In related news, tomorrow's FT will publish news of increased inward investment by Tata in Jaguar's new entry level sedan to compete directly with the European manufacturers.
So not all bad news, eh?
ninfan - Member
"It's ok, they can move their factories to Scotland."
Good luck reaching your customers with all road and rail links through England, and only a coastal defence force of a navy
Why would we need to send stuff through England? If non-EU England made difficulties over being used as a transport corridor, there are ports in Scotland - direct to the main market.
And with nae sea ice we get even closer to japan and the states, with our deep water ports that some boats unload at so they can actually get to europe.
I hear Detroit is not on its knees anymore despite it being dead for years whilst they figured out what to do
Maybe my irony detector is malfunctioning, or have you really missed the news this week? Almost 2/3rds of it's populations moved out and the City's just filed for bankrupcy!
notmyrealname - MemberHas their been any positive EU stories worth telling?
Tonnes. They're just not much fun, EU-bashing sells more papers. I was just riding at that EU-funded Innerleithen today...
ninfan - MemberGood luck reaching your customers with all road and rail links through England, and only a coastal defence force of a navy
Eh, how many road links do you think the UK has to continental Europe? 
Only 3% of the UK's freight exports travel by eurotunnel.
On the other hand, 17% of the UK's freight exports leave Scottish ports, which is obviously a disproportionately high number (very nearly 3 times as much per head as England) Which suggests that the rump UK will end up exporting goods via scotland, even more good news!
Northwind. I don't want to re-open differences of opinion we have on another union on this thread, however don't lose sight of where the vast bulk Scotland's trade is currently done.
athgray - Member
Northwind. I don't want to re-open differences of opinion we have on another union on this thread, however don't lose sight of where the vast bulk Scotland's trade is currently done.
Aye, but we're flexible.
If you don't want our stuff, we'll sell it in the really big market next door that you've just abandoned.
I was just riding at that EU-funded Innerleithen today...
The UK contributes more to the EU budget than it receives in EU funding.
So suggesting that something is funded through the generosity of the EU is deeply misleading.
Epicyclo, why would we abandon the big market next door and vice versa? That would be stupid.
athgray - MemberNorthwind. I don't want to re-open differences of opinion we have on another union on this thread, however don't lose sight of where the vast bulk Scotland's trade is currently done.
And would continue to be done- nobody really believes that would change surely? Simply not in either Scotland or the RUK or England's interests... Though we'll probably stop sending you prime ministers.
ernie_lynch - MemberSo suggesting that something is funded through the generosity of the EU is deeply misleading.
Well, yes and no. Things are done with "EU money" that probably wouldn't be done with UK money. Though I am fully aware of what a weak argument that is 😉
But what's harder to quantify is the benefit the UK gains from the single market, because here we get into the territory of the economists, which is to say, made up bullshit... So we can pick economists who say that the benefit per annum is £92bn, much more than the deficit, though obviously, other economists with different made up bullshit are available.
Though obviously, it's a bit Edinburgh defencey to point out that I didn't go with the "Makes us billions of quid" argument earlier, in favour of a silly biking related one...
Epicyclo, why would we abandon the big market next door and vice versa? That would be stupid.
Because to the pro-EU lobby it's all or nothing. The possibility of an independent sovereign state freely trading on the global market doesn't exist.
And with nae sea ice we get even closer to japan and the states, with our deep water ports that some boats unload at so they can actually get to europe.
17% of the UK's freight exports leave Scottish ports
As I've already pointed out, you've announced that you will only have a coastal/littoral defence force, and in addition you won't be able to join NATO (since you refuse to host nuclear weapons)
so you can't protect your sea lanes - in fact, since you've announced that you're planning to host your naval forces at Faslane, you can't even protect your oil rigs!
nice one lads!
[quote=ninfan ]you won't be able to join NATO (since you refuse to host nuclear weapons)
🙄
ninfan - Memberin addition you won't be able to join NATO (since you refuse to host nuclear weapons
Well, I suppose this enormous lie is no less credible than the suggestion that the RUK would suddenly stop trading with Scotland...
What part of that article do you think supports you, out of curiosity? When will NATO be throwing out Denmark and Norway?
But what's harder to quantify is the benefit the UK gains from the single market, because here we get into the territory of the economists, which is to say, made up bullshit... So we can pick economists who say that the benefit per annum is £92bn, much more than the deficit, though obviously, other economists with different made up bullshit are available.
Though I think most economists would agree on the relative change if you combine the current UK gains from the single market and the current net contribution to the EU and compare with similar figures for if we leave the EU (little change to the former, a vast reduction in the latter).
What part of that article do you think supports your lie (sic), out of curiosity?
Maybe it's this bit?
Lord Robertson, the former Nato secretary general and Labour defence secretary, said : "Does the SNP accept this unambiguous acceptance of the nuclear umbrella? I supervised the entry of seven new members to Nato in 2002 and every one of them had to accept the strategic concept. If the SNP cannot accept the Nato strategic concept then it will simply not get in."
teamhurtmore - Member
Epicyclo, why would we abandon the big market next door and vice versa? That would be stupid.
Well it's not me who's saying England should get out of the EU, but leaving the EU is removing a lot of the market for your goods surely?
ninfan - Member
As I've already pointed out, you've announced that you will only have a coastal/littoral defence force, and in addition you won't be able to join NATO (since you refuse to host nuclear weapons)so you can't protect your sea lanes - in fact, since you've announced that you're planning to host your naval forces at Faslane, you can't even protect your oil rigs!
nice one lads!
Has NATO given you a private briefing on their intentions? AFAIK they are not making any commitments until after independence is gained. And is it not news recently that the MoD are questioning the value of a nuclear deterrent to the UK anyway? If you're right the UK will be out of NATO too in that case.
Who are we protecting our sea lanes against? We will have a navy appropriate to that - one we can afford, not a flash one with aircraft carriers and no planes to put on them. War mongering is bankrupting the UK as it is - there's no colonies left to exploit for taxes to pay for it. Oh, and by the way, small navies can be effective, didn't Iceland with its miniscule navy win the Cod wars against the might of the Royal Navy?
aracer, that bit doesn't support the claim at all- as you know I'm sure, you're not daft. It is not necessary to be a nuclear power to be in NATO, there are already non-nuclear members, and pro-disarmament members.
Have you actually read that article, Northwind, or even just the bit I quoted? Yes most of the countries in NATO are not nuclear powers, but all new entries have to accept the strategic nuclear concept - something [s]Scotland[/s] Salmond appears unwilling to do.
It is not necessary to be a nuclear power to be in NATO,
But it is necessary to allow the deployment of nuclear weapons on your soil in time of war, and to host ships and aircraft armed with them at all times.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/08/world/denmark-agrees-on-nuclear-policy.html
leaving the EU is removing a lot of the market for your goods surely?
What gives you the impression that leaving the EU makes any difference to who we'll sell stuff to?
aracer - MemberHave you actually read that article, Northwind, or even just the bit I quoted? Yes most of the countries in NATO are not nuclear powers, but all new entries have to accept the strategic nuclear concept - something Scotland Salmond appears unwilling to do.
Alex Salmond is on the record that an independent scotland would use the exact approach of Denmark with regard to visiting vessels and craft. Those pesky facts eh? To be fair it's not always easy to distinguish between comments on Scottish nuclear disarmament and international policy, it's possible to misunderstand or misrepresent a "trident out" comment as a "no nukes ever"
But Salmond is not Scotland. Does the Yes campaign say they would refuse to allow NATO nuclear weapons in Scotland or in Scotland's waters? Also no.
Still, I do like NINfan's idea that only NATO could stop the RUK from acts of piracy against shipping. I think our main international export market- America- might not be that happy about it tbh. Or that other thing, what's it called again... Oh yeah, the United Nations.
aracer - Member
"leaving the EU is removing a lot of the market for your goods surely?"
What gives you the impression that leaving the EU makes any difference to who we'll sell stuff to?
As I recall that was the reason we went into it, to increase the market for our goods, so the reverse applies surely? Or were we told porkies back then?
Those pesky facts eh?
"An independent Scotland would not have possession of or allow nuclear weapons in Scottish territory."
"The SNP proposal would be to write that into the constitution of the state, so that would make the possession of nuclear weapons illegal in Scotland."
As I recall that was the reason we went into it, to increase the market for our goods, so the reverse applies surely? Or were we told porkies back then?
We went into the EU because all the countries in the EEC automatically became members after the Maastricht Treaty. And we had joined the EEC because a Tory government took us into it, this was later confirmed by the British electorate through a referendum. Those are 'the reasons we went into it'.
No epicyclo, leaving the EU (if that were to ever happen) is not the same as removing a large part of the market. International trade does not work like that at all. Examine Swiss-EU trade as a basic example. To suggests that it is, is either scaremongering or misunderstanding. The framework for UK-EU trade would change for sure, but that is a totally different idea. Why would either party seek to destroy their trading links?
teamhurtmore - Member
...Why would either party seek to destroy their trading links?
I don't know, but that's what it looks like to me.
However, extracting the UK from the EU to preserve sovereignty also has some attraction to me, and if it can be done without wrecking the economy, then why stay?
Try as I might, I find it difficult to understand the politics of the EU because there's no way I can have enough information on all the various states. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Just take one look at the swivel-eyed loons and fruit-loops of the far right of the Tory Party, and UKIP. The ones advocating withdrawal from the EU. Do you seriously think, for a single second, that these people, who seem to be living on another planet, should be dictating this countries economic policy?
I think being in the EU but outside the (frankly bonkers) Euro, is pretty much the perfect position to be in.
binners - Member
Do you seriously think, for a single second, that these people, who seem to be living on another planet, should be dictating this countries economic policy?
Good question - if polls are to be believed then more people believe that these guys are correct than otherwise! So on that basis, and if we believe in democracy, then perhaps the answer is yes?
Fortunately, and perhaps more importantly IMO, the polls also show even greater support for CMD idea of staying in a "reformed EU".
But frankly, what "we want to do" is a complete red-herring. Far more important is what do the europeans within the Euro-area want to do themselves. Until that is decided, the rest of the debate is merely hypothetical since we have no idea what it is we will be/may be voting for.
The UK contributes more to the EU budget than it receives in EU funding.
You've summed up the horrible narrowly economic attitude that always buggers things up in the UK.
Our return on investment on EU costs is not just direct funding.
I'd need to consider leaving the UK if we leave the EU. I work in a global company as a European point of contact for the European market. Would be a good excuse to move near some French mountains I guess.
Just let them have their little referendum then fix the results.
Job jobbed.
Isn't that what normally happens ? Or the alternative, we will keep voting until you silly people put a x against the correct (sic) answer....
So we should take advice from a nation whos' bubble economy imploded twenty years ago, and who's latest solution is to create another QE bubble?...
ninfan - Member"An independent Scotland would not have possession of or allow nuclear weapons in Scottish territory."
Maybe I should have explained the "danish position" but since you posted about it I thought you'd have read your own link. The agreement there is that nuclear weapons are forbidden, but as NATO vessels/craft do not declare the presence of nuclear weapons they are still welcome (officially this is for strategic and security reasons, in practice probably largely for diplomatic reasons). It is a fudge but an established and respected one.
Anything else I can clear up for you?
ohnohesback - Member
...whos'....who's...
or even whose? 😉
I'd need to consider leaving the UK if we leave the EU. I work in a global company as a European point of contact for the European market. Would be a good excuse to move near some French mountains I guess.
Me too, we were taken over by a huge German company and work with them on high-tech stuff which gets sold to german/french customers on a regular basis. Anything that makes that even slightly more difficult isn't good news. I suspect they'd close our small office and offer us positions in Germany.
But this is just a guess.. what happens in situations like this if we leave the EU? Good news? Bad news?
We keep straying into Scottish independence. Something I'm an enthusiast of. Rather selfishly so I can send my kids up for a university education at your expense. Oh and I don't think that you should be using the pound if you are really independent.
Back to the EU
So it seems that the anti EU stance is "of of course we'll stay in the free trade area just stop paying our subs". Is that really an option? Switzerland and Norway may have a position that we envy but that doesn't mean that the same position is available to us?
Because leaving the
But this is just a guess.. what happens in situations like this if we leave the EU? Good news? Bad news?
What happens? The likes of you and I bugger off and take a decently paid job into the EU, I'd guess.
I don't think my own position is particularly unique. In my case my company relocated a job from the US to the EU and I was the beneficiary. If it's no longer sustainable for that job to be in the UK, then it'll get shifted to mainland Europe, no bother at all.
Hence we lose the tax take on jobs like this, and I've yet to see that impact factored into any of the "out" camp's calculations. It's all just narrow-minded "we get back less than we pay in", without a single consideration of externalities.
Hence we lose the tax take on jobs like this, and I've yet to see that impact factored into any of the "out" camp's calculations. It's all just narrow-minded "we get back less than we pay in", without a single consideration of externalities
Plus all the money form you spending money...
Yes that seems to be the focus of the whole argument, yet we seem to get lost in the distractions of fruit size/shape regulation.......
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, of course. Mine is that you'd have to be something of a blithering idiot not to see the benefits of our current role of being an Anglophone member of the EU, with such close trade ties to the United States.
Anyway, this just reminds me to work on my French.
Maybe I should have explained the "danish position" but since you posted about it I thought you'd have read your own link. The agreement there is that nuclear weapons are forbidden, but as NATO vessels/craft do not declare the presence of nuclear weapons they are still welcome (officially this is for strategic and security reasons, in practice probably largely for diplomatic reasons). It is a fudge but an established and respected one.
Brilliant, so we can keep using Faslane, job jobbed!
I don't know why I even bother tbh... is it so hard to understand the difference between visiting and permanent stationing?
