its very naive to think this is not a sign of something to come. MOre and more stuff that was traded in the UK will be going to the EU
Its 100% clear that the EU intend that all trading in euros and european stuff is moving out of london. that will be a big loss.
Duplicate post sorry! Got bad gateway so resubmitted!
Worth noting there was a slow drift in this euro trade to eurozone anyway as some wanted control back.
Unless anyone knows better than I do, there's no sign of the big business like structured trading, advisory, mergers etc that the city excels at being moved out?? And this is the stuff that really pays.
Happy to be corrected if there's news on this business moving out of the city.
I know very little about the financial services stuff but its clear this is just the beginning of the move towards the eurozone
No passporting and no equivalence along with the EUs need to have all trading in the euro zone under their control means more trade will go and IIRC there is a further 6 month grace period for financial trading so the real crunch will be in the summer
Yeah, and Brexit was about creating a progressive socialist Britain. YOU might imagine it as that, just like dazh imagines his social UK but that doesn’t mean you’ll get it.
Might as well imagine a social democratic internationalist and outward looking UK.
The two nations (England and Scotland at least) are just different Molgrips, they just are. Not massively so across the board but when it comes to the type of governance they actually vote for.
I know very little about the financial services stuff
Don't bother commenting any further on it then. This thread could actually be quite useful if it wasn't for the usual know-it-alls banging on with unwavering certainty about stuff they know absolutely nothing about. Ugarizza's post seems to be actual useful information written by someone who seems to have an insight - that kind of thing is needed now post brexit, not the same rant repeated several times a day from the same doom-mongers.
Are they saying anything different? This is expected/predicted and part of a process of a shift away from London, not the end of it.
FT reporting … https://www.ft.com/content/a434b756-afe0-454d-9d70-ef2d42ea8d55
Meanwhile the industry expert who is so optimistic about Sunderland failed to inform us when it was decided to produce the Ariya in Japan rather than the UK. The decision being made mainly due to a threat of a no-deal Brexit at the time, but also because it was already clear any deal would not be entirely tarif free and trade would not be as fluid as before.
mdavids - like to correct me from your knowledge?
I read a fair bit around this and the EU taking as much financial services as it can into the eurozone is clearly a key aim and they have made it clear that skeleton or symbolic workforce in the EU will not do. all traders and the computer systems must be under the control of the european courts and regulators by being based in the eurozone
Remember equivalence has not been granted let alone passporting.
I read a fair bit around this and the EU taking as much financial services as it can into the eurozone is clearly a key aim and they have made it clear that skeleton or symbolic workforce in the EU will not do. all traders and the computer systems must be under the control of the european courts and regulators by being based in the eurozone
Those traders won't account for that many jobs and will be counting for increasingly less as their systems become more and more automated.
If the EU blocks outsourcing of fund and portfolio management, that would hit the structured trading business mentioned above, this has only been suggested by a few hardliners within the EU and there are ways to ameliorate the effects of such a policy - the yanks would likely ratchet up their trade war on the EU and there may well even be capital flight out of the EU.
If the EU blocks outsourcing of fund and portfolio management
It already has. I can no longer include British based funds in my French PEA portfolio:
Seeing this coming I've made changes progressively and now have zero exposure to the UK. Just as well, between the under perforamance of the FTSE and weakening pound I'd have lost enough to pay for a couple of years of junior's education.
The two nations (England and Scotland at least) are just different Molgrips, they just are. Not massively so across the board but when it comes to the type of governance they actually vote for.
You're ignoring a load of context with that statement, and making huge generalisations geographically. It's that kind of sentiment that makes me seethe against the idea of Nationalism.
And you I am afraid molgrips simply do not seem to understand the situation
SNP - social democratic, outward and internationalist - 50% of the vote. Greens - social democratic, outward and internationalist - 6% Labour - social democratic but inward looking and insular, 15% of the vote, Lib dems 7% ish but outward looking and internationalist ( all number approximnate)
Thats 80 %ish of the vote in scotland goes to social democratic parties. The right wing are lucky to get 20%
Its a very different country politically to England.
There is no doubt at all that an independent Scotland will be social democratic and outward looking because that is the parties we vote for
Wiki information on voting intentions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2021_Scottish_Parliament_election
I agree with TJ on this point... but can we all stop this topic from taking of this thread? Pretty please?
sorry Kelvin.
anyone wanting to discuss Scottish independence start another thread or find the old one?
Sorry – thats partly my fault. I’ll shut up
Posted 15 hours ago
^
The Brexit disruption has forced one of the UK’s largest supermarkets to stock a rival grocer’s products ... Boris Johnson warned he ‘cannot duck’ inequality
You’re ignoring a load of context with that statement, and making huge generalisations geographically. It’s that kind of sentiment that makes me seethe against the idea of Nationalism.
Where’d you get the “nationalism” bit from?
It already has. I can no longer include British based funds in my French PEA portfolio:
Seeing this coming I’ve made changes progressively and now have zero exposure to the UK. Just as well, between the under perforamance of the FTSE and weakening pound I’d have lost enough to pay for a couple of years of junior’s education.
Again, the missus isn't hugely bothered by this - this rule affects non-professional investors basically non-high net worth investors. This won't hit them and they are still operating their funds out of Jersey.
There are a number of other fund types that aren't covered by that ruling as well.
But for how long Oakley? Thats the point. Is there not still a grace period in action but the EU are intending to force much more financial trade into the euro zone?
I read back in September about an agreement that runs into 2021 but can't remember exactly how long for.
There aren't any stated intentions as far as I know, just the need for further negotiations before the interim arangements run out. Macron was a banker, he'll know what he doesn't want to continue.
Well El Bent as our friends across the pond say “no taxation without representation” i have had no government representation since 2010 and never had any local representation (live in Rishis constituency) my EU representation has been removed.
I can understand that, but you are giving them what they want.
We can all continue to bleat about the people being played and 'choosing' to vote for brexit because they are stupid, or turkeys voting for Christmas etc, while at the same time turning a blind eye to our behaviour and who or what is playing us to make the 'right decisions'.
Its quite simple: I live in a constituency that voted libdem in 2010. In 2015, it voted tory(in 2014 it voted out the libdem council for tory) In 2016, it overwhelmingly voted to stay in the EU, in 2017, back to a Libdem MP.
I know people wanted to punish the libdems for the coalition(by voting tory), but that extra tory MP along with others, allowed Cameron to vote to have the EU referendum. It was in their manifesto. There was no point voting the tory out in 2017, the damage had been done.
You don't have to be a chess grand master to even think a few steps ahead and the possible consequences of your actions, all I would ask is in the words of the now departed sith lord road safety dude: Stop, Look, Listen.
I am sure it’ll get sorted in some manner, but wtf
https://mobile.twitter.com/MaximilianJans2/status/1346420576974471169/photo/1
I agree with TJ on this point… but can we all stop this topic from taking of this thread? Pretty please?
I'll start a Scotch Eggxit thread if anyone wants.
But for how long Oakley? Thats the point. Is there not still a grace period in action but the EU are intending to force much more financial trade into the euro zone?
I dont believe there is grace period for the others, its a matter of deciding strategy now for the EU. As mentioned in previous articles I posted, the EU has to be careful not to shoot themselves in the foot. If for example they went full protectionist and started say going after non-UCITs funds then the rest of the worlds financial markets are going to retaliate. How do you think the EU would fair if they were locked out of American and Asian financial markets?
I am sure it’ll get sorted in some manner, but wtf
I mentioned the upcoming three way Norway/UK/EU discussions… but mere details were countered with questions about being lacking in imagination or belief, or something.
https://www.ft.com/content/96607c9a-351e-4c51-9c33-48bd5976cf84
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/96607c9a-351e-4c51-9c33-48bd5976cf84The Hong Kong asset management association has warned that a Brexit-related overhaul of the EU’s retail fund rules could have the unintended consequence of undermining the dominance of European funds in Asia.
Sally Wong, chief executive of the HK Investment Funds Association, said any move by the EU to unpick the outsourcing model on which global asset managers rely could spur Asian countries to seek to lure capital away from the €17.7tn European fund industry.
Funds governed by Europe’s retail fund framework, known as Ucits, are sold across the world and are particularly popular in Asian jurisdictions such as Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore.
Part of the success of Ucits funds is so-called delegation, which allows asset managers to set up a fund in an EU country and carry out portfolio management in another location, such as London, Hong Kong or New York.
But in August the EU’s top financial regulator recommended sweeping changes to the delegation rules in response to Brexit. Though the proposal has not been formally adopted, it is expected to be taken into consideration in the upcoming review of the EU’s asset management rule book.
Ms Wong said that policymakers in Brussels should carefully consider the global implications of any changes to delegation, noting that Asian authorities’ increasing focus on boosting their local fund industries made it an “inopportune moment” to review the rules.
Hong Kong and Taiwan have taken steps to boost the attractiveness of locally domiciled funds in recent years, while Singapore launched a new fund structure in January in a bid to lure global fund managers. In addition, some Asian countries have come together to launch cross-border fund passport or mutual recognition schemes.
Ms Wong said Asian authorities may seek to profit from the fragmentation created by an overhaul of the Ucits rules by speeding up their attempts to win local business. “If [the] proposed changes undermine [Ucits’] core strength and bring uncertainty to the industry and investors, there is all the more reason for [Asian regulators] to accelerate these changes,” she said.
Her comments are the latest in a series of warnings that changes to delegation would threaten the seamless market access that has driven the huge growth of the global asset management industry.
Paul Schott Stevens, chief executive of the Washington-based Investment Company Institute, another trade group, said the proposal to limit delegation was the latest example of an anti-globalisation mindset. “It would be a real concern if that relatively free access to best-of-breed investment services was compromised,” he said.
However, Stewart Aldcroft, chairman of Citigroup’s Asian fund servicing arm, said increased costs because of restrictions on delegation would not necessarily be enough to entice international fund groups to launch onshore Asian funds.
“Global managers have often avoided local set-up in Asia as they try to avoid proliferation of funds,” he said. Fund groups would only establish more local products if they anticipate high sales potential, he added, noting that with the exception of the China-Hong Kong scheme, the other Asian fund passporting initiatives have so far generated “negligible volumes”.
Yoon Ng, director of Asia-Pacific insights at Broadridge, a research company, added that while demand for European products would fall in countries where local fund pushes are under way, managers would continue to favour Ucits because of its cross-border portability. “None of the Asian fund passports come close to the reach and scope of Ucits,” she said.
It appears that it's just France blocking UCITs so far, might be wrong, can't ask the missus at the moment. It seems to be France trying to drive the changes to boost their own industry.
Both articles I've posted point out the risks to the EU and how this could backfire though.
I am sure it’ll get sorted in some manner, but wtf
https://mobile.twitter.com/MaximilianJans2/status/1346420576974471169/photo/1/blockquote >
UK fishing is what, 0.2%gdp? It's that small because the uk government sold off UK quotas to private/foreign firms some time ago. OK it's a deeper and much more complex scenario than that, but what really makes me laugh is british nationalists getting pumped up about reclaiming fishing rights.... they can't, they were legitimatly sold off a long time ago. By OUR GOOD SELVES to make the UK government at the time a quick quid, lol.
It seems to be France trying to drive the changes to boost their own industry.
I think the opportunity for mischief will be much greater now we’re out the club.
It’s depressing watching a nation very slowly come to understand the term “frictionless trade” 5 years too late…
https://twitter.com/bbcmartynoates/status/1346213229027065856?s=21
I think the opportunity for mischief will be much greater now we’re out the club.
Reminds me of this.
https://www.nytimes.com/1983/04/29/business/french-lifting-curb-on-japanese-video-recorders.html
Kelvin - its almost as if Johnson and co didn't understand how the trade in fish works.
Kelvin – its almost as if Johnson and co didn’t understand how the trade in fish works.
I'm quite sure they did, and I'm equally certain they didn't (and don't) give a shit.
I very much doubt they did. Nothing I have heard from them gives any clue they had any understanding
I know people who have had to work directly for Johnson, in his previous roles… no one should be ruling out the combination of not caring and not understanding. And there are cabinet ministers who fit that description without having to know about how they operated behind the scenes. Just listen to them.
It's not about the bloody fish. It's to do with territorial waters and the idea that we can turf out a few foreigners who might get too close to our island paradise. See also: plucky RAF chase off evil Russian bombers
See also: plucky RAF chase off evil Russian bombers
Pretty sure its necessary to challenge aircraft which are potentially carrying live nuclear weapons very close to the country and are testing UK air defences?
Do you think one of them is going to stray into UK airspace and drop a bomb just for the hell of it one day?
It's a routine affair but is sensationalised occasionally when the media and it's government lackeys want to drum up some good, old-fashioned, nationalist tub-thumping.
Its also hypocritical given that we do this all the time to Russia
I’m quite sure they did, and I’m equally certain they didn’t (and don’t) give a shit.
It really is the ultimate con. Convince people to hand over the keys to their business in exchange for a vote, "it'll be fine, we won't **** YOU over" and walk away with not only no consequence (or conscience for that matter), but a reward of power.
Do you think one of them is going to stray into UK airspace and drop a bomb just for the hell of it one day?
Maybe not drop it, but crashing is always a distinct possibility, then it becomes our problem. Best to keep them away.
Its also hypocritical given that we do this all the time to Russia
Yeh I thought it was common/routine practice all over the world for countries to buzz each others airspace to see if theres a response, the expected response is that they will be 'politley' escorted back in the direction they came from.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AnnaJerzewska/status/1346774398326501376
fairly unsurprising if you had the slightest understanding of Brexit and its implications. But still, what exactly did the ERG research, and when is the TPA going to stand up and demand they return the money they wasted?
Some salient points in her thread that some people... after 5 years... still don't get... there are still many thinking that the FTA signed means we have changed little in terms of trade, and the effect it will have on all our economies... but of course the effect will be far greater in the smaller market (ours)...
Important to remember that trade deals (FTAs) weren't designed with such a high degree of economic integration in mind.
So some of the standard RoO provisions will seem incredibly restrictive under the UK-EU deal.
Minimal operations or insufficient processing is a standard part of an FTA. Most, if not all FTAs, include a provision on minimal processing – processing not considered sufficient to confer originating status even if rules of origin have been met.
I've had to be good, and bite my tongue, as people lecture us on here with things like "it's just about tariffs" or "the rules of origin stuff is a red herring, a deal does away with that"... but we need to get real, and address what these "details" mean... more understanding, less believing, is going to be required in the UK.
And, of course, away from trade... consider the lives of millions of people that now have to pay new huge fees, and face new delays, and jump over new hurdles of eligibility, just to keep living their day to day lives... because of where they or someone in their family were born, or where their clients or customers or staff or employer happen to be based.
Costs. Time. Barriers.
Irish fishing boat boarded by "Marine Scotland patrol boat", whatever that may be (I imagine a super dreadnought sized heavy battle cruiser with harpoons but it's been a long pandemic...) near the disputed island paradise of Rockall.
Worth a click it for the first comment.
Brexit just keeps on giving, doesn't it?
Regarding free trade agreement, I mentioned much earlier in the thread how much extra it was costing our business to cover the customs clearance work. This cost will have to be passed on.
Additionally as others have pointed out the FTA only covers goods which originate or are manufactured in the UK/EU. In reality it is far from a free trade agreement.
Most large international companies manufacture in China, US etc and have geared up to operate through European Distribution Centres. Goods from outside the EU that come through a EDC will have double duty when they are moved to the UK. I suspect this covers an awful lot of bikes and parts but obviously huge amounts of what we buy in the UK.
It is easy to say just bring the stuff direct to the UK but the point of an EDC is that you can bring vast quantities to one central place so they can be called off to customers all over Europe. Forecasting and efficiencies on stock holding are far more tricky when you do it at a more granular level which means cost in slow moving stock etc. Bonded warehousing is another way to go but not easy for most businesses to contemplate.
Came across this earlier, so the City of London will almost certainly need a Foreign/Dual National to represent its interests in Brussels because, add on the ability to speak French and realistically you are going to get someone French/Belgian/Swiss.
(I imagine a super dreadnought sized heavy battle cruiser with harpoons but it’s been a long pandemic…)
Sorry to disappoint 🙂
near the disputed island paradise of Rockall.
Now consider the renewed importance of Rockall when you consider fishing zones and who is allowed where. Chances of this escalating?
So now, in addition to going to war with Spain for Gibraltar, they are going to have to declare war on Ireland for Rockall.
The navy is going to be busy.