Brexit Schmexit

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

the report talks about the impact over a 15 year period. I think it's more likely that if they talk about a 5% drop in growth, they're saying that rather than growing by e.g. 35% over that 15 years GDP will only grow by 30%.

works out at the same thing.

But you're right, it's defo over a period of time (which I mentioned in my first post back at feral).

While brexit is the clearly worse financial alternative, the actual impact (if spread evenly over time, which it might not be) is quite small on a yearly basis, almost at the point of insignificance (even for the places most impacted).

I'm actually quite stunned by how small. I'd have thought it would be much bigger.

[gary1979666]

21 minutes ago, LJS said:

the report talks about the impact over a 15 year period. I think it's more likely that if they talk about a 5% drop in growth, they're saying that rather than growing by e.g. 35% over that 15 years GDP will only grow by 30%.

Yup, that's what I said.  I showed it for 1 year to explain to Feral.  But show it over 15 years and the gap gets bigger.  But as Neil says, it's not that big. 

Would prefer we didn't do it and had no gap, but sadly not to be.

[feral chile]

21 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

I think that’s a bit of a generalisation, many entrepreneurs work incredibly hard.

And many employ others.

[feral chile]

3 hours ago, russycarps said:

 

Well that's it, I'm done. After 10 years on this forum, the persona I've created is of......an accountant.

FFS!

 

Oops sorry mixed you up with gary. Don't worry I mixed up a woman I work with and an old manager from years ago. They both have blonde bobs. I'm clearly face blind.

Not sure what my excuse is here though

 

[feral chile]

31 minutes ago, LJS said:

the report talks about the impact over a 15 year period. I think it's more likely that if they talk about a 5% drop in growth, they're saying that rather than growing by e.g. 35% over that 15 years GDP will only grow by 30%.

Yes that's what I took it to mean.

[eFestivals]

23 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

it's not that big.

if they've got their forecast right.

There was Mogg slagging off forecasts, when to my mind these understate the effect of a hard brexit.

[Ommadawn]

3 hours ago, russycarps said:

 

Well that's it, I'm done. After 10 years on this forum, the persona I've created is of......an accountant.

FFS!

 

You're not just an accountant Russy, you're a grumpy accountant!!

[gary1979666]

2 hours ago, feral chile said:

Oops sorry mixed you up with gary. Don't worry I mixed up a woman I work with and an old manager from years ago. They both have blonde bobs. I'm clearly face blind.

Not sure what my excuse is here though

 

Poor Russy, not only did you mix him up with an accountant, but a Tory accountant at that.  He must be livid!

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, gary1979666 said:

Poor Russy, not only did you mix him up with an accountant, but a Tory accountant at that.  He must be livid!

as it happens, I once got to know what Russy's real name was (tho I forget now). Anyway, I decided that meant he worked in IT.

He'd probably prefer the accountant.

[eFestivals]

gotta laugh at Sturgeon.

This is the woman who went all out for the EU's common standards, who is now kicking off because the UK wants common standards.

[LJS]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

gotta laugh at Sturgeon.

This is the woman who went all out for the EU's common standards, who is now kicking off because the UK wants common standards.

I take it this is to do with her expecting the government to honour the terms of the devolution settlement.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, LJS said:

I take it this is to do with her expecting the government to honour the terms of the devolution settlement.

yep.

Cos it's about power for Scotland, and fuck-all attachment to the benefits of common standards and all that brings.

I wouldn't really expect anything else of her, I'm merely pointing the bullshit she sells.

[LJS]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

yep.

Cos it's about power for Scotland, and fuck-all attachment to the benefits of common standards and all that brings.

I wouldn't really expect anything else of her, I'm merely pointing the bullshit she sells.

Yeah, a first minister looking after her country's interests would be quite unremarkable anywhere else...but when it's the SNP different rules apply.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

Yeah, a first minister looking after her country's interests would be quite unremarkable anywhere else...but when it's the SNP different rules apply.

The 'interests' being *HER* interests and not the country's interests - is my point.

Cos if it's in Scotland's interests to have common standards with the EU - something Sturgeon has argued is vital to it's prosperity - then it cannot be different for the much more important to Scotland economy of the UK.

If you think there's the country's interests in her inconsistency, you'll have to tell me how.

Edited February 23, 2018 by eFestivals

[LJS]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

The 'interests' being *HER* interests and not the country's interests - is my point.

Cos if it's in Scotland's interests to have common standards with the EU - something Sturgeon has argued is vital to it's prosperity - then it cannot be different for the much more important to Scotland economy of the UK.

If you think there's the country's interests in her inconsistency, you'll have to tell me how.

There is absolutely nothing preventing Holyrood & Westminster agreeing common standards where it is in their mutual interests to do so. It is not the same thing as Westminster dictating the standards for everyone by riding roughshod over the devolution settlement.

[Comfy Bean]

8 hours ago, LJS said:

Yeah, a first minister looking after her country's interests would be quite unremarkable anywhere else...but when it's the SNP different rules apply.

It’s almost as if Scotland voted against Brexit in each of the 32 local authority counts.

Perhaps our first minister should just ignore that :-)

To be clear, I accept the 32/32 counts for nothing under the current arrangements.

[zahidf]

 

[eFestivals]

14 hours ago, LJS said:

There is absolutely nothing preventing Holyrood & Westminster agreeing common standards where it is in their mutual interests to do so. It is not the same thing as Westminster dictating the standards for everyone by riding roughshod over the devolution settlement.

so with this "agreeing", is that with them as equals?

Just asking for a friend.

[LJS]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

so with this "agreeing", is that with them as equals?

Just asking for a friend.

in areas where power is devolved. e.g. fishing I would certainly think they should negotiate as equals.

We all know they aren't equals...Scotland is much better (as will be clearly demonstrated at Murrayfield this afternoon!)

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, LJS said:

in areas where power is devolved. e.g. fishing I would certainly think they should negotiate as equals.

 because you're ten times more important than someone in England, perchance..?

[LJS]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 because you're ten times more important than someone in England, perchance..?

thanks.

[Comfy Bean]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 because you're ten times more important than someone in England, perchance..?

Can you describe your understanding of the word “ devolved “ that was contained in the LJS post you quoted with the above response. Please.

[LJS]

30 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

so with this "agreeing", is that with them as equals?

Just asking for a friend.

Are Britain & the EU negotiating as equals?

Je pose la question pour un ami.

 

 

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

Can you describe your understanding of the word “ devolved “ that was contained in the LJS post you quoted with the above response. Please.

those were powers that were devolved while knowing that other powers had been given to Brussels and so weren't included.

On the basis of that it shouldn't necessarily follow that what is returned to Brussels should go to Scotland. The very fact that these powers had previously been held by the 'greater' power of Brussels in fact says they should go to Westminster and not holyrood. 

And nothing about 'devolved' says the tail should wag the dog, or that democratic principles should be undermined.

(and the SNP love Brussels, where power of members states is not equal).

I'm pointing out the logical inconsistencies of the SNP towards the actual thing under discussion, which you want to squirrel with 'because Scotland'.

'because Scotland' doesn't disprove the intellectual flip-flop towards beneficial trade measures that the SNP has. The fact of their flip-flop proves their flip-flop. 'because scotland' is the very reason for that flip-flop, but it's still a flip-flop.

[eFestivals]

Just now, LJS said:

Are Britain & the EU negotiating as equals?

nope. They might pretend that they're negotiating as equals, but the reality is that the power is relative to size.

Now, there's a thing, eh?