BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

ballysmate

Stevo 666 wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Frankly we are all better of with a hung parliament, to stop any of the current crop of nutters achieving too much.

We really are not!

A GE will demonstrate the anger and contempt the electorate has with the current parliament.

It is going to be fantastic watching parliament facing up to the realisation that they were way out of touch with the electorate. The same process that the Conservative Party has done since the EU elections

Another benefit of Scottish independence (apart from not having to fund them any more) is that it will take 50-odd lefties out of the Westminister MP population. Bring on Indyref 2 ! :twisted:

Here you are again Stevo, accentuating the positives whilst others whinge.
A common theme on here.

First.Aspect

Surrey Commuter wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Me droning on...

You totally lost credibility with the last para.

Go on then. Explain why lopping off Scotland would help you. But bear in mind that the same arguments would therefore apply to Wales, Northern Ireland, the West country and most of the hilly bits Oop North you visit on bank holidays.

Why would the south east of England be better off without all the grotty bits of the UK?

You said losing Scotland would “sting a bit” this is wrong.

S.E on its own probably would be better off financially

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

I spend too long on here explaining why the UK being a net contributor is not necessarily a bad thing when it comes to the EU.

I have explained that you are wrong in your belief that Scotland is a net contributor to the UK, what more detail do you want.

I am ambivalent about the UK so really don’t care if it breaks up.

Where did I say Scotland is a net contributor to the UK? No, it isn't. But by that measure neither is England. We have a massive deficit, remember?

Coarsely, the Barnet formula adjusts how much various bits of the UK get of public spending, based on *changes"* in spending. And some of the assumptions underpinning it are looking a bit out of date.

The starting point for spending though was historically higher in Scotland and other rural areas of the UK due to inherently higher costs and that's nothing to do with the Barnet formula. It is presented as some strange formula that someone devised to give Scots 20% more for some reason. Of course that would never have happened. The distinction simply arose naturally by virtue of the cost of policies being applied across the UK.

On that basis, there is no difference at the outset between Scotland and any other rural region of the UK. Or any other region of the UK where loads of armed forces are dumped. I guess that the countries just had more national identify and there was an annual bun fight over funding, which the Barnet formula was supposed to avoid. I have a lot of sympathy with trying to avoid an argument over money with the Scots every April.

So you could tweak the Barnet formula and it would make some difference, but that wouldn't put much of a dent in the initial per capita spending differences.

If you don't object to things like the high cost of schooling in Cumbria, or additional expenses to get power and water to remote parts of Cornwall, then you also shouldn't object to public spending on average being higher in Scotland, Wales and NI than in England. I think the point is that it is not necessarily higher per capita in Edinburgh than in London, because it didn't need to be.

The only reason you could really object is if you see Scotland as being a different country than England and don't feel that English taxes should go anywhere other than England. (Okay, it is a different country, but we are part of the same state, or colloquially "country" as far as the rest of the world can see.) But in that case stop fishing here, let us have the last drips of oil, and refine what you import yourselves, take your army and air force training ranges away, stop leaving your warships here, build your own wind turbines to meet green targets and put your nuclear power stations somewhere else please.

That's roughly outline of the "we are all British" argument. Not very Daily Mail though I'm afraid.

coopster_the_1st

Shortfall wrote:

https://order-order.com/2019/10/23/guido-met-steve-bray/

Safe to say that Paul Staines won't be loved by many Cakestoppers but I found this funny nonetheless.

As per usual, remoaners don't like having done to them what they do to others

surrey_commuter

First Aspect wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Me droning on...

You totally lost credibility with the last para.

Go on then. Explain why lopping off Scotland would help you. But bear in mind that the same arguments would therefore apply to Wales, Northern Ireland, the West country and most of the hilly bits Oop North you visit on bank holidays.

Why would the south east of England be better off without all the grotty bits of the UK?

You said losing Scotland would “sting a bit” this is wrong.

S.E on its own probably would be better off financially

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

I spend too long on here explaining why the UK being a net contributor is not necessarily a bad thing when it comes to the EU.

I have explained that you are wrong in your belief that Scotland is a net contributor to the UK, what more detail do you want.

I am ambivalent about the UK so really don’t care if it breaks up.

Where did I say Scotland is a net contributor to the UK? No, it isn't. But by that measure neither is England. We have a massive deficit, remember?

Coarsely, the Barnet formula adjusts how much various bits of the UK get of public spending, based on *changes"* in spending. And some of the assumptions underpinning it are looking a bit out of date.

The starting point for spending though was historically higher in Scotland and other rural areas of the UK due to inherently higher costs and that's nothing to do with the Barnet formula. It is presented as some strange formula that someone devised to give Scots 20% more for some reason. Of course that would never have happened. The distinction simply arose naturally by virtue of the cost of policies being applied across the UK.

On that basis, there is no difference at the outset between Scotland and any other rural region of the UK. Or any other region of the UK where loads of armed forces are dumped. I guess that the countries just had more national identify and there was an annual bun fight over funding, which the Barnet formula was supposed to avoid. I have a lot of sympathy with trying to avoid an argument over money with the Scots every April.

So you could tweak the Barnet formula and it would make some difference, but that wouldn't put much of a dent in the initial per capita spending differences.

If you don't object to things like the high cost of schooling in Cumbria, or additional expenses to get power and water to remote parts of Cornwall, then you also shouldn't object to public spending on average being higher in Scotland, Wales and NI than in England. I think the point is that it is not necessarily higher per capita in Edinburgh than in London, because it didn't need to be.

The only reason you could really object is if you see Scotland as being a different country than England and don't feel that English taxes should go anywhere other than England. (Okay, it is a different country, but we are part of the same state, or colloquially "country" as far as the rest of the world can see.) But in that case stop fishing here, let us have the last drips of oil, and refine what you import yourselves, take your army and air force training ranges away, stop leaving your warships here, build your own wind turbines to meet green targets and put your nuclear power stations somewhere else please.

That's roughly outline of the "we are all British" argument. Not very Daily Mail though I'm afraid.

A full potato field on each shoulder.

The problem is that I just don’t care. I have written this more than once but you are too busy projecting prejudices onto me.

I don’t care about the UK, I don’t see myself as British, more English/European. As such I don’t care if I am propping up Scotland, Bulgaria, Cumbria, Greece or Sunderland.

This is all assuming that I earn more than about £50k a year or somebody is propping me up no matter whether I live in Knightsbridge or Cardiff.

Anyway I don’t have a vote on whether Scotland leaves the UK and really don’t care if they do or not. If they do wish to leave then I will wish them well.

bobmcstuff

First Aspect wrote:

Mmm. You all do get that I'm actually very strongly AGAINT Scottish independence, that I've lived here for 15 years and might have come across things like the Barnet formula? We'd need a separate thread to decide whether that's justified now or not, or whether it's any different from, say, overall flow of public funds to rural areas of England (Scotland is disproportionately rural).

The SNP do have some generally left leaning policies, that's true. However my read is that it's largely because they don't have to spend only what they bring in in tax in Scotland. And for the time being they can buy everyone cake and blame others for any shortage of cake. The electorate is wilfully gullible here as well.

I might be wrong but in an SNP independent Scotland, there would need to be a swing to pander to business, to stop mass exodus frankly, and hard choices would start to be made to withhold cake from the masses. With the promise of cake for the masses at a later time, obviously.

I voted in the Scottish referendum and I voted to remain for slightly similar reasons. I no longer live in Scotland however.

The similar reason is actually the same one I voted remain in the EU ref- the SNP are able to blame those nasty Westminster politicians for their problems, in the same way that Westminster politicians like to blame those nasty Brussels politicians for theirs

When we leave Europe and if Scotland leave the UK it will quickly be discovered that the problems were all of our own making and there will be nobody left to blame.

Although in England we'll still probably blame immigrants.

bobmcstuff

Also having moved back to England, politics feel a lot different to Scotland. If I moved back to Scotland tomorrow and there was another referendum I would definitely vote to leave the UK.

ballysmate

bobmcstuff wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Mmm. You all do get that I'm actually very strongly AGAINT Scottish independence, that I've lived here for 15 years and might have come across things like the Barnet formula? We'd need a separate thread to decide whether that's justified now or not, or whether it's any different from, say, overall flow of public funds to rural areas of England (Scotland is disproportionately rural).

The SNP do have some generally left leaning policies, that's true. However my read is that it's largely because they don't have to spend only what they bring in in tax in Scotland. And for the time being they can buy everyone cake and blame others for any shortage of cake. The electorate is wilfully gullible here as well.

I might be wrong but in an SNP independent Scotland, there would need to be a swing to pander to business, to stop mass exodus frankly, and hard choices would start to be made to withhold cake from the masses. With the promise of cake for the masses at a later time, obviously.

I voted in the Scottish referendum and I voted to remain for slightly similar reasons. I no longer live in Scotland however.

The similar reason is actually the same one I voted remain in the EU ref- the SNP are able to blame those nasty Westminster politicians for their problems, in the same way that Westminster politicians like to blame those nasty Brussels politicians for theirs

When we leave Europe and if Scotland leave the UK it will quickly be discovered that the problems were all of our own making and there will be nobody left to blame.

Although in England we'll still probably blame immigrants.

Too right. Those Sweaties coming down here taking our jobs.

ballysmate

bobmcstuff wrote:

Also having moved back to England, politics feel a lot different to Scotland. If I moved back to Scotland tomorrow and there was another referendum I would definitely vote to leave the UK.

I do find that strange.
The same things that would have made Scotland an economic basket case in '14 have not changed.

Stevo_666

Imposter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You seems to be very good at reading between the lines and jumping to the wrong conclusion. No idea where you get that from as I didn't say that. Try reading my post properly.

I'm just saying this stuff for you, so you don't have to. Thank me later..

I don't think I'll need to because you were talking bollox.

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

A full potato field on each shoulder.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Frankly we are all better of with a hung parliament, to stop any of the current crop of nutters achieving too much.

We really are not!

A GE will demonstrate the anger and contempt the electorate has with the current parliament.

It is going to be fantastic watching parliament facing up to the realisation that they were way out of touch with the electorate. The same process that the Conservative Party has done since the EU elections

Another benefit of Scottish independence (apart from not having to fund them any more) is that it will take 50-odd lefties out of the Westminister MP population. Bring on Indyref 2 ! :twisted:

Here you are again Stevo, accentuating the positives whilst others whinge.
A common theme on here.

And in a leap of centre leftie logic, apparently I'm advocating that this is done by lining them up against a wall and shooting them

ballysmate

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Anyway I don’t have a vote on whether Scotland leaves the UK and really don’t care if they do or not. If they do wish to leave then I will wish them well.

Does this new found belief in self determination stretch as far as UK citizens and the EU or is self determination only ok as long as it doesn't affect you?

imposter2.0

Stevo 666 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You seems to be very good at reading between the lines and jumping to the wrong conclusion. No idea where you get that from as I didn't say that. Try reading my post properly.

I'm just saying this stuff for you, so you don't have to. Thank me later..

I don't think I'll need to because you were talking bollox.

Like I say, I doing it so you don't have to..

First.Aspect

Surrey Commuter wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Me droning on...

You totally lost credibility with the last para.

Go on then. Explain why lopping off Scotland would help you. But bear in mind that the same arguments would therefore apply to Wales, Northern Ireland, the West country and most of the hilly bits Oop North you visit on bank holidays.

Why would the south east of England be better off without all the grotty bits of the UK?

You said losing Scotland would “sting a bit” this is wrong.

S.E on its own probably would be better off financially

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

I spend too long on here explaining why the UK being a net contributor is not necessarily a bad thing when it comes to the EU.

I have explained that you are wrong in your belief that Scotland is a net contributor to the UK, what more detail do you want.

I am ambivalent about the UK so really don’t care if it breaks up.

Where did I say Scotland is a net contributor to the UK? No, it isn't. But by that measure neither is England. We have a massive deficit, remember?

Coarsely, the Barnet formula adjusts how much various bits of the UK get of public spending, based on *changes"* in spending. And some of the assumptions underpinning it are looking a bit out of date.

The starting point for spending though was historically higher in Scotland and other rural areas of the UK due to inherently higher costs and that's nothing to do with the Barnet formula. It is presented as some strange formula that someone devised to give Scots 20% more for some reason. Of course that would never have happened. The distinction simply arose naturally by virtue of the cost of policies being applied across the UK.

On that basis, there is no difference at the outset between Scotland and any other rural region of the UK. Or any other region of the UK where loads of armed forces are dumped. I guess that the countries just had more national identify and there was an annual bun fight over funding, which the Barnet formula was supposed to avoid. I have a lot of sympathy with trying to avoid an argument over money with the Scots every April.

So you could tweak the Barnet formula and it would make some difference, but that wouldn't put much of a dent in the initial per capita spending differences.

If you don't object to things like the high cost of schooling in Cumbria, or additional expenses to get power and water to remote parts of Cornwall, then you also shouldn't object to public spending on average being higher in Scotland, Wales and NI than in England. I think the point is that it is not necessarily higher per capita in Edinburgh than in London, because it didn't need to be.

The only reason you could really object is if you see Scotland as being a different country than England and don't feel that English taxes should go anywhere other than England. (Okay, it is a different country, but we are part of the same state, or colloquially "country" as far as the rest of the world can see.) But in that case stop fishing here, let us have the last drips of oil, and refine what you import yourselves, take your army and air force training ranges away, stop leaving your warships here, build your own wind turbines to meet green targets and put your nuclear power stations somewhere else please.

That's roughly outline of the "we are all British" argument. Not very Daily Mail though I'm afraid.

A full potato field on each shoulder.

The problem is that I just don’t care. I have written this more than once but you are too busy projecting prejudices onto me.

I don’t care about the UK, I don’t see myself as British, more English/European. As such I don’t care if I am propping up Scotland, Bulgaria, Cumbria, Greece or Sunderland.

This is all assuming that I earn more than about £50k a year or somebody is propping me up no matter whether I live in Knightsbridge or Cardiff.

Anyway I don’t have a vote on whether Scotland leaves the UK and really don’t care if they do or not. If they do wish to leave then I will wish them well.

If you don't care what are you participating in this for then?

I suspect that if you earn £50k you are paying a bit more in tax than the £8.5k your government spends on you.

I've not accused you of prejudice, I've asked what underpins your view. Not much, possibly.

orraloon

So, what are the benefits to the dUK of these ToryBoys driving this exit of the EU? Economic, financial, social? Just seeking some actual real numbers. Never mind the bolloxs. Anyone?

First.Aspect

orraloon wrote:

So, what are the benefits to the dUK of these ToryBoys driving this exit of the EU? Economic, financial, social? Just seeking some actual real numbers. Never mind the bolloxs. Anyone?

I'd point you towards the Government's own impact assessment, but that was not meant to be actually read by anyone and besides someone in the treasury voted remain so it is tainted. Or the BoE's assessment but Mark Carney's Canadian so what does he know. Or the IMF's but they include some Europeans, so they are biased.

Your only option is to listen to Michael Gove.

Stevo_666

Imposter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You seems to be very good at reading between the lines and jumping to the wrong conclusion. No idea where you get that from as I didn't say that. Try reading my post properly.

I'm just saying this stuff for you, so you don't have to. Thank me later..

I don't think I'll need to because you were talking bollox.

Like I say, I doing it so you don't have to..

Fair enough, you're much better at talkng bollox than me.

bobmcstuff

Ballysmate wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Also having moved back to England, politics feel a lot different to Scotland. If I moved back to Scotland tomorrow and there was another referendum I would definitely vote to leave the UK.

I do find that strange.
The same things that would have made Scotland an economic basket case in '14 have not changed.

Yeah except now I'm embarrassed to be English, I wasn't in 2014.

bobmcstuff

Ballysmate wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Mmm. You all do get that I'm actually very strongly AGAINT Scottish independence, that I've lived here for 15 years and might have come across things like the Barnet formula? We'd need a separate thread to decide whether that's justified now or not, or whether it's any different from, say, overall flow of public funds to rural areas of England (Scotland is disproportionately rural).

The SNP do have some generally left leaning policies, that's true. However my read is that it's largely because they don't have to spend only what they bring in in tax in Scotland. And for the time being they can buy everyone cake and blame others for any shortage of cake. The electorate is wilfully gullible here as well.

I might be wrong but in an SNP independent Scotland, there would need to be a swing to pander to business, to stop mass exodus frankly, and hard choices would start to be made to withhold cake from the masses. With the promise of cake for the masses at a later time, obviously.

I voted in the Scottish referendum and I voted to remain for slightly similar reasons. I no longer live in Scotland however.

The similar reason is actually the same one I voted remain in the EU ref- the SNP are able to blame those nasty Westminster politicians for their problems, in the same way that Westminster politicians like to blame those nasty Brussels politicians for theirs

When we leave Europe and if Scotland leave the UK it will quickly be discovered that the problems were all of our own making and there will be nobody left to blame.

Although in England we'll still probably blame immigrants.

Too right. Those Sweaties coming down here taking our jobs.

I'm very English...

First.Aspect

bobmcstuff wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Also having moved back to England, politics feel a lot different to Scotland. If I moved back to Scotland tomorrow and there was another referendum I would definitely vote to leave the UK.

I do find that strange.
The same things that would have made Scotland an economic basket case in '14 have not changed.

Yeah except now I'm embarrassed to be English, I wasn't in 2014.

Ah. I see. So you'd make a protest vote? That'll help.

imposter2.0

Stevo 666 wrote:

Fair enough, you're much better at talkng bollox than me.

You don't give yourself enough credit...

Stevo_666

Imposter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Fair enough, you're much better at talkng bollox than me.

You don't give yourself enough credit...

I dont need to. You've demonstrated above how good you are at it, I can't compete. Similarly, I'm no competition when it come to not reading posts properly

imposter2.0

Stevo 666 wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Fair enough, you're much better at talkng bollox than me.

You don't give yourself enough credit...

I dont need to. You've demonstrated above how good you are at it, I can't compete. Similarly, I'm no competition when it come to not reading posts properly

There you go again, mr modest...

ballysmate

First Aspect wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Also having moved back to England, politics feel a lot different to Scotland. If I moved back to Scotland tomorrow and there was another referendum I would definitely vote to leave the UK.

I do find that strange.
The same things that would have made Scotland an economic basket case in '14 have not changed.

Yeah except now I'm embarrassed to be English, I wasn't in 2014.

Ah. I see. So you'd make a protest vote? That'll help.

A protest vote and keep the option of moving back south when it goes t1ts up. embarrassed or not.

First.Aspect

No worse than me bailing for retirement in Mallorca I suppose.

ballysmate

It would be akin to voting for Brexit and then buggering off to Mallorca.

First.Aspect

Ballysmate wrote:

It would be akin to voting for Brexit and then buggering off to Mallorca.

Oh when you put it like that it sounds dastardly.

For the record I voted no and remain. Because I'm not an innumerate xenophobe. And let's face it, we can argue the toss as much as we want about Brexit but all it really came down to is good old not liking foreigners. A fine British tradition.

The indyref is no different.

pinno

orraloon wrote:

So, what are the benefits to the dUK of these ToryBoys driving this exit of the EU? Economic, financial, social? Just seeking some actual real numbers. Never mind the bolloxs. Anyone?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Research_Group

Wayne Plunger

Just going off tangent a minute, yesterday it took two hours to disembark the Santander - Plymouth ferry.

Have never seen "border force" operatives at Plymouth scanning passports before but this was the protocol, in the past just flash your UK passport and get a cheery wave.

Also Guardia Civil at Santander port checking every vehicle, usually 1 in 50 if they can be bothered, portent of things to come?

Jez mon

Stevo 666 wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

The interesting part is working out how the polls turn into seats right?

I suspect that upon an election being called, a sufficiently soft position on brexit or a policy to have another referendum would result in labour climbing. The Conservatives were the grown up and responsible party, but have let a internal issue grind biritish politics to a halt for 3 years. What do they have to pursuade floating voters? Not a lot.

it might be that whilst they're generally unappealing the alternative is far worse....

Yep. If someone on here can point to a better alternative that has a hope in hell of getting elected, then we can consider that.

How about, you know, reading the manefestos and making a decision based on the policies of the parties.

Or do you actually think the Conservatives have done a good job. I'm not asking a hypothetical would Labour or some kind of coalition done better here either.