Davie P

Brexit will improve the job prospects for Customs officers, tax inspectors and countless other civil servants in Scotland and or the UK. Also bankers will be able to take a cut of currency exchange and then there are all the lawyers required. So there is a silver lining and a glorious opportunity for the rich to get richer.

You don't foresee any changes to getting in to an EU country we no longer have any freedom of movement arrangements with? Or changes to who's allowed into this country? I'm not sure I follow you there as I envisage there being a whole shedload of new work involved there. They're after making it harder and more restrictive and I don't see that making anyone's life easier or less bureaucratic.

It eliminates one of the layers of the political cesspit and makes for one less player in the endless tail chasing 'blame game' they play of the council blaming Holyrood, Holyrood blaming Westminster and Westminster blaming Brussels where the buck never stops anywhere.
 
It saves the cost of maintaining that layer from our tax dollars also.
 
The 'model' the EU are attempting to work towards as an entity cannot function effectively and in any way efficiently without some sort of central federal control fiscal matters, trade, defence etc etc. U.S.A. Canada, the U.S.S.R. as was, Australia stylee, take your pick. I don't believe it can be made to work in the EU situation, I don't believe its necessary or desirable in the EU situation, and I don't like what its turning member nations in to while its being made to try and make it work. Its long past time to get out before it drags us down any further.
 
Remainers are accused of being insular and inward looking, personally I see the EU as the insular inward looking one by effectively creating artificial borders around their virtual EU 'nation', a European trading bloc was maybe fine and well in the world of 50 or more years ago but its yesterday's news now Its a global marketplace, a global economy, we're all one people, surely in this day and age we should be working towards global trading, which is surely what the WTO is an early steps towards and opening up global borders and not still building parochial little regional 'strongholds'.
 
We're a long way off having global government, and whether that is even possible or desirable is impossible to say, but surely wherever possible we should be thinking globally.
 
The EU promotes regional insularity by trying to be as self-sufficient fro within its own borders as possible, and only engaging with the rest of the world when it has no other option, its an old and increasingly outdated concept rooted in colonial empire building. Its tie to be looking forward on a global scale and not to be throwing all ones eggs in to a small basket in one corner.

Agreed.
 
We were told that Brexit would bring untold benefits to the UK and that we'd be able to pick and choose which bits of EU membership we wished to retain. We were warned from many quarters that Brexit would be a complex issue to resolve, but were told by the 'Leave' politicians it would be easy. 
 
Many people didn't either didn't see the benefit of leaving the EU or didn't believe the rhetoric and voted for the status quo in the referendum, others did believe it and voted to leave.
 
Since the vote, the utopian Brexit vision has proven to be undeliverable through a combination of 'unforeseen circumstances' which should have been thoroughly investigated before the referendum (the Irish backstop and the complexity of much of the legislation, for example), the EU understandably sticking to their negotiating guns and the government being unable to find a consensus or even a majority for one of the many flavours of Brexit that was promised.
 
Now the very people who set this train in motion are blaming those who didn't want it in the first place for not getting on board and supporting the increasingly extreme vision and attempts to circumvent laws and parliamentary processes (however, our governmental executive and the legislature branches, and independent judiciary, seem to be holding up relatively well in the face of these attempts).

You can trade freely with your local shop because you are in the same country with the same laws, currency, tax arrangements, safety standards etc etc. If you want to trade across borders, you need trade agreements - hence the various EU trade agreements and harmonisation.
 
Re: 'a regime in which we have little say'. Nonsense. We are/were one of the most influential partners in the EU.
 
With the greatest respect, your recent analogies of comparing Brexit to the Y2K computing system upgrade and comparing international trade agreements with nipping to the local shop would indicate you haven't fully grasped the complexities of Brexit.

Agreed.
 
We were told that Brexit would bring untold benefits to the UK and that we'd be able to pick and choose which bits of EU membership we wished to retain. We were warned from many quarters that Brexit would be a complex issue to resolve, but were told by the 'Leave' politicians it would be easy. 
 
Many people didn't either didn't see the benefit of leaving the EU or didn't believe the rhetoric and voted for the status quo in the referendum, others did believe it and voted to leave.
 
Since the vote, the utopian Brexit vision has proven to be undeliverable through a combination of 'unforeseen circumstances' which should have been thoroughly investigated before the referendum (the Irish backstop and the complexity of much of the legislation, for example), the EU understandably sticking to their negotiating guns and the government being unable to find a consensus or even a majority for one of the many flavours of Brexit that was promised.
 
Now the very people who set this train in motion are blaming those who didn't want it in the first place for not getting on board and supporting the increasingly extreme vision and attempts to circumvent laws and parliamentary processes (however, our governmental executive and the legislature branches, and independent judiciary, seem to be holding up relatively well in the face of these attempts).

Nope, they could've delivered the Brexit result, left the EU and maintained access to the single market like Norway and the other EFTA countries.That's what the leave campaign were selling at the time, it's the option that would've caused the least damage.The Tory government alone took that option off the table, not the EU.

Sorry had to go to a meeting!
 
I don't think it is patronising to say that people believed lies because people did believe the lies and still do. Often stuff that was debunked years ago is still quoted so obviously this is that case.
 
I agree with your view on the differences between those that voted. Which is why it is really unhelpful to see this constant emotive them and us rhetoric on social media and in certain papers. 
 
I just personally can not see how the UK will be better off outside the EU.

The truth of this is staring everybody in the face, it's easily checked.Without a doubt there's people out there who want Brexit no matter what, medicine shortages, food shortages, pound crashing, companies up and leaving etc all an acceptable price to pay but there also must be people out there who swallowed the lies and now reality is starting to dawn on them are thinking.."WTF have I done!"

Nobody mentioned leaving with no deal at the time. we were promised the easiest deal possible by everybody in the leave campaigns. Even Farage said he would be happy with a Norway style deal. The official leave campaign had a whole section on how No deal and WTO rules were by far the worse option.
Strangely the tone only hardened after May realised she had boxed herself in with her Red lines. At that point the EU were offering quite a reasonable compromise that would have allowed continued unrestricted trade. Suddenly it was " No deal is better than a bad deal!"

There was always going to be costs and consequences associated with leaving the EU.
The "collateral damage" is the result of voting to leave.
Now it's getting near crunch time the ones carrying the can are desperate to deflect blame for the inevitable fallout to others.
Will they man up and take responsibility...not a chance.

You can't shoot yourself in the foot and blame the EU for the pain. Take responsibility, you voted for it.Boris is pretending to negotiate, one of the first things he did was get rid of most of the negotiating team, he left a few yes men to sip champagne and sit on their hands in the wine bars of Brussels while he tours the U.K. trying to convince the gullible that when crap/fan day comes it was nothing to do with him, it was the big bad EU that did it. He's a shyster and a charlatan.

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society, The British Medical Journal, the UK's own civil service, the NHS in all parts of the UK and all the other people who know what their on about are saying there's a real risk of medicine shortages in the event of a no deal Brexit, nothing to do with Holyrood. Will Brexit supporters ever take ownership of their own mess?
Probably not. They're trying to blame the dog.

^ That's a myth. The Y2K problems were largely averted because of a global effort to upgrade computer hardware and operating systems in the years before the turn of the millennium. 
 
Comparing a No-deal Brexit to a well planned and implemented technical upgrade process that took place over years is quite far off the mark.

^ That's a myth. The Y2K problems were largely averted because of a global effort to upgrade computer hardware and operating systems in the years before the turn of the millennium. 
 
Comparing a No-deal Brexit to a well planned and implemented technical upgrade process that took place over years is quite far off the mark.

^ That's a myth. The Y2K problems were largely averted because of a global effort to upgrade computer hardware and operating systems in the years before the turn of the millennium. 
 
Comparing a No-deal Brexit to a well planned and implemented technical upgrade process that took place over years is quite far off the mark.

He has quite a track record! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_%22Captain_Calamity%22_Hill

^ an interesting interpretation considering the recent UK wide protests about Johnson's attempts to by-pass parliament. I haven't seen much in the way of public support for Johnson, even in the right-leaning media?
 
But yes, a General Election would seem like the best solution

Fair enough you're anti-SNP, but the Lib Dem majority was more than halved from 4,895 in 2016 and the SNP gained a 14.4% swing. I don't expect the SNP will be licking their wounds or thinking the north isles don't want or need them.

Yep, a CV to be proud of...

Agreed other than that the behaviour has been confined to just SNP supporters. The vicious personal insults that have been flying about on FB in the last few weeks have been truly shocking in some cases and say a hell of a lot more about the folk trading them than the politicians/policies they’re trying to argue against.

I don't disagree with the thrust of what you're saying, but the whole thing rests on the slim majority of a pre-legislative referendum over three years ago. However, the the result of the recent European elections were (arguably) pro-EU - and as you say, the "subsequent election produced what appeared to be a 'remainer' majority parliament", and the Prime Minister doesn't have a working majority to support his plans.
 
Whilst I agree the deadlock should be broken, in this case deadlock = the status quo, and in the absence of any compelling support for a no-deal Brexit I'm not sure suspending parliament to force through a deeply divisive agenda will satisfy any principles of democracy.
 
---
 
IMHO, the most troublesome aspect of all of this is that a considerable percentage of the population seem willing to accept a Prime Minister acting without the support of parliament. I understand Brexit supporters' willingness to accept this as a short-term fix, but It's a dangerous precedent, and we should carefully consider the wider implications.

Lib Dems hold Shetland 
 
Beatrice Wishart, Scottish Liberal Democrats 5,659; Tom Wills, Scottish National Party 3,822; Ryan Thomson, independent 1,266; Peter Tait, independent 31; Michael Stout, independent 134; Ian Scott, independent 66; Debra Nicolson, Scottish Green Party 189; Stuart Martin, UKIP 60; Brydon Goodlad, Conservative and Unionist Party 425; Johan Adamson, Scottish Labour and Co-operative Party 152.

Nah, trying to trivialise it as normal procedure isn't going to cut it. It's a PM trying to close down parliament to force through a constitutional agenda he doesn't have a majority for. We should all be concerned about that, regardless of our opinion on Brexit.
 
And it's a 5 week suspension, not 4 days. Even allowing for conference recess, this is unprecedented.

Are you seriously trying to justify the Prime Minister bypassing parliament on an important constitutional issue because you think MPs get paid too much??