Brexit

First topic message reminder :

"man that negotiated the Australia deal with the EU" - Who is this man? I only ask because Australia don't have a deal with the EU; they are, however, in the process of negotiating one.

navyblueshorts wrote:Particularly awaiting the extra £350 million per week (was it?) for the NHS...

Which was never once said.

navyblueshorts wrote:Particularly awaiting the extra £350 million per week (was it?) for the NHS...

The NHS funding bill was passed earlier this year. By 2024, the NHS England budget will be £394 million a week higher, in real terms, than in 2018/19.

Though, with Covid and lockdown and the subsequent economic damage, this is subject to change.

Duty281 wrote:Happiest I've seen the Prime Minister for ages. He probably knew 'no deal' would finish his premiership.  Early indications look good:

1) Restoration of supreme law-making power for the U.K.
2) Resumption of the U.K. being able to strike its own trade deals across the world.
3) An end to the role of the ECJ in U.K. affairs.
4) All potential migrants, EU and non-EU, will be judged by the same criteria; no preference given to potential EU migrants based on geography.
5) Zero tariffs and zero quotas = minimal economic disruption and continuation of trade.
6) A solution to the Northern Ireland issue? Will wait and see.

Still a way to go, but looks better than I anticipated in 2016.

He's always happy in the 'over-promising' phase.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Particularly awaiting the extra £350 million per week (was it?) for the NHS...

The NHS funding bill was passed earlier this year. By 2024, the NHS England budget will be £394 million a week higher, in real terms, than in 2018/19.

Though, with Covid and lockdown and the subsequent economic damage, this is subject to change.

NHS funding is a complicated topic to discuss due to under funding over many, many years leaving a huge deficit between what it needs and what it gets though.

It needs around a 3% increase each year to largely cover inflation as well as rising costs due to increasing population, aging population (I believe from 2000 to now Britain's average age has moved from mid-thirties to over forty), etc. For a long time it's been getting 1% hence there is now an enormous deficit that gets willfully ignored by those responsible for it's existence.

Worth saying briefly that I'm not suggesting you supported that or are happy about it in any way, Duty. Whilst I've no idea your views on the issue it's important when discussing the NHS to state such things as it's an incredibly emotive topic. One of the most painful things about large scale economics is the apathetic reduction of human life to meaningless numbers and that contrast is often keenly seen in discussions about the NHS.

Soul Requiem wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Particularly awaiting the extra £350 million per week (was it?) for the NHS...

Which was never once said.

No, but it was written on a bus, was it not?

Spoiler:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Particularly awaiting the extra £350 million per week (was it?) for the NHS...

The NHS funding bill was passed earlier this year. By 2024, the NHS England budget will be £394 million a week higher, in real terms, than in 2018/19.

Though, with Covid and lockdown and the subsequent economic damage, this is subject to change.

Whatever. What you can be reassured by is someone will go through all of the 'promises' and point out how many aren't going to be honoured. I have no doubt people will argue the toss non-stop, but don't give a 4X anymore and I'm fed up of the political hair splitting.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Particularly awaiting the extra £350 million per week (was it?) for the NHS...

Which was never once said.

No, but it was written on a bus, was it not?

Spoiler:

What does it actually say on the bus?

Clue, it doesn't say we'll spend said £350mil entirely on the NHS.

Whatever it is, it is by definition a worse deal than we have now. And whatever the result there is already a great deal of damage that has been done. We are diminished.

And let us not forget that such an important deal must go before parliament, and this deal, something that will affect this country for many, many years will get a whole single day's debate.

Soul Requiem wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Particularly awaiting the extra £350 million per week (was it?) for the NHS...

Which was never once said.

No, but it was written on a bus, was it not?

Spoiler:

What does it actually say on the bus?

Clue, it doesn't say we'll spend said £350mil entirely on the NHS.

"We send the EU £350m a week. Lets fund our NHS instead."

Now you might say thats open to interpretation (because that would fit your narrative) but to the rest of us that comes across as a promise that the NHS would get £350m a week.

To you it comes across as a promise (because it suits your narrative) to anyone who actually bothers to read it properly it does not.

Explain it to me then.

Soul Requiem wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Particularly awaiting the extra £350 million per week (was it?) for the NHS...

Which was never once said.

No, but it was written on a bus, was it not?

Spoiler:

What does it actually say on the bus?

Clue, it doesn't say we'll spend said £350mil entirely on the NHS.

Yup. There's the splitting hairs I was on about. The implication is clear and was meant, but phrased to allow weasel words and hair splitting. Whatever.

Have we got the first £350m yet? Or do we need to wait ‘til the 7th?

So when is the Scottish Indy Ref2 going to be then? The sooner the better

MonkeyMan wrote:So when is the Scottish Indy Ref2 going to be then? The sooner the better

I think Johnson said 2055 so probably within the next 2 years.

lostinwales wrote:

MonkeyMan wrote:So when is the Scottish Indy Ref2 going to be then? The sooner the better

I think Johnson said 2055 so probably within the next 2 years.

The Scottish people must be kicking themselves so badly over voting NO in the 2014 referendum. Taken out of their will from the EU and Single Market. Forced to still abide by laws from a totalitarian government in Westminster

Scotland you had one job...and you blew it

Frak tell me about it...

MonkeyMan wrote:So when is the Scottish Indy Ref2 going to be then? The sooner the better

Agreed. Soonest they're gone, the sooner rUK and Scotland can grow up.

Maybe, just maybe, some people thought/think they should remain within the UK. Think about that - others may have a valid opinion different from yours. Amazing.

As for this childish argument that "We were taken out of the EU against our will!" or "We didn't get the Government we voted for!" - just grow up. Less than 50% of the UK population, every, single General Election don't get a Government that they voted for.

Perhaps Cornwall should secede? Perhaps the Kingdom of Wessex? Or the House of York? Good grief...

navyblueshorts wrote:Perhaps Cornwall should secede? Perhaps the Kingdom of Wessex? Or the House of York? Good grief...

I appreciate your "Where does independence stop?" comment. But England, Scotland, Wales and a unified Ireland were all actually real countries long before the UK were they not?

Anyway, looks like Boris will not allow an Indyref 2 anytime soon. I doubt England and Wales would even consider independence until Scotland gets the ball rolling. So we're all stuck together for the time being it looks whether we like it or not

navyblueshorts wrote:Maybe, just maybe, some people thought/think they should remain within the UK. Think about that - others may have a valid opinion different from yours. Amazing.

As for this childish argument that "We were taken out of the EU against our will!" or "We didn't get the Government we voted for!" - just grow up. Less than 50% of the UK population, every, single General Election don't get a Government that they voted for.

Perhaps Cornwall should secede? Perhaps the Kingdom of Wessex? Or the House of York? Good grief...

The difference of course is that in an election we get a choice of more than two options to vote for and we also get to have another chance every few years. The EU/Brexit vote was not the same

MonkeyMan wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Perhaps Cornwall should secede? Perhaps the Kingdom of Wessex? Or the House of York? Good grief...

I appreciate your "Where does independence stop?" comment. But England, Scotland, Wales and a unified Ireland were all actually real countries long before the UK were they not?

Anyway, looks like Boris will not allow an Indyref 2 anytime soon. I doubt England and Wales would even consider independence until Scotland gets the ball rolling. So we're all stuck together for the time being it looks whether we like it or not

The country that we think of as Scotland (ie ruled by one monarch with absolute power and not with a separate Pictland and separate western and island land and peoples) has now been part of the United Kingdom for around the same amount of time as it was ever truly "independent".  I'm not sure that history and a love for flagshagging is a valid reason on which to to base an argument for independence.

superflyweight wrote:

MonkeyMan wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Perhaps Cornwall should secede? Perhaps the Kingdom of Wessex? Or the House of York? Good grief...

I appreciate your "Where does independence stop?" comment. But England, Scotland, Wales and a unified Ireland were all actually real countries long before the UK were they not?

Anyway, looks like Boris will not allow an Indyref 2 anytime soon. I doubt England and Wales would even consider independence until Scotland gets the ball rolling. So we're all stuck together for the time being it looks whether we like it or not

The country that we think of as Scotland (ie ruled by one monarch with absolute power and not with a separate Pictland and separate western and island land and peoples) has now been part of the United Kingdom for around the same amount of time as it was ever truly "independent".  I'm not sure that history and a love for flagshagging is a valid reason on which to to base an argument for independence.

The argument will be based less on history and flagshagging but more on present day resentment many feel for Westminster.

I voted no last time around and despite the EU referendum would likely vote the same way again. The picture has significantly changed since 2014 due to Brexit though.

47/59 MPs from the SNP, along with 62% remain vote is a clear divergence in voting between an increasingly right wing England and increasingly left wing Scotland.

superflyweight wrote:I'm not sure that history and a love for flagshagging is a valid reason on which to to base an argument for independence.

Like I said...we (the UK) are all in the unhappiest marriage since Den and Angie in late 1980s 'Eastenders'. And no false Union flag loving is going to change that either. Let's just all try to get on for now and suck up the disaster known as 'Brexit'

king_carlos wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

MonkeyMan wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Perhaps Cornwall should secede? Perhaps the Kingdom of Wessex? Or the House of York? Good grief...

I appreciate your "Where does independence stop?" comment. But England, Scotland, Wales and a unified Ireland were all actually real countries long before the UK were they not?

Anyway, looks like Boris will not allow an Indyref 2 anytime soon. I doubt England and Wales would even consider independence until Scotland gets the ball rolling. So we're all stuck together for the time being it looks whether we like it or not

The country that we think of as Scotland (ie ruled by one monarch with absolute power and not with a separate Pictland and separate western and island land and peoples) has now been part of the United Kingdom for around the same amount of time as it was ever truly "independent".  I'm not sure that history and a love for flagshagging is a valid reason on which to to base an argument for independence.

The argument will be based less on history and flagshagging but more on present day resentment many feel for Westminster.

I voted no last time around and despite the EU referendum would likely vote the same way again. The picture has significantly changed since 2014 due to Brexit though.

47/59 MPs from the SNP, along with 62% remain vote is a clear divergence in voting between an increasingly right wing England and increasingly left wing Scotland.

I voted No last and I'm not sure which way I'd vote if there's another referendum.

There's still a lot of unresolved and also unaddressed issues and I don't have much confidence that those issues will be dealt with properly during the course of another campaign so any vote for Yes is as much a shot in the dark as any vote for Leave was in 2016. It which case it comes down to whether or not I want to take that risk (and because of the nature of my job - eventually have a choice of moving to England or being made redundant) simply because the current Scottish government happens to be more socially democratic than the current UK government (albeit showing similar levels of incompetence in a numbr of areas).

superflyweight wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

MonkeyMan wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Perhaps Cornwall should secede? Perhaps the Kingdom of Wessex? Or the House of York? Good grief...

I appreciate your "Where does independence stop?" comment. But England, Scotland, Wales and a unified Ireland were all actually real countries long before the UK were they not?

Anyway, looks like Boris will not allow an Indyref 2 anytime soon. I doubt England and Wales would even consider independence until Scotland gets the ball rolling. So we're all stuck together for the time being it looks whether we like it or not

The country that we think of as Scotland (ie ruled by one monarch with absolute power and not with a separate Pictland and separate western and island land and peoples) has now been part of the United Kingdom for around the same amount of time as it was ever truly "independent".  I'm not sure that history and a love for flagshagging is a valid reason on which to to base an argument for independence.

The argument will be based less on history and flagshagging but more on present day resentment many feel for Westminster.

I voted no last time around and despite the EU referendum would likely vote the same way again. The picture has significantly changed since 2014 due to Brexit though.

47/59 MPs from the SNP, along with 62% remain vote is a clear divergence in voting between an increasingly right wing England and increasingly left wing Scotland.

I voted No last and I'm not sure which way I'd vote if there's another referendum.  

There's still a lot of unresolved and also unaddressed issues and I don't have much confidence that those issues will be dealt with properly during the course of another campaign so any vote for Yes is as much a shot in the dark as any vote for Leave was in 2016.  It which case it comes down to whether or not I want to take that risk (and because of the nature of my job - eventually have a choice of moving to England or being made redundant) simply because the current Scottish government happens to be more socially democratic than the current UK government (albeit showing similar levels of incompetence in a numbr of areas).  

You may not realise it but right there in your post is another case against remaining in a union. You fear a Yes vote returned would mean you having to move to England or face being made redundant. A company who is threatening such a move per chance should a Yes vote be returned? Holding a country to ransom says a lot about the desperate measures unionists will go to. If I may add here I think exactly the same things were said of companies moving out of the UK if Brexit was voted for too but I have yet to see that really materialize. At the end of the day it is each individuals choice how they wish to vote should IndyRef2 happen and that should be it. We do not need big brother companies supporting the union getting involved and exerting pressures to influence people.

Who said that any companies threatening to move to England are doing so purely to threaten voters to vote no in any daft referendum? Certainly not flyweight. You don't half invent things.

navyblueshorts wrote: Who said that any companies threatening to move to England are doing so purely to threaten voters to vote no in any daft referendum? Certainly not flyweight. You don't half invent things.

Well can you explain why super feels a vote for Yes may mean he faces a choice of redundancy or having to move to England to keep his job?

In 2014 there were a whole string of companies making these threats such as supermarkets Asda, Morrisons and other shops.

Threats? You mean companies safeguarding themselves.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote: Who said that any companies threatening to move to England are doing so purely to threaten voters to vote no in any daft referendum? Certainly not flyweight. You don't half invent things.

Well can you explain why super feels a vote for Yes may mean he faces a choice of redundancy or having to move to England to keep his job?

In 2014 there were a whole string of companies making these threats such as supermarkets Asda, Morrisons and other shops.

I don't have to explain. The fact is no company as far as you or I know, have threatened anyone w/ their jobs if they don't vote against any second Scottish independence referendum. Companies were suggesting (not threatening) that they might have to relocate to England if Scotland went independent. That's just a fact relating to their perceptions re. their businesses. Nothing to do w/ trying to force people to vote remain.

You can word it how you like but would like to point out that businessmen who own companies do have political views too. Look at Philip Green as an example - a raging Tory. To say every company making the claim they'd pull out of Scotland were looking after company interests I do not buy. After all it is a mighty sweeping announcement to make considering they (at that time) would not really know how an independent Scotland would operate.

People like Green are also accountable to a board. I've worked at board level of multiple companies and if there was even a suspicion that the CEO was making decisions of this magnitude based on personal politics, they'd be out.

Hang on, weren't you shouting about how business's were going to leave the UK if Brexit went through?

Would you rather they stated what could happen or just wait and up sticks as soon as the vote goes through?

It's the same with the argument over whether Faslane will lose a bunch of jobs as why would we have a major English defence hub in a different country???

all of it needs talking about, open and honestly so people can make their own informed decisions and how it will affect them. If you tell me i'm going to lose out on a wage because of X, Y and Z you better believe i'm checking it all out and seeing what I can do to minimise the effect it has to me as i'm sure everyone else would.

CaledonianCraig wrote:You can word it how you like but would like to point out that businessmen who own companies do have political views too. Look at Philip Green as an example - a raging Tory. To say every company making the claim they'd pull out of Scotland were looking after company interests I do not buy. After all it is a mighty sweeping announcement to make considering they (at that time) would not really know how an independent Scotland would operate.

I'm sorry, but that's laughable, albeit totally in line w/ your view that everything is a conspiracy against a 'free' Scotland. These companies aim to make money, not fart arse around making stupid political statements. Some of them might post views explaining their thoughts on Brexit impacts, but that's very different from the hard nosed decisions re. turnover, share prices etc.

Also, what Prawn said.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote: Who said that any companies threatening to move to England are doing so purely to threaten voters to vote no in any daft referendum? Certainly not flyweight. You don't half invent things.

Well can you explain why super feels a vote for Yes may mean he faces a choice of redundancy or having to move to England to keep his job?

In 2014 there were a whole string of companies making these threats such as supermarkets Asda, Morrisons and other shops.

I can explain it.

I work for a UK law firm (although we have offices all over the world) and am based in Scotland. Whilst a number of my colleagues have Scottish based clients (e.g. RBS, Lloyds and Standard Life) the work I do is primarly for clients based in England. A number of my colleagues are in the same boat as me simply because the English legal market is much bigger than the Scottish market. The fact that I look after clients based in another jurisdiction is unique in our firm as we don't for example, have Irish based lawyers being the primary client contacts for UK based clients and we don't have Australian lawyers as the primary contact for clients based in China. The Irish offices have their own cients, the Australian's have their clients and ditto with the Chinese. Their is some collaboration between offices, but the relationship with the client is as localised as possible. The UK is seen as one market and we are able to work closely with English clients, which just doesn't happen in other jurisdictions.

My clients have specifically said that should Scotland become independent that they would want their primary client contact to be based in England. There are a number of reasons for this (including something as banal as the hassle of potentially having to pay for my time in a different currency and the exchange rate risk that goes with that) and I believe them when they say it. That then leaves me in a position where I can't possibly generate the same income for the firm, will fail to meet my financial targets and will be made redundant. Best case scenario is that they offer voluntary redundancy with a decent package. The alternative would be to transfer to one of our English offices and uproot my family. That means that my wife would have to leave her job and try to find a new job in a new location.

Not a great time for either me or my wife to be job-hunting given the current situation. If it was me taking redundancy I'd be doing so at at a time where there would be a lot of other lawyers in Scotland in the same boat as me and looking for new jobs. Less than ideal and that's why I'd like a bit more than "we'll be fine" or Project Fear" when any difficult questions are asked about independence.

Honestly, the resemblances between indy and Brexit are striking.

Oops:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/border-guards-sandwiches-confiscated-brexit-b845171.html

navyblueshorts wrote:Oops:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/border-guards-sandwiches-confiscated-brexit-b845171.html

Still being sold as EU being nasty to us though.

lostinwales wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Oops:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/border-guards-sandwiches-confiscated-brexit-b845171.html

Still being sold as EU being nasty to us though.

Same as Scotland saying England is being nasty to them

Derbymanc wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Oops:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/border-guards-sandwiches-confiscated-brexit-b845171.html

Still being sold as EU being nasty to us though.

Same as Scotland saying England is being nasty to them

No it isn't. I'm no fan of the nationalist rhetoric from the Scots but these are in no way equivalent situations

I do love how unionist roll out the term nationalist or nationalism painting it as something poisonous - it really is hypocrisy of the highest order. Unionists are exactly the same - and worse if you ask me. The 'Rule Brittania' brigade are fierce BritNats. There is no two ways about it. In their idyllic world theirs is perfectly fine and normal and the purist way to be but any other nationality that is patriotic to their country and their beliefs that it should be a self0governing nation are painted as poisonous. Real pathetic.

They're all nationalists.

It's not a great basis on which to form a political philosophy.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I do love how unionist roll out the term nationalist or nationalism painting it as something poisonous - it really is hypocrisy of the highest order. Unionists are exactly the same - and worse if you ask me. The 'Rule Brittania' brigade are fierce BritNats. There is no two ways about it. In their idyllic world theirs is perfectly fine and normal and the purist way to be but any other nationality that is patriotic to their country and their beliefs that it should be a self0governing nation are painted as poisonous. Real pathetic.

Oh dear lord.

Aside from being completely wrong, I don't actually know many unionists who are nationalists but if thinking that helps you sleep at night Craig. The rule Britannia brigade as you label them tend to be English nationalists rather than unionists.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I do love how unionist roll out the term nationalist or nationalism painting it as something poisonous - it really is hypocrisy of the highest order. Unionists are exactly the same - and worse if you ask me. The 'Rule Brittania' brigade are fierce BritNats. There is no two ways about it. In their idyllic world theirs is perfectly fine and normal and the purist way to be but any other nationality that is patriotic to their country and their beliefs that it should be a self0governing nation are painted as poisonous. Real pathetic.

The state of this. I don't even know where to start.

Pr4wn wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Oops:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/border-guards-sandwiches-confiscated-brexit-b845171.html

Still being sold as EU being nasty to us though.

Same as Scotland saying England is being nasty to them

No it isn't. I'm no fan of the nationalist rhetoric from the Scots but these are in no way equivalent situations

Explain how Prawny

As far as I can see, it's one country saying they'd be better off without the other with no real evidence
And the union side saying, nope your better with us.

I'll admit I haven't been keeping up with it since the last referendum but i'd be interested to know more

superflyweight wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote: Who said that any companies threatening to move to England are doing so purely to threaten voters to vote no in any daft referendum? Certainly not flyweight. You don't half invent things.

Well can you explain why super feels a vote for Yes may mean he faces a choice of redundancy or having to move to England to keep his job?

In 2014 there were a whole string of companies making these threats such as supermarkets Asda, Morrisons and other shops.

I can explain it.  

I work for a UK law firm (although we have offices all over the world) and am based in Scotland.  Whilst a number of my colleagues have Scottish based clients (e.g. RBS, Lloyds and Standard Life) the work I do is primarly for clients based in England.  A number of my colleagues are in the same boat as me simply because the English legal market is much bigger than the Scottish market.  The fact that I look after clients based in another jurisdiction is unique in our firm as we don't for example, have Irish based lawyers being the primary client contacts for UK based clients and we don't have Australian lawyers as the primary contact for clients based in China.  The Irish offices have their own cients, the Australian's have their clients and ditto with the Chinese.  Their is some collaboration between offices, but the relationship with the client is as localised as possible.  The UK is seen as one market and we are able to work closely with English clients, which just doesn't happen in other jurisdictions.

My clients have specifically said that should Scotland become independent that they would want their primary client contact to be based in England.  There are a number of reasons for this (including something as banal as the hassle of potentially having to pay for my time in a different currency and the exchange rate risk that goes with that) and I believe them when they say it.  That then leaves me in a position where I can't possibly generate the same income for the firm, will fail to meet my financial targets and will be made redundant.  Best case scenario is that they offer voluntary redundancy with a decent package.  The alternative would be to transfer to one of our English offices and uproot my family.  That means that my wife would have to leave her job and try to find a new job in a new location.  

Not a great time for either me or my wife to be job-hunting given the current situation.  If it was me taking redundancy I'd be doing so at at a time where there would be a lot of other lawyers in Scotland in the same boat as me and looking for new jobs.  Less than ideal and that's why I'd like a bit more than "we'll be fine" or Project Fear" when any difficult questions are asked about independence.  

Fair enough but what you are told and what is an actual reason are different things. Bosses at companies can also have political beliefs which rings out from time to time and causes them to take stances. I'd be interested to know if your company has offices/branches in Europe which it still has in operation and if so why since they'd be using different currency to the GBP and fall into the same category an independent Scotland would. As you state yourself their reasoning is 'banal' not wishing to pay in a different currency and exchange rate - seems a real minor reason for taking such a major step especially since currency-wise nothing would change in the short-term of an independent Scotland.

Of course it is up to everyone to vote as they see fit for their own reasons should IndyRef2 come about but polls suggest far moe now and not going to be swayed by 'Project Fear' which has been watered down greatly now since 2014 and will need to invent new reasons for the case for the union as some from 2014 are now extinct.

You can't have doubts about independece without being labelled a Unionist in Scotland.

Derbymanc wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Oops:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/border-guards-sandwiches-confiscated-brexit-b845171.html

Still being sold as EU being nasty to us though.

Same as Scotland saying England is being nasty to them

No it isn't. I'm no fan of the nationalist rhetoric from the Scots but these are in no way equivalent situations

Explain how Prawny

As far as I can see, it's one country saying they'd be better off without the other with no real evidence
And the union side saying, nope your better with us.

I'll admit I haven't been keeping up with it since the last referendum but i'd be interested to know more

Massive difference being one is an independent country free to make its own decisions over Brexit and the other is not despite making a decision on Brexit but the opposite happening.

Why does this always devolve into crap arguments. What are the facts of the matter, why would an independent Scotland be better off now than when the vote was had and why is it better to stay together?

Can't remember who it was but the lawyer on here explained why for him and his firm, the union was better which is a solid argument for that point. I normally say vote for what would better yourself or for what you believe would better yourself but what are the actual facts within this argument.

I stated above and stand by it that it's the same crap as Brexit, a load of half truths used by either side to make their arguments better.

What have the EU said about an independent Scotland other than they'd have to get in line to rejoin (is that even the case anymore).

I love reading what you guys (and gals???) put about this as your all much more knowledgeable than me and I think it was Prawny baby that explained Brexit better for me so step it up ;-)

I'm not on about a decision over Brexit Craig, that's done and dusted no matter how much it had been changed and as part of the UK as a whole my personal feeling is you have to go with the majority (whether we should vote again is a different matter entirely).