One Student Killed, One Critically Injured in Collision with Russian’s Maserati: Na Jomtien

[webfact]

Scottish minister calls for clarity over UK single market status

 

Scotland's economy secretary has said the Conservative government should indicate whether it wants the UK to stay in the single market after Brexit.

 

Keith Brown believes it is "untenable" to maintain silence on the issue. He was speaking six months on from June's referendum which saw UK voters back leaving the European Union.

 

In response to Mr Brown's call, a UK government spokeswoman said the United Kingdom would "continue to be a global leader of free trade".

 

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38432155

 

-- © Copyright BBC 2016-12-26

[Rob8891]

In other words May's shower still haven't got a clue about what to do. They just turn out another smorgasbord of meaningless platitudes in the hope that the public will lap them all up.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, Rob8891 said:

In other words May's shower still haven't got a clue about what to do. They just turn out another smorgasbord of meaningless platitudes in the hope that the public will lap them all up.

 

And how did you come by this wonderful piece of spot on totally correct information?

 

Are you a member of the Dept for Brexit? Perhaps a Cabinet Minister with "special knowledge" of what is happening? Perhaps Boris Johnson's alter ego?

 

AFAIR the government said fairly early on that they would not be releasing the information in bits and pieces but the would release the whole package at one time.

 

Or are you one of those people who just make up their own stories and make the "facts" fit the story?

[elgordo38]

4 hours ago, Rob8891 said:

In other words May's shower still haven't got a clue about what to do. They just turn out another smorgasbord of meaningless platitudes in the hope that the public will lap them all up.

Which they do so predictable. 

[Rob8891]

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

And how did you come by this wonderful piece of spot on totally correct information?

 

Are you a member of the Dept for Brexit? Perhaps a Cabinet Minister with "special knowledge" of what is happening? Perhaps Boris Johnson's alter ego?

 

AFAIR the government said fairly early on that they would not be releasing the information in bits and pieces but the would release the whole package at one time.

 

Or are you one of those people who just make up their own stories and make the "facts" fit the story?

Follow the news there closely and you'll see how they continually contradict each other, ignore the fact that it is not they who have the upper hand in the eventual settlement, etc etc. No need to make up "facts", it's all there for people to see. No plans...They never had any in the first place, just a bunch of old Etonians jostling for a better place at the trough. They still have no idea of where they are going, hence not releasing any information. Surely no one is fooled by that last item?

[Srikcir]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

the United Kingdom would "continue to be a global leader of free trade".

Not sure what global leader of free trade means but in terms of export value UK in 2015 ranked 9th between 8th place France and 11th place Italy. Hardly a leader but certainly a major contributor to free trade. China placed 1st followed by the US, followed by Germany.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/264623/leading-export-countries-worldwide/

 

[Baerboxer]

25 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Not sure what global leader of free trade means but in terms of export value UK in 2015 ranked 9th between 8th place France and 11th place Italy. Hardly a leader but certainly a major contributor to free trade. China placed 1st followed by the US, followed by Germany.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/264623/leading-export-countries-worldwide/

 

 

I don't think they meant "leader" in terms of actual value exported but rather in the context of supporting trade without barriers and restrictions.

 

However, it's always been clear that the Tories have no idea about how to handle Brexit and can't agree among themselves on much anything. They just want to hang on in there and are hoping it will all work itself out and "be alright on the night".

 

The SNP have only one agenda item - which is to become a one party independent country with themselves firmly in charge. Their interest in the EU is subordinate to their agenda. They, especially their leader, has already shown they can't be trusted and are likely to pass any info through to the EU negotiators. So even if there was a plan, they'd be the last people to be told.

 

[nausea]

I must agrèe, either do it, and take the sheet that comes with that, or shut up. I must admit I was against it, but this nimby pamby shuffling around gets on my nerves. 

[lungbing]

And as for the Scots, they will do whatever the UK does because they are still part of it, and a very minor part at that.

[Khun Han]

3 hours ago, Rob8891 said:

Follow the news there closely and you'll see how they continually contradict each other, ignore the fact that it is not they who have the upper hand in the eventual settlement, etc etc. No need to make up "facts", it's all there for people to see. No plans...They never had any in the first place, just a bunch of old Etonians jostling for a better place at the trough. They still have no idea of where they are going, hence not releasing any information. Surely no one is fooled by that last item?

 

Actually, there are less public school-educated ministers in the current government than in any since the one formed after the war in 1945.

[Khon Kaen Dave]

As far as i understand,Scotland is not a sovereign country,and,like it or not,is part of the united kingdom.They can thank James the 6th of Scotland/1st of England for that.The unification of Scotland and England can never be broken.In the immortal words of Mel Gibson "they will never take our freedom" well,in cases like this Mel,you are totally wrong.

[billd766]

5 hours ago, Rob8891 said:

Follow the news there closely and you'll see how they continually contradict each other, ignore the fact that it is not they who have the upper hand in the eventual settlement, etc etc. No need to make up "facts", it's all there for people to see. No plans...They never had any in the first place, just a bunch of old Etonians jostling for a better place at the trough. They still have no idea of where they are going, hence not releasing any information. Surely no one is fooled by that last item?

 

So, like the rest of us, you have no idea.

 

If you have any actual facts instead of suppositions, thoughts etc then please share them with us all.

 

If not then it is just your opinion against mine.

 

I personally have no idea what the Brexit team are doing or have come up with so far and AFAIC that is what they get paid to do.

 

The PM said quite clearly a couple of months ago that NO information will be released until the government is ready to do so so therefore I for one don't expect dribs and drabs to come out just to keep people happy.

 

Of course there was no plan B in the first place because the government didn't expect to lose in the referendum. Why else do you think that Dave Cameron resigned and George Osborne was sacked?

 

They screwed up big time but at least DC fell on his sword whereas Osborne was fired.

 

They have only had less than 5 months to change the government, and make a new department from nothing, then come up with a plan that has a fair chance of success.

 

Anybody can carp and criticise, but very few can actually not only talk the talk (as you do) but walk the walk as well.

 

Do you think you could do better? If so, then send your 100% foolproof plan to the UK government.

 

I know that I can't do better, which is why I leave it to the government to sort out. That is what part of my income tax goes towards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[7by7]

7 hours ago, Rob8891 said:

Follow the news there closely and you'll see how they continually contradict each other, ignore the fact that it is not they who have the upper hand in the eventual settlement, etc etc. No need to make up "facts", it's all there for people to see. No plans...They never had any in the first place, just a bunch of old Etonians jostling for a better place at the trough. They still have no idea of where they are going, hence not releasing any information. Surely no one is fooled by that last item?

 

Living 'there', i.e. in the UK, I do follow the UK news; probably with access to more sources with varying political stances than people in Thailand.

 

Various politicians from all parties, usually remain supporters, like Mr. Brown repeatedly get up onto their hind legs and make various statements about what they think the government should and should not do. But they do not represent the government nor the government's views; they do not dictate strategy to the government. 

 

May and her government are not continually contradicting each other. As it says in the article linked to in the OP (did you read all of it?)  

Quote

"The prime minister has repeatedly made clear that we want to ensure British companies have the maximum freedom to trade with and operate in the single market.

 

What May and her government have not yet said is how they intend to do, and what concessions they will make, in order to achieve this.

 

Which is the only sensible approach at this time as negotiations have not even started yet.

 

To give a very simple comparison; only a fool says to a vendor in a market "I may be offering you only 200 baht to start with, but will pay 1000 baht if you want!"

[Mansell]

12 hours ago, Khon Kaen Dave said:

As far as i understand,Scotland is not a sovereign country,and,like it or not,is part of the united kingdom.They can thank James the 6th of Scotland/1st of England for that.The unification of Scotland and England can never be broken.

You are probably wrong about this. The next referendum will release Scotland from Whitehall. The first one failed because basically most people are afraid of change and the unknown. But minds change after a couple years to think about it all. Eventually Wales and N. Ireland will go their own way as well. 

"The only thing that is constant is change."

[Khon Kaen Dave]

i understood that although Scotland has its own parliament,it still has to abide by the main parliament in England.The problems would be massive if they were not part of the united kingdom,Currency,passports????? Prescription charges,And the payments that England apparently affords Scotland.Silly things like would they lose the crown jewels,because they belong to Britain.If independant,would they create a monarch or a presidency.What about property owned by English people in Scotland? Would the rating system change,as they would now,technically be owned by foreigners.What about,British aristocracy that have titles,knighthoods in scotland,would these still be recognised in England, and visa versa.Wouldn these problems also apply to N.Ireland and Wales if they were to split from the united kingdom in the future?

Very confusing.

[Khon Kaen Dave]

Just a thought.Like any referendum,wouldnt Whitehall have to ratify the result? And what would happen if they went against it? Could Scotland declare UDI as Ian Smith did.And technically wouldnt that be a reason for our two countries to go to war? What a ridiculous situation.I think that Mel Gibson should be brought to Trafalgar Square and be publicly Hung Drawn and Quartered and his body cut up and distributed to the far corners of Scotland,England,Wales and Northern Ireland as a warning to these upstarts who even think about independence!

Peasant Hating Dave.

 

 

Sent from my soap box using a very loud voice

[Briggsy]

The SNP have one over-riding agenda. (The clue is in the party's name). Their response on every single issue is designed to push this issue. They will succeed, to a large extent, except on defence, at some point, don't know when. The cat is out of the bag now.

 

However, on this issue, and every other issue, they would completely reverse their position overnight if they calculated it would hasten Scottish independence.

[7by7]

7 hours ago, Khon Kaen Dave said:

i understood that although Scotland has its own parliament,it still has to abide by the main parliament in England.The problems would be massive if they were not part of the united kingdom,Currency,passports????? Prescription charges,And the payments that England apparently affords Scotland.Silly things like would they lose the crown jewels,because they belong to Britain.If independant,would they create a monarch or a presidency.What about property owned by English people in Scotland? Would the rating system change,as they would now,technically be owned by foreigners.What about,British aristocracy that have titles,knighthoods in scotland,would these still be recognised in England, and visa versa.Wouldn these problems also apply to N.Ireland and Wales if they were to split from the united kingdom in the future?

Very confusing.

 

Although Westminster is in England, the Westminster parliament is the UK's parliament.

 

Scottish MPs at Westminster have always been able to make and amend laws in Scotland since the union of the two parliaments in 1707. Are you aware that English, Northern Irish and Welsh MPs cannot vote on Scottish only matters, but Scottish MPs can vote on all matters, including those which only effect England, Northern Ireland and/or Wales?

 

Are you also aware that Scotland has a different legal system to that of England and Wales; as does Northern Ireland?

 

Since devolution the Scottish parliament at Edinburgh has powers over domestic Scottish matters, including criminal and civil law in Scotland. It has no power over UK wide matters and UK foreign policy; though, of course, Scottish MPs at Westminster can and do vote on these matters. What are the powers of the Scottish Parliament?

 

Of course, were Scotland, or Northern Ireland or Wales or even England come to that, leave the UK then there would have to be some sort of transitional period whilst those matters you mention, and others, are sorted out. But there is a precedent when what is now the Republic of Ireland left the UK to became independent in 1921.

 

I suspect, though, that, unlike the RoI, Scotland would remain part of the Commonwealth and retain the monarchy.

 

5 hours ago, Khon Kaen Dave said:

Just a thought.Like any referendum,wouldnt Whitehall have to ratify the result? And what would happen if they went against it? Could Scotland declare UDI as Ian Smith did.And technically wouldnt that be a reason for our two countries to go to war? What a ridiculous situation.I think that Mel Gibson should be brought to Trafalgar Square and be publicly Hung Drawn and Quartered and his body cut up and distributed to the far corners of Scotland,England,Wales and Northern Ireland as a warning to these upstarts who even think about independence!

Peasant Hating Dave.

 

 

Sent from my soap box using a very loud voice

 

Now you are being silly.

 

Are you genuinely inquisitive, or just trolling?

[7by7]

5 hours ago, Briggsy said:

The SNP have one over-riding agenda. (The clue is in the party's name). Their response on every single issue is designed to push this issue. They will succeed, to a large extent, except on defence, at some point, don't know when. The cat is out of the bag now.

 

However, on this issue, and every other issue, they would completely reverse their position overnight if they calculated it would hasten Scottish independence.

 

The big question is whether the Scottish people really want independence!

 

As I said above, in the referendum only 36.5% of those eligible to vote voted for independence.

 

In the 2015 general election the SNP received 50.0% of the Scottish vote with a turn out of 71.1%. Which means that 35.5% of those eligible to vote voted for them.

 

In the 2016 Scottish parliament elections, the SNP received 46.5% of the vote with a turn out of just 55.6%. Which means that only 25.9% of those eligible to vote voted SNP.

 

When you consider that those committed to Scottish independence are the most likely to have voted in the referendum and the two elections since, it seems that active support for Scottish independence in Scotland is falling.

 

The significant difference in turn out certainly shows that a sizeable percentage of Scottish people think that electing their MSP to the Scottish parliament is less important than electing their MP to Westminster.

 

[daveAustin]

9 hours ago, Mansell said:

You are probably wrong about this. The next referendum will release Scotland from Whitehall. The first one failed because basically most people are afraid of change and the unknown. But minds change after a couple years to think about it all. Eventually Wales and N. Ireland will go their own way as well. 

"The only thing that is constant is change."

 

One can only hope. I have been dreaming of an independent England for as long as I can remember. People from the rest of the UK think the UK is mostly the will of the English and England alone. Reality is it was thrust onto them as it was everyone else. I personally cannot abide all the whining, so let's all stand on our own two-feet; no subsidies, no bitterness, just get on with it.

 

... back to the world of dreams, I do believe the Scots are less willing than before their ref, which is a shame, and there would be hardly any willing in Wales at all. How could they prop themselves up for one? NI would sooner go independent than re-unify with Eire (which I would also like to see), which is even less likely again, plus they also spurned their last ref.

 

As for the op: Scottish minister calls for clarity over UK single market status... you will be told when they are good and ready, which has been the MO from day one.

[rott]

9 hours ago, Mansell said:

You are probably wrong about this. The next referendum will release Scotland from Whitehall. The first one failed because basically most people are afraid of change and the unknown. But minds change after a couple years to think about it all. Eventually Wales and N. Ireland will go their own way as well. 

"The only thing that is constant is change."

What next referendum?? That is just hot air and nonsense. The majority in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales wish to remain part of the UK whatever Sturgeon and her "Friends of Sinn Fein" mob say.

[jpinx]

32 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

The big question is whether the Scottish people really want independence!

 

As I said above, in the referendum only 36.5% of those eligible to vote voted for independence.

 

In the 2015 general election the SNP received 50.0% of the Scottish vote with a turn out of 71.1%. Which means that 35.5% of those eligible to vote voted for them.

 

In the 2016 Scottish parliament elections, the SNP received 46.5% of the vote with a turn out of just 55.6%. Which means that only 25.9% of those eligible to vote voted SNP.

 

When you consider that those committed to Scottish independence are the most likely to have voted in the referendum and the two elections since, it seems that active support for Scottish independence in Scotland is falling.

 

The significant difference in turn out certainly shows that a sizeable percentage of Scottish people think that electing their MSP to the Scottish parliament is less important than electing their MP to Westminster.

 

That's a nice numbers dig, but the reality is that the only numbers that matter are the ones who actually voted, unless there is some condition attached as there was in a prior Scottish Independence "referendum" requiring a vote in excess of a certain proportion of the electorate.

 

SNP *are* losing ground in Scotland, but the next Scottish assembly vote isn't for quite a few years.  The question of whether the scottish people want independence is heavily masked by the growing dislike of the SNP.  Making predictions in this climate is difficult verging on impossible.  It's going to take either a Scottish Assembly vote, or another referendum, to produce a result worth looking at.  Given that Westminster has ruled out another binding referendum, it looks like Scotland will continue in this political twilight-zone till 2021. 

 

All the questions of Scotland being in the EFTA and UK not are irrelevant since Scotland can not meet the requirements for that as a stand alone "state".  They haven't managed to balance their books since they came into power.

 

Brexit is going ahead for the UK as it exists today.  Speculation about other options are just political chaff and diversionary tactics trying to throw the progress of Brexit off track and somehow pick up some political advantage from the train-wreck -- a very old tactic, and very destructive.  Supporters of the UK really need to get behind the process and make sure UK gets the best deal possible. 

[Laughing Gravy]

31 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Supporters of the UK really need to get behind the process and make sure UK gets the best deal possible. 

So very true and as Mervyn King has recently said https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/26/mervyn-king-britain-should-be-more-upbeat-about-brexit and I have been saying this since the referendum in June. I am happy for Scotland to have its independence, same as NI and wales if they want it. I would be very worried as to why Scotland wants to stay in the EU and can they contribute. Scotland want out of a 400 year old partnership but are happy to stay in a 40 year one. Well if that's what they want give it to them.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Laughing Gravy

[RuamRudy]

13 hours ago, jpinx said:

That's a nice numbers dig, but the reality is that the only numbers that matter are the ones who actually voted, unless there is some condition attached as there was in a prior Scottish Independence "referendum" requiring a vote in excess of a certain proportion of the electorate.

 

SNP *are* losing ground in Scotland, but the next Scottish assembly vote isn't for quite a few years.  The question of whether the scottish people want independence is heavily masked by the growing dislike of the SNP.  Making predictions in this climate is difficult verging on impossible.  It's going to take either a Scottish Assembly vote, or another referendum, to produce a result worth looking at.  Given that Westminster has ruled out another binding referendum, it looks like Scotland will continue in this political twilight-zone till 2021. 

 

That is a very disingenuous analysis of what is actually going on in Scotland. 7by7 has already provided the numbers, but the SNP's appeal in Scotland is demonstrated by election margins that no UK party politician would dare to dream of. In 2016 there was a dip, yes, albeit to still unattainable numbers for UK parties, and we saw the SNP returned to Holyrood with a near majority in a parliament with STV, specifically designed to prevent such a thing; but voter fatigue is a phenomenon the world over.

 

Also, if you look at the numbers for the 2016 election, the SNP saw a swing +1.1% in their constituency votes. The drop of 2.3% in their regional votes was due to tactical voting as people opted for the Greens as their list selection.

 

13 hours ago, jpinx said:

They haven't managed to balance their books since they came into power.

 

Can you point to any recent Western government that HAS balanced its books in recent years? 

[jpinx]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

 

That is a very disingenuous analysis of what is actually going on in Scotland. 7by7 has already provided the numbers, but the SNP's appeal in Scotland is demonstrated by election margins that no UK party politician would dare to dream of. In 2016 there was a dip, yes, albeit to still unattainable numbers for UK parties, and we saw the SNP returned to Holyrood with a near majority in a parliament with STV, specifically designed to prevent such a thing; but voter fatigue is a phenomenon the world over.

 

Also, if you look at the numbers for the 2016 election, the SNP saw a swing +1.1% in their constituency votes. The drop of 2.3% in their regional votes was due to tactical voting as people opted for the Greens as their list selection.

 

 

Can you point to any recent Western government that HAS balanced its books in recent years? 

I won't chew the fat about the numbers, because they can be interpreted many ways and the failure of labour in Scotland was the real catalyst for the rise of SNP.  The reality of my family and friends living in Scotland is that the SNP are rapidly becoming seriously unpopular because of their overly socialist, nanny-state tendencies.  The fiasco of the Forth Bridge, the serious failure at audit of Scotlands Police, and the dire proposal for a "responsible person" for every child to be given more rights than parents, are all examples of why SNP have fallen far short of what was expected by Scots seeking sensible independence.  

[RuamRudy]

I won't chew the fat about the numbers, because they can be interpreted many ways and the failure of labour in Scotland was the real catalyst for the rise of SNP.  The reality of my family and friends living in Scotland is that the SNP are rapidly becoming seriously unpopular because of their overly socialist, nanny-state tendencies.  The fiasco of the Forth Bridge, the serious failure at audit of Scotlands Police, and the dire proposal for a "responsible person" for every child to be given more rights than parents, are all examples of why SNP have fallen far short of what was expected by Scots seeking sensible independence.  

The only interpretation was your attempt to twist facts. But the one inescapable fact is that the SNP is still hugely popular, and pro independence parties have a majority in Holyrood and have near blanket representation for Scotland in Westminster.

But of course, running a country is not without its challenges. One only needs to look to Westminster and see a catalogue of ineptitude going back to day 1.

Our current Tory government hardly gives an impression of competence in any field other than their continuing assault on the weakest in society and their fierce loyalty to tax avoidance schemes and their rich friends who benefit from them. Why would Scottish tories be any different? That is why their resurgence north of the border will falter.

I repeat my question from your earlier dig at the SNP - where is there any government who is balancing the books, especially one where the purse strings are held by another administration with an inherent interest in the recipient failing?

[jpinx]

3 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

The only interpretation was your attempt to twist facts. But the one inescapable fact is that the SNP is still hugely popular, and pro independence parties have a majority in Holyrood and have near blanket representation for Scotland in Westminster.

But of course, running a country is not without its challenges. One only needs to look to Westminster and see a catalogue of ineptitude going back to day 1.

Our current Tory government hardly gives an impression of competence in any field other than their continuing assault on the weakest in society and their fierce loyalty to tax avoidance schemes and their rich friends who benefit from them. Why would Scottish tories be any different? That is why their resurgence north of the border will falter.

I repeat my question from your earlier dig at the SNP - where is there any government who is balancing the books, especially one where the purse strings are held by another administration with an inherent interest in the recipient failing?

I can only refer to the commentary about the attempts by the SNP to get membership of the EU if Scotland was independent.  The reply was negative because Scotland does not meet the requirements concerning "balancing their books".  I take your point entirely - even the mighty USA manages to survive while building a debt mountain to challenge Everest.  The issue with Scotland is that the mathematics might be correct, but there are huge issues with the way the funds have been applied. 

[billd766]

18 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

The big question is whether the Scottish people really want independence!

 

As I said above, in the referendum only 36.5% of those eligible to vote voted for independence.

 

In the 2015 general election the SNP received 50.0% of the Scottish vote with a turn out of 71.1%. Which means that 35.5% of those eligible to vote voted for them.

 

In the 2016 Scottish parliament elections, the SNP received 46.5% of the vote with a turn out of just 55.6%. Which means that only 25.9% of those eligible to vote voted SNP.

 

When you consider that those committed to Scottish independence are the most likely to have voted in the referendum and the two elections since, it seems that active support for Scottish independence in Scotland is falling.

 

The significant difference in turn out certainly shows that a sizeable percentage of Scottish people think that electing their MSP to the Scottish parliament is less important than electing their MP to Westminster.

 

 

I think a lot will depend on how the referendum is written and by whom.

 

This time it should permit ALL people of Scottish ancestry no matter where they live provided that they are still on an electoral roll anywhere worldwide and to have voted at least once in the last 15 years.

 

There should also be in place a minimum of 60% of the eligible voters must vote on the referendum with a 2/3 majority to carry the vote.

 

If that cannot be achieved then the referendum should be declared null and void, with the the option of a further referendum in 10 years time.

[Pdaz]

[RuamRudy]

 
I think a lot will depend on how the referendum is written and by whom.
 
This time it should permit ALL people of Scottish ancestry no matter where they live provided that they are still on an electoral roll anywhere worldwide and to have voted at least once in the last 15 years.
 
There should also be in place a minimum of 60% of the eligible voters must vote on the referendum with a 2/3 majority to carry the vote.
 
If that cannot be achieved then the referendum should be declared null and void, with the the option of a further referendum in 10 years time.

Can you provide reasoning for that proposal?

If, indeed, it can be demonstrated as the means of conducting a fair referendum, I further propose that we retroactively apply those same criteria to Brexit.