Get 50% off selected FUBAR snuffs. Finest Quality Indian SnuffsToque Snuffs

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID






Please consider helping to support the Snuffhouse forum.

Get 50% off selected 6 Photo snuffs.

Scotland possibly leaving the UK?

What now will become of things in the future in regards to snuff and snus ??

Comments

  • Are they planning on calling it Sexit?
  • We have to be careful straying into politics here, but I think the timing of all this is greatly unfair to all our brothers and sisters north of the border.

    The timing that has been proposed, does not allow for a clear vision of what Scotland's future would be like in the UK or in the EU post Brexit. Both entities will change to some extent, and it won't be till the dust settles after the UK has fully left that anyone up there will have a clear picture in order to make an informed decision. Then there still needs to be time for a good open debate of the pros and cons either way before a referendum takes place.

    I fully agree that our Scottish brethren should have the power to decide whether to remain in a Union that values them and is gradually returning devolved powers back to them, or to leave and join a Union that will take more powers and more money away from them and leave them with even less of a voice in future events. Neither of which is true independence by the way. I don't think true independence (outside of any external influence) will be offered to them, and I don't think they'd want it either, as they would be extremely isolated from a trade perspective, never mind the other aspects.

    Unfortunately, it seems Holyrood's executives are hoping that the UK's personnel being heavily invested in the Brexit negotiations will mean that the UK will have less resources to fight their corner. Also, if we are still negotiating with the EU it will be strategically difficult to argue the negatives of moving to the EU camp, for fear of offending the other 27 countries that we would be in simultaneous negotiations with. This was a very dirty and underhanded move by those who called it, with grossly irresponsible timing for both Scottish citizens and the rest of the UK's populous.

    Putting aside the fact it's only 3 years since they last voted to stay, the Scots should indeed choose their own destiny, but in the interest of everyone in Scotland AND the rest of the UK, they should wait until after the UK has left the EU. After all, if we had voted to Remain, they would have by default put themselves outside of the EU anyway. To force an earlier referendum would be denying the Scottish people any form of clarity over their decision.

    As to the OP's question, look at the turmoil created by the latest tobacco directive that's cost us over 200 snuff blends and shut one mill altogether. That was the EU, and that's what the SNP want to take Scotland back to. They'll also lose their fishing rights again, possibly lose their military if the EU continues on it's current path, and the way things are going, maybe even their currency too. Do they really think they'll enter the EU with the same clout the UK did? They'll be fucked! Big time! Scotland will lose any semblence of identity, self control, or regional influence. If they're unhappy with their lot now, they're gonna be a whole lot more pissed off being controlled by Germany and France.
  • ArtChooArtChoo Member
    edited March 17 PM

    Trying hard to keep off the politics here.


    In the event of another referendum for the Scottish people, to express their views and see if they wanted to leave the United Kingdom,    it would only be fair to let the English, Welsh, Irish and the Manx peoples express their views in a separate referendum to see if they actually wanted the Scots to still be included in the United Kingdom. 

    There are always two sides to a coin and what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    I do not believe that the above is political or racist.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to the original question,    

    The answer lies in the standard statement one well known UK smoking shop displays at the side of each individual snuff product.

    "SORRY,  WE  CANNOT SEND THIS PRODUCT TO THE USA OR ANY EU COUNTRY."

    So snuff produced in England would not be sent North over the border into Scotland, the EU member.



    Additional note added later.......

    I have just had a look at the shop that I mentioned earlier and the export restrictions  also apply to chewing tobacco, pipe tobacco and roll-your-own tobacco.  They will happily sell you pipes, filters, papers holders everything but the tobacco.

    There is an old saying  "Its grim up North," but it would be even grimmer North of the border for smokers, chewers and snuff takers if Scotland goes its own way.

    Manufacturers and retailers will love me now when I say

     ITS TIME TO START PANIC BUYING TOBACCO PRODUCTS IN SCOTLAND, AND STOCK UP FOR WHEN YOU LEAVE THE UK.



  • RoderickRoderick Member
    edited March 16 PM
    I think Nicola is very relieved Theresa said no. Her party forced her to ask. If there had been a vote she knew she would lose and be ousted as leader. Now she has the chance to stay on a little longer. The sad thing is the North of England are starting to say we should give Scotland independence so they (the North of England) can reap the benefit.
  • EffyEffy Member
    The question itself was also a nonsense - you can't negotiate a deal and then part of that deal potentially is removed at the end of it.  The UK couldn't negotiate a deal including Scotland with the possibility that Scotland would leave at the end of it and then there be no time to renegotiate a new deal.  
  • ArtChooArtChoo Member
    edited March 17 PM

    I remember when originally, we all had the vote to join or stay out of the Common Market and every household received two leaflets, one stating the benefits of joining and the other explained the down sides of joining.

    The only thing that stuck in my mind from the leaflets was that the down side leaflet mentioned  industry would drift South and leave the North and Scotland with less and less industry.  The reason for the Southwards drift was less transport costs for our exports to the continent.  This actually happened, I repaired office equipment for 40 years and I was regularly told words to the effect that   "we wont be here next month, this site is closing and everything is moving to the Southern branch."

    So we turned our backs on our old colonies and trading partners and traded across the channel.            New Zealand Lamb and butter, Argentinian beef, fruit from Jamaica, you name it we just left them all in the lurch, and our politicians probably now expect them to welcome us back with open arms.


    Before I drift away too much, the purpose of this post is,   when he mentions "the North reaping the benefits" does Roderick mean export trading across the English/Scottish border, or the money no longer spent on Scotland could be spent in the North?


    Its lucky for you folks that I am a lousy typist or this post would go on and on and on................


  • Being Scottish I would like to add my own perspective. My vote is for Scotland gaining independence from the UK and joining a biliteral union with Sweden. Then we would have free access to SNUS. As long as Roderick would still export to the new SwedoScotland then I'd be a happy chap.
  • ArtChooArtChoo Member
    edited March 18 PM


  • Clootie, I like it. 

    To be honest I straddle the fence. As a Scot I worry for my fellow countrymen. I flirted with SNP back in the early nineties and came to the conclusion we could make it on our own but, the poorest of Scots would really suffer and that was enough for me to jump ship.

    Next the rich would leave and and industry would struggle. I just don't know how we would manage today? I suspect the border reivers would be revived and Scotland could be in an even worse situation. What I don't understand is if this is the case why is Westminster desperately trying to hold the Union together? It can't be love alone when financially England would be better off. I wish there was a non biased paper that could give us all the true facts?
  • Roderick, I fully understand. The nuclear subs would come down, and all their supporting industries around and about. We'd reestablish our own shipyards for all our military ships, which would be a heck of a blow to the Scots. The offshore assets such as shipping and fossil fuels would be partitioned off, and I would imagine a lot of Brits elsewhere would stop buying Scottish produce as a way of sticking two fingers at them for bailing out. In time we'll also increase our power generation to lessen the needs to buy it in from over the border.

    The EU would want FULL contributions, not the reduced rates that Thatcher got, and they would no doubt have to accept other terms which the UK as a whole was strong enough to accept. Schengen, the Euro, pooling of military might, port controls, who knows what else, and the cost of shipping goods to and from the continent potentially increases. Scotland's biggest export would be it's skilled labour, as they move elsewhere to put food on the table.

    Meanwhilst, the nukes stay here, as do the intelligence services. The North of England and the East coast get a boost for heavy industry, fishing, and North Sea energy. Much of the financial services moves down to London.

    Even if Scotland did vote to leave, and the SNP systematically destroyed Scotland's economy leaving them with little more than whisky, meat products, rain and midges ..... we'd still get the fucking blame for everything!
  •  I remember Dear old Margaret on the television, being jostled by reporters when she came back from Brussels.  When she told them she had got a very good deal, one of them asked had she given up anything. She pinched her index finger and thumb together, like a snuff taker and said "just a teeny, little bit."  About a year later we learnt that   "a teeny, little bit "   was our ship building and steel making.           So I think we may be a bit short on working ship yards for the navy.

    As for Scottish exports, there is not a big demand for Edinburgh Rock, Shortbread and Haggis.

    UK politics are very genteel compared to other countries around the world, and we have not yet reached the book burning stage, but if and when we do I think I will be applauded by many on both sides of the border by hurling Jimmy Shand and Andy Stewart records into the flames.




  • EffyEffy Member
    On a personal note I have mixed feelings - Granddad was Scottish.  I think that too often people who are pro tend to talk about the fact that Scotland could do it, painting those who are against it as thinking less of Scotland.  But just because you could do something doesn't always mean that you should do it, and just because you shouldn't do something doesn't mean that you couldn't do it.  

    As for the timing in this case, Nic's suggestion is just plain silly.  She wants the UK to negotiate a deal, presumably based on the whole UK including Scotland, and then have a chance that part of the offering from the UK be removed.  There is no way May can agree to that, as then everything would have to be renegotiated and there just wouldn't be time.  I do wonder if Sturgy wanted to be able to ask the question to keep hardline SNPs happy, but without actually having to go through with it.............

    On a selfish note, if Scotland did leave the UK and joined the EU, then I could take a Scottish passport and stay happily here in Austria!
  • I don't undervalue Scotland, I just hate what the SNP are doing, and they way they are bullying fellow Brits on both sides of the border. Although I was adamantly pro-Leave, I want the Scots to have a clearer picture of what the choices are than we all did in the EU Ref.

    I want them to be able to see exactly how the UK will be realigning itself with the continent and the wider world. I want them to have the opportunity to see that start to unfold. I want them to know what they would take with them, and what would be left with the UK. I want them to know exactly what the terms of re-entry into the EU abyss would be, and what they would need to both pay in contributions, and what they would need to surrender in the name of further integration.

    I think these are the things that the SNP desperately want to avoid, as the picture will be so painfully clear that remaining in the UK will be BY FAR the better option for the Scottish people. They want to keep painting the image that Scotland is some kind of repressed subsiduary of England, rather than one of the four pillars of the United Kingdom. The SNP stand to do a great deal of harm to Scotland if they force the UK's hand with this, and we need Ruth and Kesia to step up the fight to protect the people from this injustice.
  • @Effy  talking of Scottish passports has just given me a thought.

    You might be able to get a job working in the Scottish Embassy or Consulate in Austria.

    Lord knows how much it would cost to set up buildings, security , communications, staff and travel expenses for  Scottish Embassies and Consulates in all the major countries of the World.

    I wonder where the Embassy will be located in England?


  • Oh no,       will we have to listen to another entrant for       The Eurovision Song Contest


  • =)) The Eurovision Song Contest is one of the annual events that make me glad I don't have a television >:)

    I've just thought of something that Scotland would actually gain! The chance for their football team to play at the Olympics. Imagine that! An international competition where they'd be guaranteed at least one game :))

    Sorry, that's probably a bit naughty :P

    Seriously though, that's some good points on having to set up embassies everywhere. I'd not considered that aspect.
  • ChicoChico Member
    I find it ironic that Leave voters have a problem with Scotland wanting their own referendum considering that they cite many of the same reasons Leave voters cited to leave the EU.  Sovereignty, ability to make their own trade deals, to steer their own future etc.   And anyone who believes that tobacco laws will be eased after Brexit will probably be sadly disappointed.  UK laws go above and beyond EU ones, like high taxes and the photos of diseased organs.  

    Caveat: I am a firm Remainer who deeply resents the prospect of being stripped of my EU citizenship, and the rights and privileges that come with it.  I view Brexit (specifically the May brand, anyway, as opposed to a Norway/Switzerland model) as a colossal act of self-harm, and fully empathize with Scotland for contemplating remaining with the EU over the UK.  
  • Its not such a bad thing Scotland staying in Europe when the rest opt out.
    It will be handy to nip over the border into Scotland  to get our   Euro-Lottery tickets.


  • 50ft_trad50ft_trad Member
    edited March 25 PM
    Chico, I fully agree that the Scots should decide, once the two directions of each organisation become clear. That is some time after the SNPs timescale. For example, it isn't yet known how things like free travel, trade (of non-contentious products), Erasmus, or anything else will pan out. I don't want to deny them indy-ref2, I just want them to have as clear a vision of both options before they vote. I hope they choose to stay, but whatever they choose, I want them to do so with their eyes and hearts open.

    I consider myself a Yorkshireman first, and a Brit second. Being English is kind of incidental to me. I don't want my fellow Brits bullied or hoodwinked.

    I was a staunch Leaver, because I felt the EU was effecting a gradual and continual erosion of my rights and privileges since 1992. It is as yet unclear what the full trade off will be for having rescued our democracy. I made my decision because on balance I felt that any perceived benefits from membership were no compensation for having democratic powers of the people eroded. It is from this standpoint that I am confused by the Scot's view to consider leaving a Union that's returning power to the people of the nation (albeit very gradually), in favour of one that systematically leaching that power away and appointing it to lawmakers that the people can't evict from power. I genuinely believe Scotland will have more influence as a nation, more power of it's own destiny, and a more empowered population, in the UK than the EU.

    Whatever current politics may offer, it it paramount that ensuring future generations have the ability to dictate a new heading, demand a new Captain, and be responsive to able to navigate harsh winds and foul seas. HMS Britain can offer that. The EU is like an aging tanker with cracked rivets, unable to change direction quickly, and taking on water. The crew have no influence over the corrupt Admiralty, and the 27 Captains take forever to reach concensus of whether to turn left or right. The oceans can feel less choppy in a larger vessel, but I know which ship I'd rather be in when the next iceberg appears.
  • ChicoChico Member
    50ft_trad Funny that you feel the EU was leeching your rights and privileges, while I feel that Westminster is doing it!  I guess that's the essence of the debate. And I actually feel European first, British second, and am not at all a patriotic person. And I don't trust British politicians any more than I trust European ones.  I have yet to hear of a single substantive argument that we have somehow suffered by being in the EU. It will be interesting to see what happens when Wales, Cornwall, etc. lose their EU funding, when suddenly people can no longer easily retire, live and work outside the UK, etc.  As for future generations, if a hard Brexit indeed happens, they will have been totally shafted. 

    Anyway, I do see your point about the Scotland vote.  It should be more informed than the EU referendum which was based on lies, fear-mongering, false promises, no plan, and no agreement on what "Leave" even meant aside from some amorphous idea of "regaining out sovereignty" which we actually never even lost.  I think a lot of voters had no idea about things like the customs union, human rights convention, or even the single market.  Even immigration was a red herring - there are all kinds of rules and restrictions on EU immigrants about income, employment, benefits etc. that the UK chose not to enforce, even though other countries like Spain did. And that's the UK's (and Theresa May's) fault, not the EU's.  
  • ChicoChico Member
    PS: snuffing some Sea Breezes in honour of your naval metaphors!   :D
  • EU causing sufferance: Backward steps in safety legislation (fire extinguisher regulations being one example) meant we almost had to surrender our three pin plug system, which is the safest in the world, purely to make us all the same rather than all adopting best system. Employment laws favouring large businesses, and putting small businesses under undue pressure. Good luck trying to get a woman of child bearing age a job at a small business, unless she's related to the owner. Protectionist attitude hampering trade outside EU. Over regulation, laws made by people we can't sack, destruction of fishing industries and subsequently of shipyards. Denying boatowners the use of red diesel for propulsion, subjecting tens of thousands of boat owners to full fuel duties for heating and power generation because their boat was designed with one fuel tank, and there isn't room for two. No room for the grey water tank either, which they shouldn't need with responsible boat use. Our farming suffering in cost management because they refuse to elevate their animal welfare standards to ours (once again, trying to drag us down to their level). The TPD wouldn't have included nasal snuff if it had been British led, and probably not vaping (or at least to the same extent)...... and a myriad of other stuff I can't think of offhand.

    You're right, this is the whole reason for having the debate. The open sharing of perspectives. I just hope it's less divisive than the last two referendums, and causes less harm to social cohesion. Passionate beliefs can blinker us against ideas which contradict our own, and the more people shout, the less they listen. I fear it will be more feral ranting though, rather than calm rational debate. I hope you can find people to have a good civilised debate with, and don't succumb to the dark side of the Forth :P
  • ChicoChico Member
    Not to diminish your points, but In the bigger picture - single market, human rights, workers' rights, EU citizenship rights, climate change laws etc. - some of them are relatively minor and others are debatable.  I actually trust the EU on more issues than I trust the current government, and think May is behaving more like a fascist than any EU leader has, and that her cabinet is even more foolish and incompetent. I believe that a more sensible option to change things for the better is to remain in the EU and fight for them from within. Constantly expecting special treatment then quitting when we don't immediately get our way is childish. We're not an empire anymore, and much of the reason for our prosperity is directly due to being in the EU. 

    As for tobacco laws, we'll have to wait and see what the UK does after Brexit but I seriously doubt they will be more lenient.  In any case, I'd happily give up snuff altogether if it meant retaining my rights as an EU citizen.  There are millions of British citizens who have only ever had passports saying "European Union" on them, and the idea of losing that is probably as bad as an American's passport suddenly saying only "Kansas" or "Colorado" and being told he/she can only live in the state in which they were born. 
  • Oh, I thought of another one! The tampon tax! Who the fuck came up with the idea of taxing menstruation? I would have thought going through a week of that every month would be taxing enough, without imposing 20% tariffs on the event.

    We are prohibited by EU law to NOT tax women's periods (or more correctly sanitary products). Neither do we have any feasible possibility of changing such an unfair legal decision, so we have through UK law decided that these unfair taxes that we are forced to impose by some wanker in Brussels, be given directly to women's charities. I think that's a pretty good example of how fucked up the whole thing is.

    Ironically, women are being taxed for having functional vaginas, by disfunctional twats!
  • ChicoChico Member
    Yeah, I grant that is a good example.  They should not tax the bloody things.  :))  However, as part of the EU we do have a say in EU laws and actually helped to make many.  We can fight for changes, which to me seems preferable to taking the ball and going home. If we can't negotiate with the rest of the EU on stuff like this, how can we expect to make all these great trade deals with the rest of the world?  Besides Donald Trump's America, anyway.
  • We can fight for change from within, but we won't succeed. We have been fighting to stop it becoming a United States of Europe, and all we managed to do was slow it down a little. The whole problems with the "better to stay at the table" arguement, is that we have done that for 40 years, and it's staying at the table that caused the topic of a referendum to arise, and for the UK to ultimately say "get us the hell out of here". It went from an "opt in" system, to an "opt out" system with vetos, to a "you don't have a choice because we now have enough other countries on board so your views are irrelevant" system. Negotiations where there's just a few parties at the table, are very different from where there's 28, and a lot of them are already in agreement to do something that's going to make you worse off in some form or other.

    I'm not going to comment on May, as I think it's too early for me to make any form of judgement. However, I know if we are disappointed come the end of her term, we can sack her. I have been disappointed with Brussels many many times, and not felt I or the people around me have any say. They weren't elected off a manifesto, and we couldn't sack them if we felt dissatisfied, not to mention the corruption of corporate lobbying meaning that big business have more say in real terms than the people ever will.

    I don't think the UK will relax tobacco laws after Brexit, certainly not on combustibles, but I think if this law had came in after we'd already left, I don't think snuff and vape would have been so affected, and it would have been based more around what they felt was best for the people, rather than the big tobacco bias that has happened.

    I am glad you mentioned the Empire. The time in our history when we thought we could run other countries better than they, and we excluded them from decision making processes because we knew what was best for them all. Didn't work out so well in the end did it? Now the boot is on the other foot, we don't seem to like it so much, and the EU didn't learn from our arrogant mistakes. It's the new Empire, not created with ships and cannons, but business deals and backhanders. Ultimately, this one's not working out so well either.
  • 50ft_trad50ft_trad Member
    edited March 27 PM
    Also, can you clarify something for me. You seem to be talking as a Brit, but your earlier posts seem to indicate that you're actually the other side of the pond....
  • MrSnuffMrSnuff Administrator
    Hey guys,

    at Mark's request I am closing this thread. It has become too overtly political which we like to avoid on snuffhouse.

    Dave
This discussion has been closed.