How do we resolve the Brexit mess?

inbetween said:
I never understand these arguments.

I read on here every single day that the UK, a £2.7tn economy apparently cannot survive outside of the EU. And yet Scotland, a £250bn economy which is highly dependent on the UK can apparently survive outside of the UK? How?

Considering the facts, it cannot be true that the UK is screwed for leaving the EU whereas Scotland is not screwed if it left the UK. It can only be both or neither. With things as they stand today Scotland cannot afford to have a physical border on everything people and goods between Scotland and the rest of the UK, period.

Scotland does not have £1.5 trillion of viable oil reserves otherwise they'd be drilling that now. The SNP also has a party goal to decarbonise Scotland and drilling is surely opposite to achieving that? Or does climate change become less relevant when it comes to measures required to save your economy through poor decisions... ?
Click to expand...
The Republic of Ireland survives well enough in the EU outside the UK. As do other small countries. No reason to believe Scotland couldn't.
 
Chris in London said:
Flawed logic because you are not comparing like with like. You are assuming Scotland’s trading relationship with the rest of the world would replicate the UK’s which isn’t necessarily correct. If Scotland were to depart the UK and immediately join the EU they would be a long way from screwed.
Click to expand...
This is flawed logic.

Scotland will always depend upon the UK because the UK as an existing market is four times bigger than Europe because it's literally next door. The evidence of this is it's already a fact. There is no evidence of some phantom market where Scotland thrives as a result of massively increased EU trade.

The irony is if Scotland did leave the UK and joined the EU then the biggest single benefit that Scotland could ever gain from being in the EU is if the EU decided to strike a free trade deal with the UK... Then they would probably be better off but so would the UK.
 
blueparrot said:
The Republic of Ireland survives well enough in the EU outside the UK. As do other small countries. No reason to believe Scotland couldn't.
Click to expand...
If we consider the trade facts then by this logic the UK will also therefore survive absolutely fine outside of the EU so I think that's the end of this thread then.
 
inbetween said:
If we consider the trade facts then by this logic the UK will also therefore survive absolutely fine outside of the EU so I think that's the end of this thread then.
Click to expand...
No because the UK as a whole would be far better off inside the EU . but it isn't so the question is do Scots feel they would be better off as an independent country inside the EU . Polls suggest they are thinking they would.
Obviously other reasons too but that's one.
 
inbetween said:
This is flawed logic.

Scotland will always depend upon the UK because the UK as an existing market is four times bigger than Europe because it's literally next door. The evidence of this is it's already a fact. There is no evidence of some phantom market where Scotland thrives as a result of massively increased EU trade.

The irony is if Scotland did leave the UK and joined the EU then the biggest single benefit that Scotland could ever gain from being in the EU is if the EU decided to strike a free trade deal with the UK... Then they would probably be better off but so would the UK.
Click to expand...
No, you are still comparing apples and sausages. You said that if the UK leaving the EU would mean the UK is screwed, then as night follows day Scotland leaving the UK must mean Scotland is screwed.

This is a logical fallacy because there may be material distinctions between the two situations.

I was not addressing the economic case for Scotland to become independent or otherwise, and I am not in any way suggesting what the outcome would be for Scotland if it left the UK, I am simply pointing out the flaw in your logic.

The fact that you failed to distinguish between a criticism of your logic with the economic case for an independent Scotland makes me think this is not a discussion I will find productive.
 
Chris in London said:
No, you are still comparing apples and sausages. You said that if the UK leaving the EU would mean the UK is screwed, then as night follows day Scotland leaving the UK must mean Scotland is screwed.

This is a logical fallacy because there may be material distinctions between the two situations.

I was not addressing the economic case for Scotland to become independent or otherwise, and I am not in any way suggesting what the outcome would be for Scotland if it left the UK, I am simply pointing out the flaw in your logic.

The fact that you failed to distinguish between a criticism of your logic with the economic case for an independent Scotland makes me think this is not a discussion I will find productive.
Click to expand...
But it just remains true that Scotland trades most of the time with the UK and not with the EU. The only way in which Scotland would be better off is if whatever was lost with UK trade was replaced by increased trade with the EU. This is unlikely to happen because what has stopped it happening before? Scotland was already in the EU 5 years ago.

I just don't see how Scotland could be better off economically. The EU is not some lifeboat where you join, get free trade and everybody sings and dances. It's predominately a trade relationship and it doesn't really matter whether trade is done freely or not when that trade doesn't exist in the first place. Scotland would also have zero say in their other trade relationships, they couldn't for example decide to have a trade deal with their biggest partner the UK.

If I open a shop and have access to 600m customers then that's pointless if none of those 600m people want to buy the stuff in my shop. The fact that I can now offer free postage is sort of irrelevant. Would you choose that over selling to your biggest customer of 70m customers who do buy your stuff?
 
roubaixtuesday said:
But surely, Scotland would replicate the trading relationship with England that the EU has, so border at Carlisle, non tariff barriers to trade etc, which would totally knacker Scotland. What an I missing here?
Click to expand...
I don’t think you’re missing anything, but there is a world of difference between a chain of logic that says “if Y happens Y must follow” and a chain of reasoning based on experience and judgment.
 
One hopes so.

The case for European unity is stronger than ever. The USA has demonstrated it is an unreliable ally, and there is no other bloc we could sensibly adhere to. I always thought Brexit was a folly, largely based on an outdated view of the UK's significance in the world.

We realised that Splendid Isolation was untenable as far back as 1902, and we are much weaker, economically and militarily, than we were then. We need economic and military allies and the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement does not cut it. It's about as useful as the UK joining the National Trust, or the Pontefract and District Pigeon Fanciers Society.
 
If you are one of the 52%, how are you feeling today that European leaders are meeting today to discuss the future of Europe and even the issue of nuclear arms sharing described as a “watershed moment” and the UK is not even in the room? I hope you think it was all worth it.
 
Last edited:
BrianW said:
...

We realised that Splendid Isolation was untenable as far back as 1902, and we are much weaker, economically and militarily, than we were then. We need economic and military allies and the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement does not cut it. It's about as useful as the UK joining the National Trust, or the Pontefract and District Pigeon Fanciers Society.
Click to expand...
The National Trust, or the Pontefract and District Pigeon Fanciers Society would be less likely to renege on an agreement than the USA.
 
hampshireblue said:
If you are one of the 52%, how are you feeling today that European leaders are meeting today to discuss the future of Europe and even the issue of nuclear arms sharing described as a “watershed moment” and the UK is not even in the room? I hope you think it was all worth it.
Click to expand...
Of all the dire consequences of Brexit, not being involved in Europe's wanky, haphazard military planning is one we can probably live with.
Without the us leading and galvanising the effort I'd be surprised to see anything coherent emerge, and I doubt Putin is exactly shitting himself.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Of all the dire consequences of Brexit, not being involved in Europe's wanky, haphazard military planning is one we can probably live with.
Without the us leading and galvanising the effort I'd be surprised to see anything coherent emerge, and I doubt Putin is exactly shitting himself.
Click to expand...
Think they will find it easier to agree military planning without us.We will either join with what they agree or we won't. We definitely should, as alone we will become an irrelevance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top