Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Hope on October 18, 2016, 04:50:19 PM
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/treason-brexit-petition_uk_58047bfbe4b0ee3352126b7a?
Some people are just weird!!
-
IMHO this gentleman is an idiot. It's pretty much an abuse of the process.
-
Zoomers gonna zoom
-
Good grief the guy is bonkers!
-
I seem to remember petrol protestors stating that they would bring the country to it's knees.
None of those were tried for treason.
I'd hate to think those people probably voted for Brexit and support this guy.
-
It's not the Remainers currently driving the country to destruction.
-
It's not the Remainers currently driving the country to destruction.
Exactly. As everyday it becomes more and more apparent that we have chosen the most insane path for our future all the cheering exiting nincompoops can do is stick their collective tongues out and say "You lost" like we are a group of 10 year olds playing Monopoly.
We all lost. Idiots.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/treason-brexit-petition_uk_58047bfbe4b0ee3352126b7a?
Some people are just weird!!
The ones who should be facing criminal charges are the ones who conned the British people into shooting themselves in the foot.
-
Exactly. As everyday it becomes more and more apparent that we have chosen the most insane path for our future all the cheering exiting nincompoops can do is stick their collective tongues out and say "You lost" like we are a group of 10 year olds playing Monopoly.
We all lost. Idiots.
Sour grapes, thank goodness we're not all like you Trent.
The only referendum before the one in June this year was for the EEC a good idea, all of the rest was sneaked in by via the back door, at least we've, the whole of the UK, had our say at last; you're just going to have to get on with it as it is Trent, it was a free vote, so tough.
Mind you some like or enjoy the underhanded approach to all sorts of things.
ippy
-
Sour grapes, thank goodness we're not all like you Trent.
The only referendum before the one in June this year was for the EEC a good idea, all of the rest was sneaked in by via the back door, at least we've, the whole of the UK, had our say at last; you're just going to have to get on with it as it is Trent, it was a free vote, so tough.
Mind you some like or enjoy the underhanded approach to all sorts of things.
ippy
Ippy
Not sour grapes at all. If you cannot see that the economy is tanking then you are willfully closing your eyes to the destruction of the country's prosperity and it is your brexiteer pals who employed the underhanded tactics by lying consistently for the last 30+ years about the EU. That you fell for it hook line and sinker means we all suffer.
So with the greatest of respect. WE ALL LOST.
And I have noticed the accusation of being underhanded. Shame on you.
-
What does 'tanking' mean:? It isn't an expression I have come across.
-
What does 'tanking' mean:? It isn't an expression I have come across.
Sorry Floo - it is a bit of an Americanism:
fail completely, especially at great financial cost.
"the previous movie had tanked at the box office"
-
What does 'tanking' mean:? It isn't an expression I have come across.
'fail completely, especially at great financial cost.'
-
Ippy
Not sour grapes at all. If you cannot see that the economy is tanking then you are willfully closing your eyes to the destruction of the country's prosperity and it is your brexiteer pals who employed the underhanded tactics by lying consistently for the last 30+ years about the EU. That you fell for it hook line and sinker means we all suffer.
So with the greatest of respect. WE ALL LOST.
And I have noticed the accusation of being underhanded. Shame on you.
You've misunderstood my post Trent, the EEC was nothing to do with federation at the start and then all sorts of other things came in without sanction via the back door.
The above was the dishonest I was referring to and there are some that approve of these little by little over time methods and I'm not one of them.
OK we dissagree, I wouldn' want you to think that I have a bias about leaving the EU and just because you were a remainer doesn't neccessarily make you a bad person, just because you got it wrong.
Regards ippy.
-
Sour grapes, thank goodness we're not all like you Trent.
Stop whining about how the people who are right have not rolled over in submission.
all of the rest was sneaked in by via the back door,
Utter rubbish. Every EU treaty has had to be ratified by our democratically elected government of the day, which is as it should be. As the referendum demonstrates, when you let the people vote on single issues, they can't really be trusted because they vote for reasons not related or only partly related to the issue at hand. It seems that most Brexiters voted based on immigration - only a small part of what is at stake - or even just because they wanted to give the government a bloody nose.
at least we've, the whole of the UK, had our say at last; you're just going to have to get on with it as it is Trent, it was a free vote, so tough.
So, if a group of people in a car took a vote to drive in one direction and it became more apparent that the car is going to head off a cliff, everybody should just keep quiet because they had a vote.
-
It's a shame it's not simple enough to have an in-out referendum every 10 or so years, so that we could opt out when the EU is not working for us, give it time to change, then opt back in again (or stay out if people think being out is working fine). Similar to the general election system.
-
It's quite a lot of responsibility to give people, making a decision that can't be reversed.
-
give it time to change,
Here's the problem I have with that: if the EU has problems (which it does) the EU needs to sort them out, but we are as much the EU as anybody else, so it is our responsibility as much as anybody else's. Instead of running away as we are doing, we should work to make it better. Our current course of action is an act of craven cowardice.
-
Stop whining about how the people who are right have not rolled over in submission.
Utter rubbish. Every EU treaty has had to be ratified by our democratically elected government of the day, which is as it should be. As the referendum demonstrates, when you let the people vote on single issues, they can't really be trusted because they vote for reasons not related or only partly related to the issue at hand. It seems that most Brexiters voted based on immigration - only a small part of what is at stake - or even just because they wanted to give the government a bloody nose.
So, if a group of people in a car took a vote to drive in one direction and it became more apparent that the car is going to head off a cliff, everybody should just keep quiet because they had a vote.
I'm sure that is your honest opinion J P, we don't agree, we both think the other one's wrong, it happens.
ippy
-
I'm sure that is your honest opinion J P, we don't agree, we both think the other one's wrong, it happens.
What? You think the best course of action is to follow the road to disaster just because the car's occupants had a vote?
-
What? You think the best course of action is to follow the road to disaster just because the car's occupants had a vote?
Like I said we don't agree, I don'see leaving as any kind of road to disaster, we have managed quite well as a nation for coming up to a thousand years now, I expected a bumpy ride and feel optimistic compared to the way you are describing your feelings on and about leaving the E U.
ippy
-
I don'see leaving as any kind of road to disaster, we have managed quite well as a nation for coming up to a thousand years now
I think you'd get a bit of a shock to find out how grim life has been for most people for most of the last thousand years.
I expected a bumpy ride
Well the ride didn't even have to be bumpy. And let's be honest "bumpy" means people losing their livelihoods. I hope you and the rest f the Leavers well step up to the plate and take responsibility for your actions if it all goes further wrong than it has done already.
-
Here's the problem I have with that: if the EU has problems (which it does) the EU needs to sort them out, but we are as much the EU as anybody else, so it is our responsibility as much as anybody else's. Instead of running away as we are doing, we should work to make it better. Our current course of action is an act of craven cowardice.
Really? So if you're a member of a club and the club starts doing things that don't suit you or make you go bonkers, it's cowardice to leave?
-
Really? So if you're a member of a club and the club starts doing things that don't suit you or make you go bonkers, it's cowardice to leave?
Please give some examples of things the EU is doing that don't suit us.
Anyway, yes, this particular club is very important to us, so we should stay and fix things.
-
Really? So if you're a member of a club and the club starts doing things that don't suit you or make you go bonkers, it's cowardice to leave?
Problem here is that 'you' isn't singular - it is the Brexidiots who've acquired the car keys and are sitting in the driving seat and not all of us want to pile in behind them.
So either someone gets the keys back and stops the car or we have to abandon them to their madness - but sadly only some of us may at least have the option to bale out while others are at the mercy of these self-serving clowns who let this happen without actually having a plan, presumably because they never expected to win.
Hopefully sanity may yet prevail, since the damage has already begun.
-
Like I said we don't agree, I don'see leaving as any kind of road to disaster, we have managed quite well as a nation for coming up to a thousand years now.
ippy
Thank you for that ringing endorsement of ecclesiastical influence in society.
PS. The ''bumps in the road'' are peoples lives and livelihoods.
-
Please give some examples of things the EU is doing that don't suit us.
Taking British jobs away from British people and giving them to non-British people.
It's partly the way British people use the EU that I find wrong. For example, a woman with children can't be bothered to clean her kitchen or make her children help, so she hires a foreign maid to do it, who she pays a low wage rather than paying the full rate to a British person. She goes to the coffee shop or gym while the maid is doing her work. The children never learn how to clear up their mess.
Anyway, yes, this particular club is very important to us,
Maybe it is, but how are people going to find that out unless they get a taste of life outside the EU?
so we should stay and fix things.
Yes maybe we should, but you can't just force people to stay in a club. They have to want to be in it. In order for people to want to be in, they have to experience being both in and out.
There was plenty of debate before the referendum, which uncovered things about EU membership that suited some people and things that didn't suit others. The point I'm making is that it might be good for Britain to experience being out of the EU; if however we are not able to survive, can we get back in?
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/treason-brexit-petition_uk_58047bfbe4b0ee3352126b7a?
Some people are just weird!!
I often wonder why the most unsuitable people pursue politics and power, and get in.
Look at the USA.
I don't think you can make opposition to Brexit treason, it comes under the heading of oppression not democracy. (IMO )
Love it or hate it, Brexit came about because people had different ideas of what was best for the uk.
What people think is bad for the country is subjective.
If we start labelling different POV's as treason, where does it stop?
It's a bit like the old USSR used to be, where the only parties you could vote for were the ones that fitted into the same ideology.
I think it's a bad idea to criminalise people who have a different POV.
An example would be Scotland, I think it would be a bad thing if the country split up, but no way do I think Scots should be labelled traitors.
It's a daft idea.
🌹
-
Nor, Spud, can a majority force us to leave the EU.....especially since a substantial majority of my fellow countrymen very sensibly voted to remain.
-
An example would be Scotland, I think it would be a bad thing if the country split up, but no way do I think Scots should be labelled traitors.
It's a daft idea.
🌹
It would be daft indeed, especially since I don't think many of us would really care anyway: and of course many of us don't see the UK as something we have an allegiance to since large chunks of it are seemingly intent on damaging our interests (along with the interests of rUK).
-
Nor, Spud, can a majority force us to leave the EU.....especially since a substantial majority of my fellow countrymen very sensibly voted to remain.
Hi Anch,
It's bizarre that this situation has arisen.
However, before you have Indyref 2: could the SNP and Labour not somehow get the government to hold a second EU referendum, now that the UK has had a taste of life outside and the 'sanctions' we've had imposed on us. This idea is based on what I said above about needing to experience both being on the inside and outside of the club. Also on the fact that the referendum was not binding but advisory.
Failing this, other options are available when the side one is on loses in a referendum: either accept the result or leave the country. Simply declaring independence from the UK- well, London could do that!
-
Post script to the above: I would have suggested having EU referendum 2 in 5 years' time, after we've properly left. But that would depend on the EU allowing us to do it.
-
I think you'd get a bit of a shock to find out how grim life has been for most people for most of the last thousand years.
Well the ride didn't even have to be bumpy. And let's be honest "bumpy" means people losing their livelihoods. I hope you and the rest f the Leavers well step up to the plate and take responsibility for your actions if it all goes further wrong than it has done already.
I'm not professor of history, but I know our history here in this collective group of countries now known as the U K, isn't in the minor league when it comes to being successful over all in the world not just in Europe.
Whatever happens even if it were to be either remain or leave there would be winners and losers and as I have said I'm optimistic about our future outside of this federal Europe of yours, we're not declaring war on Europe we'll just hopefully going our own way.
Whetever way we go, will for certain not be the perfect answer to everything that's why I'd rather our country held the wheel of our own future, you think this will involve a drive over a cliff, that's where we part company on our points of view, I never did want to be a part of Europe, I voted against joining in that first referendum as well as this one and when I look back maybe the EEC wasn't that bad an idea if that had been all it was an EEC.
I can't do much but if neccessary I'll do anything I can to help stop remoaners watering down our break with this federated Europe of yours.
If you have a look at this weeks edition of 'Question Time' on the bbc iplayer this you'll be able to see some of the strength of felling about leaving your federated Europe; oh, of course, sorry I forgot, more than a half of our country is populated by idiots.
ippy
-
I'm not professor of history, but I know our history here in this collective group of countries now known as the U K, isn't in the minor league when it comes to being successful over all in the world not just in Europe.
Whatever happens even if it were to be either remain or leave there would be winners and losers and as I have said I'm optimistic about our future outside of this federal Europe of yours, we're not declaring war on Europe we'll just hopefully going our own way.
Whetever way we go, will for certain not be the perfect answer to everything that's why I'd rather our country held the wheel of our own future, you think this will involve a drive over a cliff, that's where we part company on our points of view, I never did want to be a part of Europe, I voted against joining in that first referendum as well as this one and when I look back maybe the EEC wasn't that bad an idea if that had been all it was an EEC.
I can't do much but if neccessary I'll do anything I can to help stop remoaners watering down our break with this federated Europe of yours.
If you have a look at this weeks edition of 'Question Time' on the bbc iplayer this you'll be able to see some of the strength of felling about leaving your federated Europe; oh, of course, sorry I forgot, more than a half of our country is populated by idiots.
ippy
Brexiteers should consider devoting their own time and resources in helping the unemployed created by their decision.
-
Taking British jobs away from British people and giving them to non-British people.
That isn't the way that it works Spud. Foreign workers have tended to take the jobs that UK citizens can't or won't do, and fill in the gaps where we simply don't have enough of our own trained people. One 'classic' example is the agricultural industry which relies of foreign workers to do much of the harvesting of fruit and veg. Without these 'non-British people' much of the industry would collapse - and many 'British people' employed in dependent industries and the service sector would be picking-up their P45's.
]
It's partly the way British people use the EU that I find wrong. For example, a woman with children can't be bothered to clean her kitchen or make her children help, so she hires a foreign maid to do it, who she pays a low wage rather than paying the full rate to a British person. She goes to the coffee shop or gym while the maid is doing her work. The children never learn how to clear up their mess.
That is a complete mis-representation of situation for most people.
My daughter works 4 days a week in a management position at the local office of a national company. However, with two small children, she struggles with the housework and 'tries' to employ a cleaner to lighten the load a bit. I say 'tries' because she finds it very difficult to find anyone who is competent and reliable.
There was plenty of debate before the referendum, which uncovered things about EU membership that suited some people and things that didn't suit others. The point I'm making is that it might be good for Britain to experience being out of the EU; if however we are not able to survive, can we get back in?
It's one hell of gamble to take just on the basis that the experience "might be good for Britain".
The country will be in turmoil for many decades and sure, there will be some winners but there will also be many losers. I suspect that my generation will never see the country as prosperous as it was on the 23rd of June 2016.
-
sorry I forgot, more than a half of our country is populated by idiots.
Not sure anyone is saying that.
In any case if you are talking about the numbers who voted to leave - you mean the approx. 34% of eligible voters who voted leave?
I point this out because people, including you talk about half. It wasn't 50%.
David Davies amongst others claim an overwhelming mandate for Brexit - can you explain to me and others how 34% is overwhelming in any sense?
Particularly when our government would never allow unions to claim a mandate on anything of this minority nature.
-
sorry I forgot, more than a half of our country is populated by idiots.
I've just heard an interesting story the other day:
My friends daughter had 'swallowed' the Brexiteer propaganda and voted Leave - turns out her husbands company have announced substantial redundancies as a result of the Brexit slowdown.
Was she was an idiot or just gullible? . . . you tell me!
-
Hi Anch, It's bizarre that this situation has arisen. However, before you have Indyref 2: could the SNP and Labour not somehow get the government to hold a second EU referendum, now that the UK has had a taste of life outside and the 'sanctions' we've had imposed on us. This idea is based on what I said above about needing to experience both being on the inside and outside of the club. Also on the fact that the referendum was not binding but advisory. Failing this, other options are available when the side one is on loses in a referendum: either accept the result or leave the country. Simply declaring independence from the UK- well, London could do that!
Hi Anch, It's bizarre that this situation has arisen. However, before you have Indyref 2: could the SNP and Labour not somehow get the government to hold a second EU referendum, now that the UK has had a taste of life outside and the 'sanctions' we've had imposed on us. This idea is based on what I said above about needing to experience both being on the inside and outside of the club. Also on the fact that the referendum was not binding but advisory. Failing this, other options are available when the side one is on loses in a referendum: either accept the result or leave the country. Simply declaring independence from the UK- well, London could do that!
Were London a nation, then London could, indeed secede from England. That, Spud, is London's concern, not mine. Scotland IS, however a nation - one which the Westminster government declared were equal partners in the union after 2014. They need to keep their promise and treat us as such, if they have any integrity, which I doubt., otherwise we will have no hesitation in either making that partnership equal or trying to end it. As for SNP co-operating with what's left of Labour? Seriously? After Corbyn, Dugdale et al's remarks about Scotland's choice in june this year?
-
Taking British jobs away from British people and giving them to non-British people.
It's partly the way British people use the EU that I find wrong. For example, a woman with children can't be bothered to clean her kitchen or make her children help, so she hires a foreign maid to do it, who she pays a low wage rather than paying the full rate to a British person. She goes to the coffee shop or gym while the maid is doing her work. The children never learn how to clear up their mess.
If she employed a British maid, how would the children learn to clear up their mess then?
-
Not sure anyone is saying that.
In any case if you are talking about the numbers who voted to leave - you mean the approx. 34% of eligible voters who voted leave?
I point this out because people, including you talk about half. It wasn't 50%.
David Davies amongst others claim an overwhelming mandate for Brexit - can you explain to me and others how 34% is overwhelming in any sense?
Particularly when our government would never allow unions to claim a mandate on anything of this minority nature.
The ones who didn't vote, who couldn't be bothered obviously weren't that fussed.
It wasn't a minority vote.
You can just as easily add the ones who couldn't be bothered to vote, to the Brexit vote.
-
All that happens is that remainers who can't accept a democratic vote just come across as people who are terrified of change and can't let go.
Move on.
-
All that happens is that remainers who can't accept a democratic vote just come across as people who are terrified of change and can't let go.
Move on.
'Moving on' might be a bit trickier than the Brexiteers would have had us believe:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37735968
The EU are probably not going to offer us the pragmatic deal that everyone is assuming.
-
The ones who didn't vote, who couldn't be bothered obviously weren't that fussed.
It wasn't a minority vote.
You can just as easily add the ones who couldn't be bothered to vote, to the Brexit vote.
So would you say it was an overwhelming mandate then?
-
All that happens is that remainers who can't accept a democratic vote just come across as people who are terrified of change and can't let go.
Move on.
All that means is that brexiters who cannot accepyt the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland need to think about their precious union before they make matters worse than they already are.
-
All that means is that brexiters who cannot accepyt the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland need to think about their precious union before they make matters worse than they already are.
I voted remain, the majority voted Brexit, Scotland voted to stick with the U.K.
Therefore they are bound by a democratic vote.
Time to move on now.
-
So would you say it was an overwhelming mandate then?
I'd say the matter is now closed.
Remain lost.
I'm not supporting overturning a democratic vote, even if it isn't what I voted!
-
'Moving on' might be a bit trickier than the Brexiteers would have had us believe:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37735968
The EU are probably not going to offer us the pragmatic deal that everyone is assuming.
Probably not, the writings been on the wall for quite a while.
Other countries in the EU have their own problems with their own populations wanting out.
They don't want us to be to successful, because it might increase problems in their own countries.
I haven't assumed we are going to get a good deal.
I think it's going to be a struggle.
Plus the fact, even if you did overturn the Brexit vote, they may no longer want us.
A lot of them acknowledge it was. ( a democratic vote)
-
Probably not, the writings been on the wall for quite a while.
Other countries in the EU have their own problems with their own populations wanting out.
They don't want us to be to successful, because it might increase problems in their own countries.
I haven't assumed we are going to get a good deal.
I think it's going to be a struggle.
Plus the fact, even if you did overturn the Brexit vote, they may no longer want us.
A lot of them acknowledge it was. ( a democratic vote)
None of which is good news for us. If we lose the single market the economy will be in for a very bumpy ride.
-
I voted remain, the majority voted Brexit, Scotland voted to stick with the U.K.
Therefore they are bound by a democratic vote.
Time to move on now.
I voted remain, the majority voted Brexit, Scotland voted to stick with the U.K.
Therefore they are bound by a democratic vote.
Time to move on now.
I voted remain, the majority voted Brexit, Scotland voted to stick with the U.K.
Therefore they are bound by a democratic vote.
Time to move on now.
Ah, democratic vote.
That woyuld be the same democratic vote that kicked out all but three unionist apologist reps to the pseudodemocratic rabble of Westminster, then?
The Democratic vote which saw a majority of elected members in Scotland's parliament in favour of regaining her freedom elected in the last Holyrood elections?
-
Thank you for that ringing endorsement of ecclesiastical influence in society. PS. The ''bumps in the road'' are peoples lives and livelihoods.
Apart from that, ippy, what thousand years? The Act of Ubnion was in 1707. The Act of separation making the majority of Ireland free nearly 240 years later. Bad arithmetic on Vlad's part.
-
Apart from that, ippy, what thousand years? The Act of Ubnion was in 1707. The Act of separation making the majority of Ireland free nearly 240 years later. Bad arithmetic on Vlad's part.
What's next Anchor, picking up on semantics too?
ippy
-
Nope. 'british history does not go back a thousand years. Niether does the so-called mother of parliaments. At best, the 'UK' as we know it iss less than eighty years old.
-
Ah, democratic vote.
That woyuld be the same democratic vote that kicked out all but three unionist apologist reps to the pseudodemocratic rabble of Westminster, then?
The Democratic vote which saw a majority of elected members in Scotland's parliament in favour of regaining her freedom elected in the last Holyrood elections?
The one where the majority of the Scottish people voted to stay part of the U.K., that one!
-
The one where the majority of the Scottish people voted to stay part of the U.K., that one!
You mean the one where we were told that if we wanted to remain in the EU we'd best vote to stay in the UK?
Some of those who voted 'No' may well have been swayed by this and I'm sure you can see the irony given the support for the EU within Scotland in the more recent referendum - something that those claiming a mandate for Brexit prefer to ignore.
Things have changed and if you guys in rUK are happy to accept Brexit them I think we need to leave you to it - you might like to think the matter is closed but it isn't, and as the disaster that is Brexit slowly unfolds and I'd expect the support for independence here in Scotland will grow.
-
Nope. 'british history does not go back a thousand years. Niether does the so-called mother of parliaments. At best, the 'UK' as we know it iss less than eighty years old.
Maybe something like 942 and a half years? Or 748 and a quarter? So anyway, returning to the subject of the thread.
ippy
-
You mean the one where we were told that if we wanted to remain in the EU we'd best vote to stay in the UK?
Some of those who voted 'No' may well have been swayed by this and I'm sure you can see the irony given the support for the EU within Scotland in the more recent referendum - something that those claiming a mandate for Brexit prefer to ignore.
Things have changed and if you guys in rUK are happy to accept Brexit them I think we need to leave you to it - you might like to think the matter is closed but it isn't, and as the disaster that is Brexit slowly unfolds and I'd expect the support for independence here in Scotland will grow.
I can see the irony. I didn't vote to leave the EU either.
Leaving the UK could be another disaster for Scotland.
Just because people want it, doesn't mean it will work.
If the UK gets a hard deal in Brexit, it won't be able to offer anything but a hard exit for Scotland.
Then you would have to try and negotiate your way into the EU and you wouldn't get the same deal as the UK had.
You would have to adopt the euro.
I don't think Scotland keeping the pound is an option. Plus Scotland would have to take its fair share of the debt.
If Scotland leaves, it's on it's own.
-
I can see the irony. I didn't vote to leave the EU either.
Leaving the UK could be another disaster for Scotland.
Just like Brexit.
Just because people want it, doesn't mean it will work.
Just like Brexit.
If the UK gets a hard deal in Brexit, it won't be able to offer anything but a hard exit for Scotland.
There would be negotiation, and I don't expect that to be one sided.
Then you would have to try and negotiate your way into the EU and you wouldn't get the same deal as the UK had.
You would have to adopt the euro.
I don't think Scotland keeping the pound is an option. Plus Scotland would have to take its fair share of the debt.
All aspects of negotiation.
If Scotland leaves, it's on it's own.
Which is the general idea.
-
The one where the majority of the Scottish people voted to stay part of the U.K., that one!
But I can see their point - the UK that they voted to remain a part of has chosen to transform itself beyond all recognition. Had the referenda been the other way around I think there is no doubt that we would now have an independent Scotland.
-
Just like Brexit.
Just like Brexit.
There would be negotiation, and I don't expect that to be one sided.
All aspects of negotiation.
Which is the general idea.
If things go really badly with Brexit, their ( gov in London) ability to negotiate will be limited.
You cannot take and cripple the rest of the U.K.
You can't negotiate something, if it isn't there to offer.
If the uk suffers, Scotland can't expect to b given a golden handshake.
If it did go like the Great Depression in the states, then Scotland just wouldn't get anything like a good deal.
Why should they?
-
Things have changed and if you guys in rUK are happy to accept Brexit them I think we need to leave you to it - you might like to think the matter is closed but it isn't, and as the disaster that is Brexit slowly unfolds and I'd expect the support for independence here in Scotland will grow.
I think 'things have changed' many years ago, Gordon. If we, as the British public, had been given the opportunity to vote on the Maastricht and Lisbon Treaties as the relevant PMs promised, I doubt whether there would have been the referendum last June. Out of interest, how much has Scotland relied on EU monies for structural and other purposes - such as has happened in S.Wales, Cornwall and the North East of England - who seemed to be the most vocally in support of Brexit.
-
If things go really badly with Brexit, their ( gov in London) ability to negotiate will be limited.
Which is something the government (the Tory party) inflicted on us in a effort to deal with their internal party politics with no plans in place since, presumably, even they didn't expect the answer they got .
You cannot take and cripple the rest of the U.K.
You mean like we are being crippled, primarily it seems by voters in provincial England.
If the uk suffers, Scotland can't expect to b given a golden handshake.
The UK is already suffering so we need to negotiate a Ukexit: remember we didn't vote for either the hapless Tories or Brexit.
If it did go like the Great Depression in the states, then Scotland just wouldn't get anything like a good deal.
Why should they?
I think we've seen enough to guage which way the wind is blowing so if rUK is fool enough to go down this route we need to get out of the UK before Brexit - remember 68% of us here in Scotland didn't vote for Brexit so surely you don't expect us to roll over for a government we didn't vote for.
-
Which is something the government (the Tory party) inflicted on us in a effort to deal with their internal party politics with no plans in place since, presumably, even they didn't expect the answer they got .
I do believe that they didn't think that the result would turn out the way it did. They believed that the British people would know that staying in the EU would be best for them.
You mean like we are being crippled, primarily it seems by voters in provincial England.
Not to mention a large proportion of the Welsh!!
The UK is already suffering so we need to negotiate a Ukexit: remember we didn't vote for either the hapless Tories or Brexit.
I think we've seen enough to guage which way the wind is blowing so if rUK is fool enough to go down this route we need to get out of the UK before Brexit - remember 68% of us here in Scotland vote for Brexit so surely you don't expect us to roll over for a government we didn't vote for.
Except that, by voting in the UK's General Election in May 2015, you and other Scottish people did vote for the government. Mind you, if the Scots were so keen on independence, why vote with the rest of the UK in either a General Election or Brexit Referendum? There appears to be a double standard within Scottish politics.
-
I do believe that they didn't think that the result would turn out the way it did. They believed that the British people would know that staying in the EU would be best for them.
Not to mention a large proportion of the Welsh!!
Except that, by voting in the UK's General Election in May 2015, you and other Scottish people did vote for the government. Mind you, if the Scots were so keen on independence, why vote with the rest of the UK in either a General Election or Brexit Referendum? There appears to be a double standard within Scottish politics.
they didn't vote supportive of the UK Govt or Brexit.
-
I do believe that they didn't think that the result would turn out the way it did. They believed that the British people would know that staying in the EU would be best for them.
Not to mention a large proportion of the Welsh!!
Except that, by voting in the UK's General Election in May 2015, you and other Scottish people did vote for the government. Mind you, if the Scots were so keen on independence, why vote with the rest of the UK in either a General Election or Brexit Referendum? There appears to be a double standard within Scottish politics.
Don't be silly: we are currently, since 1707, in a political union so of course we vote on UK elections. If you think that is double standards then you'd better go and study the political history of the UK.
The other point is, of course, that the outcome of both the last GE and the EU referendum show that the Scottish electorate elected only one government MP and rejected Brexit by 68/32% - so that the UK position reflects the Scottish political climate doesn't stack up.
-
I voted remain, the majority voted Brexit, Scotland voted to stick with the U.K.
Therefore they are bound by a democratic vote.
Time to move on now.
legally they aren't, since it is advisory. Are you bound to accept a General Election vote and have no opposition?
-
Taking British jobs away from British people and giving them to non-British people.
When has the EU ever done that?
By the way, it suits me just fine that my plumber is a likeable chap who is competent but doesn't rip me off. The fact that he comes from Poland doesn't bother me or any of his burgeoning list of British customers. It seems that it suits many of us fine for foreigners to do the jobs we want doing. The only people taking jobs away from British people is us.
You also have to remember that in the 80's with Britain in the doldrums, the EU made it possible for British people to find good jobs in other parts of the EU.
It's partly the way British people use the EU that I find wrong. For example, a woman with children can't be bothered to clean her kitchen or make her children help, so she hires a foreign maid to do it, who she pays a low wage rather than paying the full rate to a British person. She goes to the coffee shop or gym while the maid is doing her work. The children never learn how to clear up their mess.
What do you mean by a low wage and the full rate? Are you aware that the minimum wage applies to everybody?
Frankly, I'm astonished that you don't like the idea of rich people redistributing some of their money to poorer people. And I don't see why poor people from elsewhere in the EU are less deserving of jobs than British people.
Yes maybe we should, but you can't just force people to stay in a club. They have to want to be in it. In order for people to want to be in, they have to experience being both in and out.
That would be great if we could just get back in at the drop of a hat.
The point I'm making is that it might be good for Britain to experience being out of the EU; if however we are not able to survive, can we get back in?
It'll probably turn out not to be good and the signs certainly aren't promising. I expect we probably could get back in but not on the same terms we have now. For example, our rebate will be gone and we'll have to commit to joining the Euro one day (the Euro definitely is a bad idea).
-
The ones who didn't vote, who couldn't be bothered obviously weren't that fussed.
It wasn't a minority vote.
You can just as easily add the ones who couldn't be bothered to vote, to the Brexit vote.
Only 34% of the electorate felt strongly enough about leaving to get off their arses and vote leave. The "don't cares" should be counted towards the status quo i.e. stay in.
-
Only 34% of the electorate felt strongly enough about leaving to get off their arses and vote leave. The "don't cares" should be counted towards the status quo i.e. stay in.
I don't think you can do that, they are neutral, really.
More people voted on the Brexit issue, than turnout for a general election.
-
When has the EU ever done that?
Never. If anything, it has been British people refusing certain jobs and therefore forcing farmers and other agricultural groups to seek overseas workers to do the seasnal stuff. The nearest we get to 'skilled' workers putting Brits out of a job has been in the areas where shortages - such as nursing - already exist.
By the way, it suits me just fine that my plumber is a likeable chap who is competent but doesn't rip me off. The fact that he comes from Poland doesn't bother me or any of his burgeoning list of British customers. It seems that it suits many of us fine for foreigners to do the jobs we want doing. The only people taking jobs away from British people is us.
But why have you got a Polish plumber, jeremy? Is it because there are no British ones local to you?
You also have to remember that in the 80's with Britain in the doldrums, the EU made it possible for British people to find good jobs in other parts of the EU.
What do you mean by a low wage and the full rate? Are you aware that the minimum wage applies to everybody?
And, realistically, Spud - how many of those low-paid maids come from Europe? Many come from Asia and have nothing to do with the EU.
-
they didn't vote supportive of the UK Govt or Brexit.
But they did, in the same way that every one who took part in the votes voted in support of the system that gives the result. I'm afraid that you can't say that you want to tae part in such votes and then turn around and say that you want your metaphorical ball back simply because you don't like the result. Like you, I believe that the rules around the referendum were poorly thought out and that at least a 60/40 split, perhaps even a 66/34 split, should have been required to change anything (I mentioned this in posts both before and after the event), but sadly, there seems to be this assumption across the board that democracy can only exist with a 50%+1 formula.
-
But they did, in the same way that every one who took part in the votes voted in support of the system that gives the result. I'm afraid that you can't say that you want to tae part in such votes and then turn around and say that you want your metaphorical ball back simply because you don't like the result. Like you, I believe that the rules around the referendum were poorly thought out and that at least a 60/40 split, perhaps even a 66/34 split, should have been required to change anything (I mentioned this in posts both before and after the event), but sadly, there seems to be this assumption across the board that democracy can only exist with a 50%+1 formula.
Except the manifesto commitment from the SNP for a second referendum if there was a significant change in circumstances was also by your approach voted for by the Scottish electorate in the Holyrood elections.
Also it's a logical nonsense to say that because I voted in a an election that I support whatever govt is elected.
-
Except the manifesto commitment from the SNP for a second referendum if there was a significant change in circumstances was also by your approach voted for by the Scottish electorate in the Holyrood elections.
Also it's a logical nonsense to say that because I voted in a an election that I support whatever govt is elected.
If you support democracy then you support whatever government is elected.
-
If you support democracy then you support whatever government is elected.
No. I don't. That would mean you couldn't have an opposition. You are the one denying the Democratic right to oppose. One that is part of the constitution.
-
If you support democracy then you support whatever government is elected.
No you don't: I don't support the Tories, along with many others who didn't vote for them, and I would hope that the democratic opportunity to remove then comes along at the earliest opportunity - unless of course we aren't in the UK by then.
-
No. I don't. That would mean you couldn't have an opposition. You are the one denying the Democratic right to oppose. One that is part of the constitution.
True.
But overruling to trying to overrule a democratic vote, isn't opposition.
Scotland just like London didn't get a majority vote in the rest of the country , for remaining in the EU.
There were more Brexiters.
-
True.
But overruling to trying to overrule a democratic vote, isn't opposition.
Scotland just like London didn't get a majority vote for remaining in the EU.
Yes, it is otherwise I couldn't oppose a democratically elected govt. Further as already pointed out, there is a democratic elected govt in Holyrood, elected with a commitment to a second independence referendum if there was a significant change in circumstances. There has been such a change.
-
Depending on who you believe ( or maybe which group each poll collected opinions from)
It isn't certain People in Scotland even want it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/30/no-real-shift-towards-scottish-independence-since-brexit-vote-poll
It depends whose poll you look at.
-
I don't think there should be a second Scottish referendum.
If any gov did that, at a detriment to the Uk without consulting the rest of the U.K., that could be seen as treasonous, IMO.
Because they would be acting in a way that was not in the best interests of the U.K. As a whole.
The difference between the OP and the government being considered treasonous is I don't think individuals voting have the same responsibility as an elected government who are supposed to be acting in the best interests of the U.K.
Scotland becoming independent, especially now we are headed for Brexit, would not be in the interests of the U.K.
IMO any government in London who did that, would be treasonous.
What happens will happen, but I would hold those who brought it about ( without consulting the rest of the U.K.) as treasonous.
As you can probably guess I am totally opposed to the idea.
-
Depending on who you believe ( or maybe which group each poll collected opinions from)
It isn't certain People in Scotland even want it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/30/no-real-shift-towards-scottish-independence-since-brexit-vote-poll
It depends whose poll you look at.
But they, given the democratic vote in the Holyrood elections, should just accept it by your logic.
-
I don't think there should be a second Scottish referendum.
which would mean you are opposing the democratic vote in the Holyrood elections. I thought you didn't think people should do such things?
-
I don't think you can do that, they are neutral, really.
You are making the mistake of assuming this was a symmetrical decision, it wasn't. It was a choice between carrying on as before or fundamental change. The bar should really have been much higher than 34% of eligible voters.
More people voted on the Brexit issue, than turnout for a general election.
So what?
-
which would mean you are opposing the democratic vote in the Holyrood elections. I thought you didn't think people should do such things?
We have already had one referendum, that's enough!
If you get another close, we want to stay as part of the U.K. Are you going to demand another one? Then another one as Brexit unfolds, then another one, and so on?
Scotland like Northern Ireland, Wales and England are part of the U.K. And it was about majorities.
The majority of Londoners voted to stay in the EU too, but have to put up with the majority vote to.
It's just tough!
That's how majority votes work.
-
We have already had one referendum, that's enough!
The World changes, Rose. People change. It's not democracy to resort to the tyranny of the past.
-
I don't think there should be a second Scottish referendum.
Quite a few of us Scots think otherwise and supported the SNP on the basis of the option of Indyref2 being an aspect of their manifesto should circumstances change - and change they have.
You'll forgive us for not being particularly bothered what the electorate on rUK think since it was they that inflicted the Tories on Scotland, which led directly to their political incompetence in not planning for the result of the referendum that they alone inflicted on the UK in order to deal with their rogue element: it backfired, and the rogue element is now driving the bus towards the cliff.
-
We have already had one referendum, that's enough!
and post that vote, the manifesto containing the commitment to hold another one was voted for. Why are you saying one Democratic vite must be supported but not another one?
-
The World changes, Rose. People change. It's not democracy to resort to the tyranny of the past.
We can't keep having referendums, it's flippin referendums that got us in this mess in the first place.
Sometimes it doesn't pay to allow the public a say in everything.
Sometimes you need a bit of tyranny to keep things working.
The general public should never have had a vote on something as important as the EU when they were so ignorant about it.
It really was a stupid thing to do, IMO.
So I'm in favour of a bit of tyranny ATM.
>:(
-
and post that vote, the manifesto containing the commitment to hold another one was voted for. Why are you saying one Democratic vite must be supported but not another one?
Because ATM I don't think it's in anyone's interest.
It's a dream, the reality would not live up to the dream of independance.
I don't think politicians in Scotland have really given Independance any more thought than London politicians have given the Thought of leaving the EU. In fact they have more in common than differences.
Independant Scotland is just a pipe dream, just like leaving the EU was a pipe dream.
Some people bought into the idea that it would solve all their problems, nothing was properly understood or planned.
Scottish Independance is just another one, they hadn't even sorted the currency they would use, just assumed they could use the pound and have the benefits of the U.K.
Neither of those things have been really planned, it's just people ( politicians) attempting to get power and control.
Scotland leaving the UK would cripple the rest of the U.K. IMO.
There is a part of me, that sees some scots as very " anti English" and don't even care about anyone else ( in fact want to hurt us) almost makes me want to say "well shove off then"
What will be, will be, I guess.
All I can do is look after my own family day to day.
-
We can't keep having referendums, it's flippin referendums that got us in this mess in the first place.
Sometimes it doesn't pay to allow the public a say in everything.
Sometimes you need a bit of tyranny to keep things working.
The general public should never have had a vote on something as important as the EU when they were so ignorant about it.
It really was a stupid thing to do, IMO.
So I'm in favour of a bit of tyranny ATM.
>:(
so all the stuff about respecting democracy from you was nonsense?
-
Because ATM I don't think it's in anyone's interest.
So actually all this stuff about people should be supporting democracy that you posted earlier, really meant they should do what you think?
-
We can't keep having referendums, it's flippin referendums that got us in this mess in the first place.
Sometimes it doesn't pay to allow the public a say in everything.
Sometimes you need a bit of tyranny to keep things working.
The general public should never have had a vote on something as important as the EU when they were so ignorant about it.
It really was a stupid thing to do, IMO.
So I'm in favour of a bit of tyranny ATM.
>:(
I'd say it is more the case that the public should be asked to vote on things for sound political reasons - and that using the EU referendum to sort out the internal divisions of the Tory party wasn't a sound reason where the political consequences were unplanned for.
I think too that you don't fully appreciate the Scottish perspective on these political matters.
-
Also it's a logical nonsense to say that because I voted in a an election that I support whatever govt is elected.
Except I didn't say that you support the government; I said that you support the process that put it there - aka democracy. You can't ick and choose which aspects or elements of democracy you want to eject and what to keep.
-
Except I didn't say that you support the government; I said that you support the process that put it there - aka democracy. You can't ick and choose which aspects or elements of democracy you want to eject and what to keep.
Actually you did because in direct reply to a statement from me saying they did not vote for the Govt, said they did because of the support for the system. Opposing the Govt is not picking and choosing, nor us continuing to campaign against a referendum result.
-
We can't keep having referendums, it's flippin referendums that got us in this mess in the first place.
I totally agree but some people keep bleating about the democratic inviolability of a referendum. If the only way to overturn a referendum that came to the wrong decision - or whose decision has been rendered invalid by circumstances - is to have another referendum, then one needs to be had.
Sometimes it doesn't pay to allow the public a say in everything.
Unfortunately, in the case of Brexit we already gave them a say. Wringing our hands and saying the referendum was a stupid mistake doesn't alter the fact that it happened.
Sometimes you need a bit of tyranny to keep things working.
You misunderstood what I meant. The tyranny to which I referred is the attitude "we have made our decision, we can't change it under any circumstances".
As for Scottish Independence, I still don't think they should have had the referendum. Many people would vote on the romantic notion of the little kingdom of Scotland and against their best economic interests. However, you can hardly blame them for crying foul now since they have been royally fucked up the arse by the voters of England and Wales who have voted against everybody's best interests (well maybe not people who live in Britain but are paid in Euros e.g. all the UKIP MEPs).
-
Because ATM I don't think it's in anyone's interest.
It's a dream, the reality would not live up to the dream of independance.
I don't think politicians in Scotland have really given Independance any more thought than London politicians have given the Thought of leaving the EU. In fact they have more in common than differences.
Independant Scotland is just a pipe dream, just like leaving the EU was a pipe dream.
Some people bought into the idea that it would solve all their problems, nothing was properly understood or planned.
Scottish Independance is just another one, they hadn't even sorted the currency they would use, just assumed they could use the pound and have the benefits of the U.K.
Neither of those things have been really planned, it's just people ( politicians) attempting to get power and control.
Scotland leaving the UK would cripple the rest of the U.K. IMO.
There is a part of me, that sees some scots as very " anti English" and don't even care about anyone else ( in fact want to hurt us) almost makes me want to say "well shove off then"
What will be, will be, I guess.
All I can do is look after my own family day to day.
So again, all the stuff you wrote about democracy you are nie saying was nonsense.
-
so all the stuff about respecting democracy from you was nonsense?
No, but I do think you can't have a total democracy were everything is delegated to the voters.
Governments have to rule, make important decisions.
I respect democracy where a vote has taken place, even if I lost.
Scotland had theirs and I respect theirs.
-
I'd say it is more the case that the public should be asked to vote on things for sound political reasons - and that using the EU referendum to sort out the internal divisions of the Tory party wasn't a sound reason where the political consequences were unplanned for.
So it's alright for the SNP to call a referendum for its own political purposes - the consequences of which had clearly not been thought through; but not acceptable for the UK government to call one that reflected the views of people across the main parties, both for and agin.
I think too that you don't fully appreciate the Scottish perspective on these political matters.
I'm not sure that you fully understand the UK perspective on these matters. You seem to think that Scottish interests are more important than those of other parts of the UK when, in my view, one without the other parts is largely defunct.
-
So again, all the stuff you wrote about democracy you are nie saying was nonsense.
No, not at all.
But the losers have to put up with their lot!
-
I'd say it is more the case that the public should be asked to vote on things for sound political reasons - and that using the EU referendum to sort out the internal divisions of the Tory party wasn't a sound reason where the political consequences were unplanned for.
I think too that you don't fully appreciate the Scottish perspective on these political matters.
I do, but I think it's a bit selfish.
They expect to use the pound and benefits that comes with it but be let off any debts that the uk has.
That's selfish!
-
So actually all this stuff about people should be supporting democracy that you posted earlier, really meant they should do what you think?
No, they should live by what the majority voted.
-
So it's alright for the SNP to call a referendum for its own political purposes - the consequences of which had clearly not been thought through; but not acceptable for the UK government to call one that reflected the views of people across the main parties, both for and agin.
I'm not sure that you fully understand the UK perspective on these matters. You seem to think that Scottish interests are more important than those of other parts of the UK when, in my view, one without the other parts is largely defunct.
Yes you put that very well 🌹
-
No, they should live by what the majority voted.
But that then means again that you want to stop any opposition, and also as already has been pointed out it was not a majority of the electorate. Further it was advisory not binding and a majority had voted for in far greater numbers parties that has stay in Europe as part of their manifesto.
-
I do, but I think it's a bit selfish.
They expect to use the pound and benefits that comes with it but be let off any debts that the uk has.
That's selfish!
actually that is incorrect.
-
I totally agree but some people keep bleating about the democratic inviolability of a referendum. If the only way to overturn a referendum that came to the wrong decision - or whose decision has been rendered invalid by circumstances - is to have another referendum, then one needs to be had.
Unfortunately, in the case of Brexit we already gave them a say. Wringing our hands and saying the referendum was a stupid mistake doesn't alter the fact that it happened.
You misunderstood what I meant. The tyranny to which I referred is the attitude "we have made our decision, we can't change it under any circumstances".
As for Scottish Independence, I still don't think they should have had the referendum. Many people would vote on the romantic notion of the little kingdom of Scotland and against their best economic interests. However, you can hardly blame them for crying foul now since they have been royally fucked up the arse by the voters of England and Wales who have voted against everybody's best interests (well maybe not people who live in Britain but are paid in Euros e.g. all the UKIP MEPs).
I agree with much of what you say, there should be something about holding referendums when there are no well thought out plans in place, and everyone should know what they are voting for.
The romantic little kingdom of Scotland is similar to the one about how leaving the EU and jobs for the Brits and solving all the issues with red tape etc :(
It's voting for an idealised position that was used by politicians, who supply the dream but not the facts or a sensible plan.
-
actually that is incorrect.
Please explain
-
But that then means again that you want to stop any opposition, and also as already has been pointed out it was not a majority of the electorate. Further it was advisory not binding and a majority had voted for in far greater numbers parties that has stay in Europe as part of their manifesto.
If people vote to see what the majority want, the minority need to accept that they lost.
Otherwise you don't have opposition so much as chaos.
You have to move forward.
Otherwise there is no point in having the referendum.
Had Scotland voted to be independant you couldn't have the losers constantly undermining the democratic process.
You still have to move forwards.
-
Please explain
The position was that share of debt would be taken. And use the pound. The threat was should they not be allowed to use the pound, the question of the share of the debt arose
-
If people vote to see what the majority want, the minority need to accept that they lost.
Otherwise you don't have opposition so much as chaos.
You have to move forward.
Otherwise there is no point in having the referendum.
Had Scotland voted to be independant you couldn't have the losers constantly undermining the democratic process.
You still have to move forwards.
Expressing opposition is not undermining the democratic process, trying to stop people expressing opposition is.
-
The position was that share of debt would be taken. And use the pound. The threat was should they not be allowed to use the pound, the question of the share of the debt arose
No, Scotland should have its own currency and should take its share of the dept with it.
I think now if a country wants to join the EU it has to adopt the Euro.
-
No, Scotland should have its own currency and should take its share of the dept with it.
I think now if a country wants to join the EU it has to adopt the Euro.
so you accept that what you said was incorrect?
-
Expressing opposition is not undermining the democratic process, trying to stop people expressing opposition is.
There comes a point when it's no longer opposition but is preventing moving forward with the democratic majority vote.
At an extreme, there is a coup!
-
so you accept that what you said was incorrect?
What this?
"Quote from: Rose on Today at 11:53:52 AM
I do, but I think it's a bit selfish.
They expect to use the pound and benefits that comes with it but be let off any debts that the uk has.
That's selfish"
?
No because that's part of what the SNP wanted, or so I read and saw on tv.
-
There comes a point when it's no longer opposition but is preventing moving forward with the democratic majority vote.
At an extreme, there is a coup!
Now, you are trying to stop people expressing their opinion, and trying to argue that doing so is in some way linked with the violent over throw of the state.
I suggest you don't really get democracy.
-
What this?
"Quote from: Rose on Today at 11:53:52 AM
I do, but I think it's a bit selfish.
They expect to use the pound and benefits that comes with it but be let off any debts that the uk has.
That's selfish"
?
No because that's part of what the SNP wanted, or so I read and saw on tv.
no it wasn't, this has already been covered.
-
no it wasn't, this has already been covered.
There is this too.
Scotland is now almost £15 billion in the red and its deficit is almost twice as large as the UK as a whole, according to newly-published official figures, which also dealt a severe blow to one of the key arguments advanced by the SNP in favour of independence.
The statistics showed that for the first time in 35 years, Scotland generated less tax per head than the rest of the UK. Although the difference is only slight, the reversal is significant because the former SNP leader Alex Salmond repeatedly used Scotland’s historically higher tax receipts to support the case for independence during 2014’s referendum campaign.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scotland-almost-15-billion-in-debt-and-its-deficit-is-almost-twice-as-large-as-the-uk-as-a-whole-say-a6921381.html
Take that as well.
No reason why the rest of the U.K. should be left with it .
-
There is this too.
Take that as well.
No reason why the rest of the U.K. should be left with it .
You do realise that is a different issue and nothing to do with your original incorrect statement?
-
The SNP sound like the Brexit campaign with Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, same misleading tactics
Kezia Dugdale, the leader of Scottish Labour, added: “These figures from the SNP Government show once and for all the devastating impact leaving the UK would have had on Scotland’s finances…People were misled by the SNP in the run-up to the referendum and that is unforgivable.”
-
You do realise that is a different issue and nothing to do with your original incorrect statement?
It would be easier if you told me which statement you are referring to, I've made a lot of different ones
-
The leave the EU ?? referendum and the independance ?? referendum seem to have a lot in common.
-
The SNP sound like the Brexit campaign with Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, same misleading tactics
No they don't, and I suspect they way the SNP are portrayed by certain sections of the media outside Scotland might be pinch of salt stuff if you think they compare with these two clowns.
-
So it's alright for the SNP to call a referendum for its own political purposes
Yes - that was part of the manifesto we voted on.
the consequences of which had clearly not been thought through; but not acceptable for the UK government to call one that reflected the views of people across the main parties, both for and agin.
The SNP are the main party here.
I'm not sure that you fully understand the UK perspective on these matters. You seem to think that Scottish interests are more important than those of other parts of the UK when, in my view, one without the other parts is largely defunct.
They are more important to the people of Scotland than are the politics surrounding the internal factions within the Tory party that are the cause of the current calamity. Perhaps the extent of allegiance to the UK isn't quite as strong here as you think it is given the UK is not acting in the interests of the 68% here who voted against Brexshit.
-
Yes - that was part of the manifesto we voted on.
The SNP are the main party here.
They are more important to the people of Scotland than are the politics surrounding the internal factions within the Tory party that are the cause of the current calamity. Perhaps the extent of allegiance to the UK isn't quite as strong here as you think it is given the UK is not acting in the interests of the 68% here who voted against Brexshit.
Wot Gordon said.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that the united kingdom iis a country or a nation, Hope - it is niether, but the union of nations into a political union of convenience (though whose convenience is a matter of dispute,)
Scotland expressed a democratic will to remain in the Eu.
The democratically elected government of Scotland will seek to put that wish into action.
(The government of the union which Scotland manifestly did NOT elect is not only unpopular here, burt seen as an increasingly irrelevent wast of taxpayers money)
-
Perhaps Scotland could be considered in the same way Denmark is?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-scottish-referendum-scotland-eu-remain-nicola-sturgeon-snp-a7100736.html
-
These are the things needed to join the EU
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/policy/conditions-membership/index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/policy/steps-towards-joining/index_en.htm
Part of that is having a single monetary unit - the euro.
Plus you also have to be able to show
a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU;
Scotland has never been fully independant so hasn't really got the track record to support its argument that it is able to cope as an independant country.
So it might have to wait years till it does, and it's Independance is shown to work and that it qualifies.
If the rest of the U.K. leaves the EU, we would have to meet these conditions plus the Euro if we wanted to rejoin at a later date.
What we have ATM might well not be on offer next time round.
What we have now, evolved with the EU.
-
Dear Rose,
Scotland has never been fully independant so hasn't really got the track record to support its argument that it is able to cope as an independant country.
This for me has never been part of the argument, anyone can see that Scotland is rich enough to stand alone, Whisky, Agriculture, oil, fishing, untapped ( so far ) resources for forestry, and last but definitely not least tourism, if Scotland did achieve Independence it would be inundated with investors wishing to tap into a very rich in resources little country.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Rose,
This for me has never been part of the argument, anyone can see that Scotland is rich enough to stand alone, Whisky, Agriculture, oil, fishing, untapped ( so far ) resources for forestry, and last but definitely not least tourism, if Scotland did achieve Independence it would be inundated with investors wishing to tap into a very rich in resources little country.
Gonnagle.
I kind of agree Gonnagle, but first it would have to discover capitalism :)
-
Dear Rose,
This for me has never been part of the argument, anyone can see that Scotland is rich enough to stand alone, Whisky, Agriculture, oil, fishing, untapped ( so far ) resources for forestry, and last but definitely not least tourism, if Scotland did achieve Independence it would be inundated with investors wishing to tap into a very rich in resources little country.
Gonnagle.
But you have to be able to support the claim with a past track record of an independant Scotland. ( to join the EU)
But you can't because Scottish independance is in uncharted territory.
That doesn't mean that 5 years later you won't have that, but initially you won't.
So it might take a long time before an independant Scotland had enough paperwork to show.
It's different for another independant country joining because they would already have that, Scotland won't.
It does depend on how far back you need to go, to show you have a functioning market economy as an independant nation.
-
Dear Rose,
This for me has never been part of the argument, anyone can see that Scotland is rich enough to stand alone, Whisky, Agriculture, oil, fishing, untapped ( so far ) resources for forestry, and last but definitely not least tourism, if Scotland did achieve Independence it would be inundated with investors wishing to tap into a very rich in resources little country.
Gonnagle.
You forgot haggis and shortbread, both of which I like ;)
-
Dear Rose,
I kind of agree Gonnagle, but first it would have to discover capitalism :)
Ah well!! That is where our Nicola and Salmond step in, can a Leopard truly change it's shorts, it was not that long ago that the SNP were thought of as the tartan Tories. ::)
Shortbread, oh yes, Haggis, yeuch!!
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Rose,
Ah well!! That is where our Nicola and Salmond step in, can a Leopard truly change it's shorts, it was not that long ago that the SNP were thought of as the tartan Tories. ::)
Shortbread, oh yes, Haggis, yeuch!!
Gonnagle.
Lol
We like haggis in our house and have it quite often.
We went to a restaurant many years ago on the shores of Loch Ness, called I think " the Bothy" and had chicken breast sliced and filled with haggis served with a whisky sauce.
Absolutely delicious.
If you are ever down that way, I'd recommend it 😉🌹
-
Lol
We like haggis in our house and have it quite often.
We went to a restaurant many years ago on the shores of Loch Ness, called I think " the Bothy" and had chicken breast sliced and filled with haggis served with a whisky sauce.
Absolutely delicious.
If you are ever down that way, I'd recommend it 😉🌹
I stayed a night at the YHA on the shores of Loch Ness a couple of years ago. Amazing location but the plesiosaurs were a bit intrusive.
-
Dear Rose,
Oh I forgot, and old Lapsed has just reminded me, we have Nessie, that wonderful Myth/Legend alone is worth a few million to Scotland's coffiers.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Rose,
This for me has never been part of the argument, anyone can see that Scotland is rich enough to stand alone, Whisky, Agriculture, oil, fishing, untapped ( so far ) resources for forestry, and last but definitely not least tourism, if Scotland did achieve Independence it would be inundated with investors wishing to tap into a very rich in resources little country.
Gonnagle.
Is whisky a significant part of Scotland's economy?
As for the other parts, oil is temporary and should really be ignored because it's going to run out in the next fifty years. There's no way Scottish agriculture is going to be anything but a millstone. No agriculture in Western Europe would be viable without the CAP (makes me wonder about all the farmers' fields in England I used to drive past with Vote Leave signs in them). Fishing is a finite resource and exploiting it to the max means there will soon be no fish. Forestry and tourism, I'll give you.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
Ever been through duty free :P :P the revenue from tax on whisky is worth billions, fishing, well us Jocks are leaders in sustainable fishing, try a Scottish prawn or mussel, the Europeans do, by the millions, agriculture, well we have enough spare land to harness and exploit agriculture, oil, aye they keep telling us it is running out, but fifty years is a long time and if we put the revenue to good use like Norway we would be laughing.
But then, I am forgetting our greatest asset, the people, we did invent the modern world ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
And the hits keep coming :P What about that other great asset we have, although I would see it as quite sinful to charge our nearest neighbours for a glass of water, not forgetting the hydro power we could harness and sell to our English cousins, tell you what old son 8) I would make a great SNP supporter, shame that is full of Grannies heilin hame and shortbread tin supporters.
Gonnagle.
-
Ever been through duty free :P :P the revenue from tax on whisky is worth billions, fishing, well us Jocks are leaders in sustainable fishing, ...
Unfortunately Gonners, research suggests that the Scottish form of sustainable fishing is lower in many of the important minerals, etc. that making the eating of fish so important for our health.
https://authoritynutrition.com/wild-vs-farmed-salmon/
http://www.shape.com/healthy-eating/diet-tips/ask-diet-doctor-farm-raised-vs-wild-salmon
As you will see, whilst both sides have their arguements, it does seem that certain important elements are reduced in the 'farmed' types.
-
Unfortunately Gonners, research suggests that the Scottish form of sustainable fishing is lower in many of the important minerals, etc. that making the eating of fish so important for our health.
https://authoritynutrition.com/wild-vs-farmed-salmon/
http://www.shape.com/healthy-eating/diet-tips/ask-diet-doctor-farm-raised-vs-wild-salmon
As you will see, whilst both sides have their arguements, it does seem that certain important elements are reduced in the 'farmed' types.
Scottish smoked salmon is popular, a lot of fish are farm raised in the rest of the U.K with no issues.
Rainbow trout are exclusively farm reared. ( which is what you would buy in the shops)
So if you are catching rainbow trout anywhere in the UK they are ALL farm reared.
Our naturalised wild brown trout couldn't cope with the shear numbers of fishermen. ( and women)
So Scotland wouldn't have to worry about that, because most freshwater fish sold is farm reared.
I don't think anyone is going to stop buying Scottish salmon because it happens to be farm reared.
Scotland also makes a profit from allowing fishermen to catch the salmon, plus hunting.
It can cost £1000 for the day in some places.
We went on a cruise and ended up sat with a couple and the husband was a Scot and he was a game keeper.
Hunting and fishing can be very expensive.
People come from all over the place to participate.
It isn't that Scotland can't, it's whether there are enough things and having the paperwork to show independance works ( for the eu)
Scotland has always traded on quality over quantity. Augus beef etc.
I just feel I'd be losing part of my own country in splitting up the uk partly because we are an island and Wales and Scotland are part of the same land mass.
I don't feel that way about NI because they are a separate island.
But Scotland and Wales are part of all of us.
It would be a terrible shame to lose them.
Shetland isles wanted independance from Scotland, but they won't allow them a referendum.
They would be taken out of the U.K. Against their will.
Apparently someone was telling me some of the islands could be as much a part of Norway as an alternative to the UK.
If Scotland get independance will these other islands be given a choice?
-
However, Rose, most Scots - and not nationalists at that - do not feel british in any way. Many of my fellow countrymen voted NO in 2014 becuse they believed they were happy being 'subsidised' by Westminster (though that was NOT the case) whilst being able to cock a snook at britain at the same time. That, in my view, is dishonest. Scotland has never lost her identity - partly because the Union was not entirely a takeover; law, religion, and to some extent education, were always separate from Westminster - and since 1947, the NHS as well. The attitudes were hardened by history, and the ambiguity of the huntin' shootin' and fishin set which, while bringing very limited employment, emptied the Highlands of the remaining population to maintain the artificial grouse moors - added to the already decimated population which was cleared from the land to make way for sheep. The iconic beauty of the area is wholly artificial; overgrazed, deforested, artificially managed - in effect something of an ecological desert. Devolution is gradually (very gradually) reversing this. The feeling of identity, though remains strong, and the concept of britishness has been fading gradually since the 1980's. Only in pockets of the West of Scotland is it very firmly in the minds of the sectarian bigots who remain tied to the Union Flag as a joint symbol of their unsavoury allegiance to the Orange Order.
-
However, Rose, most Scots - and not nationalists at that - do not feel british in any way. Many of my fellow countrymen voted NO in 2014 becuse they believed they were happy being 'subsidised' by Westminster (though that was NOT the case) whilst being able to cock a snook at britain at the same time. That, in my view, is dishonest. Scotland has never lost her identity - partly because the Union was not entirely a takeover; law, religion, and to some extent education, were always separate from Westminster - and since 1947, the NHS as well. The attitudes were hardened by history, and the ambiguity of the huntin' shootin' and fishin set which, while bringing very limited employment, emptied the Highlands of the remaining population to maintain the artificial grouse moors - added to the already decimated population which was cleared from the land to make way for sheep. The iconic beauty of the area is wholly artificial; overgrazed, deforested, artificially managed - in effect something of an ecological desert. Devolution is gradually (very gradually) reversing this. The feeling of identity, though remains strong, and the concept of britishness has been fading gradually since the 1980's. Only in pockets of the West of Scotland is it very firmly in the minds of the sectarian bigots who remain tied to the Union Flag as a joint symbol of their unsavoury allegiance to the Orange Order.
Separate identities are fine, I have no issue with people's sense of identity until they use it to destroy or to hurt those with different identities or to set out to make others feel less or worthless.
Splitting the UK is to destroy us and our history.
I can't see why people can't enjoy their identities while being within the UK.
There is an element of spite which I don't find acceptable, a wish to hurt English people.
Hurt them for something they personally haven't done.
What ever happened in the past is gone, the perpetrators long dead.
:(
-
I find the Scots to be antagonistic friends, I love having a go at the Scots and I equally love it when they strike back at the English, it would be a sad day for me if we have to split but is that was to be a part of the price for leaving the E U, I hope not, it would be worth it.
ippy
-
But then, I am forgetting our greatest asset, the people, we did invent the modern world
So you are the ones to blame for Pokémon and Candy Crush.
Yer the spawn of Satan the lot of you.
PS I've just noticed that the programme know where to put an accent on Pokémon - I suppose your responsible for that as well >:(
-
What 'history' are you talking about, Rose? The shared crown since 1603 was a catalyst for unrest, civil disobedience and outright war, here. Cromwell was not seen as a proto-democrat, but as a vile dictator. After 1707, the sad history of the destruction of the Gaelic culture, ethnic cleansing, repression, depopulation by force and the use of empiire as a sop to the economy whilst vile exploitation, genocide, famine and bloody suppression accompanied the Union flag on its' progress. That's why many up here call it the 'butcher's apron' and treat it with disdain. The 'equal and incorporating union' of 1707 was anything but - the Westminster parliament ignored the traditions and structure of the more egalitarian Scots parliament, in favour of a continuance of the daft trash of the English parliament with black rod, numpties in tights, and unelected peers, which were nothing to do with us whatsoever. So much for equality. We remember English tanks and regiments on the streets of Glasgow in 1918, because Westminster feared a revolution, and Scots were first in line for the bullet. And don't even START me on Thatcher. No, the history we remember up here has no commonality with Westminster.
-
There was a time when I wanted the UK to remain the UK, but that time has passed.
Identity politics rule. I have moved from considering myself to be from Britain, to being from England and I sincerely hope there is another referendum as soon as possible, and that there is yes vote as I find myself increasingly unable to put up with the SNP moaning.
Sturgeon tactic, demand something from the UK government. Something in the best interests of Scotland and the Scottish people, but demand something impossible to get realistically or constitutionally and then when they don't get it, complain loudly and bitterly about how badly Westminster treat the Scottish people, and act against the best interests of Scotland and the Scottish people.
Please go.
-
There was a time when I wanted the UK to remain the UK, but that time has passed.
Identity politics rule. I have moved from considering myself to be from Britain, to being from England and I sincerely hope there is another referendum as soon as possible, and that there is yes vote as I find myself increasingly unable to put up with the SNP moaning.
Sturgeon tactic, demand something from the UK government. Something in the best interests of Scotland and the Scottish people, but demand something impossible to get realistically or constitutionally and then when they don't get it, complain loudly and bitterly about how badly Westminster treat the Scottish people, and act against the best interests of Scotland and the Scottish people.
Please go.
Sorry, this tactic of which you speak, I don't recognise it, could you outline an example?
-
There was a time when I wanted the UK to remain the UK, but that time has passed.
Identity politics rule. I have moved from considering myself to be from Britain, to being from England and I sincerely hope there is another referendum as soon as possible, and that there is yes vote as I find myself increasingly unable to put up with the SNP moaning.
Sturgeon tactic, demand something from the UK government. Something in the best interests of Scotland and the Scottish people, but demand something impossible to get realistically or constitutionally and then when they don't get it, complain loudly and bitterly about how badly Westminster treat the Scottish people, and act against the best interests of Scotland and the Scottish people.
Please go.
I what way, for example, is pointing out that Brexit was rejected by Scots voters a tactic?
It is a simple fact.
-
It's interesting how the old English sense of entitlement is breaking down, in various ways. Some people are trying to cling onto it, thus talking of 'our history', some are becoming bitter ('please go'), others are accepting of a break-up. It reminds me to an extent of the ambivalence which existed over Ireland, a mixture of contempt, genuine affection, and entitlement. Quite queasy making, especially as English nationalism shows its less attractive facets, e.g. racism.
-
It's interesting how the old English sense of entitlement is breaking down, in various ways. Some people are trying to cling onto it, thus talking of 'our history', some are becoming bitter ('please go'), others are accepting of a break-up. It reminds me to an extent of the ambivalence which existed over Ireland, a mixture of contempt, genuine affection, and entitlement. Quite queasy making, especially as English nationalism shows its less attractive facets, e.g. racism.
What old English sense of entitlement?
What about your less attractive facets, which your post is revealing?
What about your own particular brand of racism?
You think you are above all that, hence the patronising post.
But it says so much about you Wigginhall.
I think you see in the English, what is actually within yourself.
It is our history.
-
What old English sense of entitlement?
What about your less attractive facets, which your post is revealing?
What about your own particular brand of racism?
You think you are above all that, hence the patronising post.
But it says so much about you Wigginhall.
I think you see in the English, what is actually within yourself.
I see no brand of racism in that post. Can you point it out to us?
-
I see no brand of racism in that post. Can you point it out to us?
Yes, wigginhalls description of the "English"
It might not be " racism" as in "ethnic minorities" or the colour of someone's skin, but it is the same thing.
Nationalism does that, even Scottish Nationalism.
Nationalism can be a form of racism.
-
What old English sense of entitlement?
What about your less attractive facets, which your post is revealing?
What about your own particular brand of racism?
You think you are above all that, hence the patronising post.
But it says so much about you Wigginhall.
I think you see in the English, what is actually within yourself.
It is our history.
Why don't you make it personal, it's so much more conducive to argument?
-
Well as far as I can see he described 3 attitudes to Scotland that I recognize in the English. Is that racist?
He commented on the nastier aspects of English nationalism. Is that racist?
I'm not following that part of your argument against his post ???
-
Nationalism can be a form of racism.
So, just out of curiosity, and bearing in mind I've made no secret of my support for Scottish independence both in 2014 and currently, in what ways have I expressed racism?
-
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/nicola-sturgeons-gigantic-eu-bluff/
Sums part of it up pretty well.
I don't expect you to see it as I do.
-
Why don't you make it personal, it's so much more conducive to argument?
You chose to write that unpleasant post about the English, what do you expect?
You already made it personal, by sneering at the English.
I'm English, how was I not supposed to take it personally? it was aimed at posters on here.
Just because you put your post in " pseudo intellectual terms" doesn't mean what you actually said is ok.
-
So, just out of curiosity, and bearing in mind I've made no secret of my support for Scottish independence both in 2014 and currently, in what ways have I expressed racism?
I haven't said you have
I said Nationalism can be a form of racism.
-
I haven't said you have
So, you'd agree that it is feasible that someone (such as me) can support Scottish independence without this being a racist stance?
-
So, you'd agree that it is feasible that someone (such as me) can support Scottish independence without this being a racist stance?
Yes, of course.
-
You chose to write that unpleasant post about the English, what do you expect?
You already made it personal, by sneering at the English.
I'm English, how was I not supposed to take it personally, it was aimed at posters on here.
Just because you put your post in " pseudo intellectual terms" doesn't mean what you actually said is ok.
Well I'm English and I didn't take it personally, nor did I think he was sneering. He was pointing out some well-established examples of the way some sections of the English population think - none of them particularly new or outré , but nevertheless true. Indeed I belong to one of those groups he identified (not telling you which one - try guessing) and in the past I belonged to another one of those groups - I don't see what was so inflammatory about the post.
-
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/nicola-sturgeons-gigantic-eu-bluff/
Sums part of it up pretty well.
I don't expect you to see it as I do.
And I don't see how putting up this specific article helps. Can you outline an actual example of the tactic with details?
-
Well I'm English and I didn't take it personally, nor did I think he was sneering. He was pointing out some well-established examples of the way some sections of the English population think - none of them particularly new or outré , but nevertheless true. Indeed I belong to one of those groups he identified (not telling you which one - try guessing) and in the past I belonged to another one of those groups - I don't see what was so inflammatory about the post.
I didn't care for being labelled, or the tone in which it appeared to be set.
Perhaps you want to read it again.
-
I didn't care for being labelled, or the tone in which it appeared to be set.
Perhaps you want to read it again.
Funnily enough I was going to suggest you read it again - as I have now re-read it several times and I cannot for the life of me see why you are getting so hot under the collar.
-
It's interesting how the old English sense of entitlement is breaking down, in various ways. Some people are trying to cling onto it, thus talking of 'our history', some are becoming bitter ('please go'), others are accepting of a break-up. It reminds me to an extent of the ambivalence which existed over Ireland, a mixture of contempt, genuine affection, and entitlement. Quite queasy making, especially as English nationalism shows its less attractive facets, e.g. racism.
I reckon this is aimed at me.
No sense of entitlement here, just sick to death of the same old broken record from the Nats. They should put their money where their mouth is and call another referendum now, but oh, they are too scared so in the meantime they are making lots and lots of noise, with no plan for anything different to that one they had for their once in a generation referendum two years ago.
Instead of babbling on about Europe why not tell everyone what their economic plans are for the newly independent Scotland, what currency they will use.
I think the nats and their ilk suffer from a sense of entitlement and Westminster (the English) are the eeeeevil ones keeping them from achieving it through the slave shackles of the union.
-
And I don't see how putting up this specific article helps. Can you outline an actual example of the tactic with details?
There are actual examples in the article.
-
There are actual examples in the article.
I don't see that they follow what you laid out. Please take one and match it up with your description.
-
Yes, of course.
Therefore, you'd further agree that proponents of Scottish independence (such as me) can have grounds for seeking the breakup of the current UK that have nothing to do with racism: for instance, one can favour Scottish independence without this being interpreted as being the anti-English sentiment you implied exists in your #137.
-
I don't see that they follow what you laid out. Please take one and match it up with your description.
I'm afraid I am not getting into it with you as I have neither the time nor the inclination to write war and peace arguments to be nit picked. I am sure you get the gist.
-
I'm afraid I am not getting into it with you as I have neither the time nor the inclination to write war and peace arguments to be nit picked. I am sure you get the gist.
yes, you made a statement and seem unwilling to justify it.
-
It's interesting how the old English sense of entitlement is breaking down, in various ways. Some people are trying to cling onto it, thus talking of 'our history', some are becoming bitter ('please go'), others are accepting of a break-up. It reminds me to an extent of the ambivalence which existed over Ireland, a mixture of contempt, genuine affection, and entitlement. Quite queasy making, especially as English nationalism shows its less attractive facets, e.g. racism.
Nationalism need not be ethnic and thus engender racism, Wiggs.
I completely agree that ethnic nationalism has nothing to commend it.
On the other hand, civic nationalism, which not only espouses those patriouts who see themselves as part of a nation, but thiose of all races, creeds, ethnicc origins who wish to make that nation their home and adopt its culture to a greater or lesser degree, is non threatening and can be positive.
(The SNP deputy leader was born in England).
As for England?
The problem is that she has immersed herself in the idea of britain to such a degree that too many of her citizens simply do not see the difference.
I wish England nothing but well in her future dealings with the EU or everyone else; but wish to be governed by a government - of whatever hue - elected by the people of my own nation, and not constantly led into situations we do not wish by a government our nation did not elect.
-
Good points, Jim. I am very admiring of civic nationalism, which seems to work well in Scotland, as far as I can see. I think the English are ambivalent about it. At their best, they welcome other people as 'one of us', see for example, Mo Farah. But then there is that atavistic note about the 'indigenous', which always strikes me as both sentimental and sinister. I suppose Brexit has unleashed this to an extent; I would think that in economic terms, nativism would be disastrous.
-
oil, aye they keep telling us it is running out, but fifty years is a long time
No it isn't. If you are making your decision for independence purely on the basis of the next fifty years, I would regard that as reckless short-termism. Independence is likely to last for hundreds or even thousands of years.
The only way in which oil should factor into the equation is in determining the timing. You want the secession to happen ideally with the price of oil high so that the independent Scottish economy starts off in the best circumstances.
-
What 'history' are you talking about, Rose? The shared crown since 1603 was a catalyst for unrest, civil disobedience and outright war, here. Cromwell was not seen as a proto-democrat, but as a vile dictator. After 1707, the sad history of the destruction of the Gaelic culture, ethnic cleansing, repression, depopulation by force
And you're blaming that on the English?
the Westminster parliament ignored the traditions and structure of the more egalitarian Scots parliament, in favour of a continuance of the daft trash of the English parliament with black rod, numpties in tights, and unelected peers, which were nothing to do with us whatsoever.
The Scots had all of those things too - except their rod was white.
So much for equality. We remember English tanks and regiments on the streets of Glasgow in 1918, because Westminster feared a revolution, and Scots were first in line for the bullet.
The soldiers and tanks were sent in response to a riot over working hours.
And don't even START me on Thatcher. No, the history we remember up here has no commonality with Westminster.
Oh boo hoo. Thatcher wasn't targeting Scotland specifically. And he was the prime minister chosen by a parliament made up of representatives from the whole UK including Scotland.
-
I blame it on the british, not the English, jeremy. As far as the Scots estates went - or the 'tables' which served as our government whilst we were rebelling against Charles Stewart - the relationship between crown and parliament - or the representative of that crown - was somewhat different to that of Westminster. The crown never really exercised the same authority in Scotland as in England - mainly because of either internecine struggles in the Stewart family from Robert II onward, or when a minority on the throne meant a ruling council or council of regency was the norm. By the time of presbyterianism, parliamentary authority was curbed by that of the kirk - which for that time was actually more democratic than parliament, and the Scottish equivalent of peer was composed of the main earls and 'lords of parliament' - effectively nominated 'life' peers from the judiciary, the leading professions and the kirk. Such lords were subject to summary dismissal by the other two houses or tables of estate - a simple majority being all that was needed, and no royal approval was either sought or heeded if it was given! Refreshingly different from the Westminster of the eigheenth through twenty first centuries! Of necessity, landowners of various ranks made up the bulk of membership until the disasterous policies of Charles Stewart led to the Covenanters effectively removing crown ontrol from the monarch....a control which was not entirely restored under Charles II or his Lord High Commissioner. Records are somewhat sketchy, due to frequent destruction of property in the various conflicts from Henry VIII's 'rough wooing' until the dissolution of the estates in 1707, but here's a reasonable site giving historical sources (though the four volume "Edinburgh History of Scotland" (Edinburgh University) is a bit more comprehensive. http://www.rps.ac.uk/static/historicalintro5.html
-
I blame it on the british, not the English, jeremy. As far as the Scots estates went - or the 'tables' which served as our government whilst we were rebelling against Charles Stewart - the relationship between crown and parliament - or the representative of that crown - was somewhat different to that of Westminster. The crown never really exercised the same authority in Scotland as in England - mainly because of either internecine struggles in the Stewart family from Robert II onward, or when a minority on the throne meant a ruling council or council of regency was the norm. By the time of presbyterianism, parliamentary authority was curbed by that of the kirk - which for that time was actually more democratic than parliament, and the Scottish equivalent of peer was composed of the main earls and 'lords of parliament' - effectively nominated 'life' peers from the judiciary, the leading professions and the kirk. Such lords were subject to summary dismissal by the other two houses or tables of estate - a simple majority being all that was needed, and no royal approval was either sought or heeded if it was given! Refreshingly different from the Westminster of the eigheenth through twenty first centuries! Of necessity, landowners of various ranks made up the bulk of membership until the disasterous policies of Charles Stewart led to the Covenanters effectively removing crown ontrol from the monarch....a control which was not entirely restored under Charles II or his Lord High Commissioner. Records are somewhat sketchy, due to frequent destruction of property in the various conflicts from Henry VIII's 'rough wooing' until the dissolution of the estates in 1707, but here's a reasonable site giving historical sources (though the four volume "Edinburgh History of Scotland" (Edinburgh University) is a bit more comprehensive. http://www.rps.ac.uk/static/historicalintro5.html
I used to think it was just the Northern Irish who were prisoners of their history, but I am concluding that it is a collective madness that is sweeping through these isles.
-
I blame it on the british, not the English, jeremy.
Well that's Scotland too.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
aye they keep telling us it is running out, but fifty years is a long time and if we put the revenue to good use like Norway we would be laughing.
I have added the bit you left out, and this is what it is all about, it is not a Scottish thing but a global thing, using what we have now to invest in the future, the oil will one day run out, we could frack the frack out of this country or we can use the revenue from oil to invest in wind, tide, solar, hydro, our kids will thank us for investing in their future.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
I have added the bit you left out, and this is what it is all about, it is not a Scottish thing but a global thing, using what we have now to invest in the future, the oil will one day run out, we could frack the frack out of this country or we can use the revenue from oil to invest in wind, tide, solar, hydro, our kids will thank us for investing in their future.
Gonnagle.
Having put the revenue from the oil to good use will not magically make the future non revenue reappear. When you are talking about nationhood, 50 years is not a long time. This is also why the arguments against independence based on the current low oil price are also nonsense. It'll give you a rocky road for the first few years, but nothing more.
-
Having put the revenue from the oil to good use will not magically make the future non revenue reappear. When you are talking about nationhood, 50 years is not a long time. This is also why the arguments against independence based on the current low oil price are also nonsense. It'll give you a rocky road for the first few years, but nothing more.
Petrol is steadily going up in price.
-
One of the reasons for that, floo, is the collapsing £ due to international lack of confidence in Westminster's cackhanded handling of the whole brexit farce.
-
One of the reasons for that, floo, is the collapsing £ due to international lack of confidence in Westminster's cackhanded handling of the whole brexit farce.
But world prices are also creeping back up. OPEC are finally starting to get their act together again.
-
One of the reasons for that, floo, is the collapsing £ due to international lack of confidence in Westminster's cackhanded handling of the whole brexit farce.
The problem with this arguement, Jim, is that the £ fell within minutes of the result of the referendum being announced. The fall in the value is directly related to that vote and the lies that the Leavers were pedalling.
-
The problem with this arguement, Jim, is that the £ fell within minutes of the result of the referendum being announced. The fall in the value is directly related to that vote and the lies that the Leavers were pedalling.
That wasn't an arguument, Hope - simply a statement. Although world prices are slowly creeping up, since we pay in dollars, the price will naturally rise faster here because of the international rise in lack of confidence in the pound - a situation which will only get worse as long as this Westminster uncertainty over what brexit means continues.
And that uncertainty will continue - the meeting between the pathetic Westminster prime minister and the leaders of the devolved nations two days ago showed just how disasterously fractured the so-called union is.
It will take more than the kings horses, kings men, and a government we did not vote for, to sort it out.
-
That wasn't an arguument, Hope - simply a statement. Although world prices are slowly creeping up, since we pay in dollars, the price will naturally rise faster here because of the international rise in lack of confidence in the pound - a situation which will only get worse as long as this Westminster uncertainty over what brexit means continues.
And that uncertainty will continue - the meeting between the pathetic Westminster prime minister and the leaders of the devolved nations two days ago showed just how disasterously fractured the so-called union is.
It will take more than the kings horses, kings men, and a government we did not vote for, to sort it out.
And unfortunately, it highlights the seriously divided nature of the nation - not just North/South of Hadrian's Wall, but East/West of Offa's Dyke. Remember that had Tory and Labour voters followed the policies of their own parties, we would never have been close to a Leave result. Ironically, person for person, I believe that it was the Welsh who tipped the balance - so stop blaming the Westminster Government.
As for a 'government we did not vote for', by taking part in the General Election in which they were elected, both you and I are responsible for their being in power. Its called democracy. As I understand it, neither of us voted for the party now in power, but both of us - if not all of us here - exercised our right to vote within an accepted process.
-
Thing is, though, many in these islands do not regard the territory overseen by Westminster as a 'nation'....how can natiomns exist within a nation? At best, it is a political union which should govern with the consent of its constituent nations, provinces and principalities. Since Scotland elected only one (rather pathetic) member of the Tory party to Westminster, we quite rightly feel Westminster Tories have no right to impose their will here.
-
Thing is, though, many in these islands do not regard the territory overseen by Westminster as a 'nation'....how can natiomns exist within a nation? At best, it is a political union which should govern with the consent of its constituent nations, provinces and principalities. Since Scotland elected only one (rather pathetic) member of the Tory party to Westminster, we quite rightly feel Westminster Tories have no right to impose their will here.
I know you, quite understandably in my opinion, emphasise the fact that you think that Westminster has no right to impose their will in Scotland, but this also extends to large parts of the UK also. One of the reasons why so many people outside London voted for Brexit was because they haven't, for a long time, thought that Westminster really reflected their views and aspirations.
-
You will eventually get your wish Jim. Neverendums will work and all it needs is a 50.01 of a yes and I guarantee you that will suddenly become an acceptable majority.
In the meantime, to what degree are you happy to see the whole governance thing go down to. Does the SNP have the right to impose its will on the constituency who did not vote for them, but went for the Tory instead.
In the meantime, we English have in Parliament lots of MP's who have no interest in anything English. They are single issue MP's whose sole purpose is to seek the best for Scotland and the Scottish people, but hey, that's democracy I suppose.
-
In the meantime, we English have in Parliament lots of MP's who have no interest in anything English. They are single issue MP's whose sole purpose is to seek the best for Scotland and the Scottish people, but hey, that's democracy I suppose.
You, or is that 'we' in Westminster terms, also have English, Welsh, N. Ireland MP's there - you could surely say the same about any of these too. One of the first things Cameron did after the 2014 referendum was EVEL, so charges of parochialism surely apply to English MPs too.
Clearly the constitutional situation is broken, since there isn't the English equivalent of Holyrood - best fixed by us Scots opting out of the UK.
-
You, or is that 'we' in Westminster terms, also have English, Welsh, N. Ireland MP's there - you could surely say the same about any of these too. One of the first things Cameron did after the 2014 referendum was EVEL, so charges of parochialism surely apply to English MPs too.
Clearly the constitutional situation is broken, since there isn't the English equivalent of Holyrood - best fixed by us Scots opting out of the UK.
I don't really know, but is looking at it as "I didn't vote for them, but they still govern me" how it works? If you think it does, then the constitutional situation will always be broken.
-
I don't really know, but is looking at it as "I didn't vote for them, but they still govern me" how it works? If you think it does, then the constitutional situation will always be broken.
You'd have to acknowledge, JP, given that only 1 of 59 Scottish MPs is a Tory, given that 68% of Scots votes in the EU referendum were to remain in the EU and given that in 2014 we were told by a Tory Prime Minister that if we wanted to stay in the EU we really needed to stay in the UK - that in this combination of circumstances some of us justifiably feel were are being hung out to dry by a government that may have a mandate within current political governance arrangements but who don't have our support.
-
I believe that less than 50% of those who voted in the 2015 general election voted SNP, yet with this vote they got all seats bar one. Do you think the majority who did not vote for the SNP should be governed by the SNP.
-
I believe that less than 50% of those who voted in the 2015 general election voted SNP, yet with this vote they got all seats bar one. Do you think the majority who did not vote for the SNP should be governed by the SNP.
* Those who voted in constituencies where the SNP had a candidate
-
I believe that less than 50% of those who voted in the 2015 general election voted SNP, yet with this vote they got all seats bar one. Do you think the majority who did not vote for the SNP should be governed by the SNP.
For as long as we have FPP that scenario can happen.
In that same election the current Tory government were elected on 36.9% of votes cast, so clearly to follow your point most of those voting didn't want a Tory government - and yet we have one anyway that has since then caused havoc!
By the way the percentage of Tory votes within Scotland in the 2015 GE was 14.9%.
-
* Those who voted in constituencies where the SNP had a candidate
In the 2015 GE the SNP contested all 59 Scottish seats, winning 56 of them with 50% of the votes cast.
-
In the 2015 GE the SNP contested all 59 Scottish seats, winning 56 of them with 50% of the votes cast.
Indeed. 95% of the seats with less than 50% of the votes (49.97% according to wiki)
-
Hope re your OP . He's having a laugh, have you seen his name?
-
Remember, JP, that the majority of seats in the last Holyrood elections (in a semi-proportional representation election, btw) are occupied by parties which are very anti-brexit - Labour (what's left of it up here), the rump of the Lib Dems, SNP and Scottish Greens. Of the last two named, both are in favour of ending the union - the latter - the greens - probably more in favour of a second independence referendum than SNP are at the moment.
-
Hope re your OP . He's having a laugh, have you seen his name?
Yup - Christian (as in Fletcher) Holliday (sort of as in Billy). As for his having a laugh, it seems as if he has been suspended by his local party - suggesting that some of his colleagues don't believe he was.
-
Oh no, now you've ruined a humorous story by letting the truth confuse things