Sign in to follow this  
Alex MacLeod

EU In or Out

Recommended Posts

It is good that the majority of posters on this site discuss matters sincerely. I am for voting out of the EU for the following reasons:

The EU policies took away the fishing rights of the UK, an industry that many relied on and which was principle to our trade.

At the same time we were all told that the coal mines were not economical, that our iron was uneconomical etc., and many of our industries were closed down resulting in millions losing their jobs. Obviously,  as it was realised after, this was to establish a singl market - it would not be a single market if every country produced the same commodities.  Just prior to this, our leaders had agreed to join a European Common Market.   It was decided to put this idea to the people - even though it was already decided upon - when the referendum took place, they lied and misled the people to ecourage them to vote postively for the EEC. This referendum was ilegal.

We were told that the Union would create more wealth in the UK and people would all be better off.  We have been waiting for almost fifty years, and instead of becoming better off, thousands are in poverty and there is now a higher unemployment figure than has ever been known in the UK.  There are 56 countries in Europe, less than half of these belong to the EU, and most are better off than the countries within the EU.

We are told that the farmers will lose their subsidies if we come out of the EU.  That applies to the huge conglomerate, ultra wealthy overseas land owners who use a large proportion of British land and who employ a huge number of overseas immigrants on low wages.  If these people lost their subsidies, it would free our local farmers who would then be able to enjoy a better standard of living as once again they would be able to grow the produce needed for the UK and enjoy sensible prices for doing so. Also more jobs would be created for local people.  The idea of the EU, is similar to that of Germany, where it is necessary to create an overstock in order to market successfully.  This is why they took over our fishing and how they run our farming industry.  It is not cost effective as any businessman will tell you.  The United States has a huge interest in the UK, employing cheaper labour and hugely reduced taxes.  Tate and Lyle an American company, was paid almost £1 BILLION last year as a subsidy from the EU.

Our NHS was receiving substantial grants from our government and these have been reducing year after year in real terms.  The NHS is now in severe trouble.  The reason for the Doctor's strikes! Yet all across the UK, state of the art hospitals with the latest technology are now being built.  The United States have negotiated a Transatlantic Agreement with the British government, that means that the US can set up any company at will in the UK, and if there is any event that prevents them from obtaining profits from the UK they will be able to sue in the courts for £millions.  This includes services as well as trade - the NHS is a service!  The new hospitals that have private rooms, not wards, are not likely to be for the NHS!

The EU is providing subsidies for Building Contractors, who in return for obtaining the rights from the Government, to build in the UK, pay a substantial financial reward to the Government.  Hence the reason that much of the green belt land is being built on and soon there will be littel if any of that left.  There are more than a million houses for sale in the UK - there is no need for more housing - except - the only way that people can purchase these houses is on a part rent/part buy scheme.  This means that anyone who has purchased a house on this scheme and want to move say in ten years, will owe more money than the house is worth!

The EU bullied Greece into accepting its terms against the peoples will and even took part of Greece's infrastructure as collateral for its loans - that is how it works. The EU bullied Ireland into accepting a bail out loan against its will.  It has totally ignored a huge majority of another member country who do not want Ukrainian immigrants. No-one has any say in what the EU wants to do!

The EU has issued policies about pollution!  Every country is warned that they face severe fines if they disregard EU policies. Yet Germany opened 27 brown coal mines last year alone.  Brown coal emits far more pollution that the black coal mines.  Germany also has far more industry that creates far more pollution.  Germany is the richest country in the EU.  Who is the voice of the EU?

Great Britain, and that includes Scotland would be far better out of the EU, away from an intended marketing strategy that has now turned into a highly intrusive body of unelected people who blackmail and threaten to get their own way.  Who, in collaboration with the Government issue,  propaganda in the form of a one sided leaflet containing false claims for remaining in the EU and additioanl published veiled threats from our government. Recall the Scottish Independence vote??  If an institution is so good - it would not need to stoop to such devious means.  So ask yourselves why?

There are more and more reasons - and believe me, none look re-assuring!  Professional employment is being downgraded, thousands of young people leaving education every year cannot find suitably paid work, education is suffering..............if they cannot get it right after fifty years, they never will!

Oh and by the way - any EU loans/grants made to Scotland for the changes that the SNP want to establish - will come at a very high interest rate that the people will be expected to pay! 

Edited by Professor
clarify
  • Disagree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Professor said:

It is good that the majority of posters on this site discuss matters sincerely. I am for voting out of the EU for the following reasons:

The EU policies took away the fishing rights of the UK, an industry that many relied on and which was principle to our trade.

At the same time we were all told that the coal mines were not economical, that our iron was uneconomical etc., and many of our industries were closed down resulting in millions losing their jobs. Obviously,  as it was realised after, this was to establish a singl market - it would not be a single market if every country produced the same commodities.  Just prior to this, our leaders had agreed to join a European Common Market.   It was decided to put this idea to the people - even though it was already decided upon - when the referendum took place, they lied and misled the people to ecourage them to vote postively for the EEC. This referendum was ilegal.

We were told that the Union would create more wealth in the UK and people would all be better off.  We have been waiting for almost fifty years, and instead of becoming better off, thousands are in poverty and there is now a higher unemployment figure than has ever been known in the UK.  There are 56 countries in Europe, less than half of these belong to the EU, and most are better off than the countries within the EU.

We are told that the farmers will lose their subsidies if we come out of the EU.  That applies to the huge conglomerate, ultra wealthy overseas land owners who use a large proportion of British land and who employ a huge number of overseas immigrants on low wages.  If these people lost their subsidies, it would free our local farmers who would then be able to enjoy a better standard of living as once again they would be able to grow the produce needed for the UK and enjoy sensible prices for doing so. Also more jobs would be created for local people.  The idea of the EU, is similar to that of Germany, where it is necessary to create an overstock in order to market successfully.  This is why they took over our fishing and how they run our farming industry.  It is not cost effective as any businessman will tell you.  The United States has a huge interest in the UK, employing cheaper labour and hugely reduced taxes.  Tate and Lyle an American company, was paid almost £1 BILLION last year as a subsidy from the EU.

Our NHS was receiving substantial grants from our government and these have been reducing year after year in real terms.  The NHS is now in severe trouble.  The reason for the Doctor's strikes! Yet all across the UK, state of the art hospitals with the latest technology are now being built.  The United States have negotiated a Transatlantic Agreement with the British government, that means that the US can set up any company at will in the UK, and if there is any event that prevents them from obtaining profits from the UK they will be able to sue in the courts for £millions.  This includes services as well as trade - the NHS is a service!  The new hospitals that have private rooms, not wards, are not likely to be for the NHS!

The EU is providing subsidies for Building Contractors, who in return for obtaining the rights from the Government, to build in the UK, pay a substantial financial reward to the Government.  Hence the reason that much of the green belt land is being built on and soon there will be littel if any of that left.  There are more than a million houses for sale in the UK - there is no need for more housing - except - the only way that people can purchase these houses is on a part rent/part buy scheme.  This means that anyone who has purchased a house on this scheme and want to move say in ten years, will owe more money than the house is worth!

The EU bullied Greece into accepting its terms against the peoples will and even took part of Greece's infrastructure as collateral for its loans - that is how it works. The EU bullied Ireland into accepting a bail out loan against its will.  It has totally ignored a huge majority of another member country who do not want Ukrainian immigrants. No-one has any say in what the EU wants to do!

The EU has issued policies about pollution!  Every country is warned that they face severe fines if they disregard EU policies. Yet Germany opened 27 brown coal mines last year alone.  Brown coal emits far more pollution that the black coal mines.  Germany also has far more industry that creates far more pollution.  Germany is the richest country in the EU.  Who is the voice of the EU?

Great Britain, and that includes Scotland would be far better out of the EU, away from an intended marketing strategy that has now turned into a highly intrusive body of unelected people who blackmail and threaten to get their own way.  Who, in collaboration with the Government issue,  propaganda in the form of a one sided leaflet containing false claims for remaining in the EU and additioanl published veiled threats from our government. Recall the Scottish Independence vote??  If an institution is so good - it would not need to stoop to such devious means.  So ask yourselves why?

There are more and more reasons - and believe me, none look re-assuring!  Professional employment is being downgraded, thousands of young people leaving education every year cannot find suitably paid work, education is suffering..............if they cannot get it right after fifty years, they never will!

Oh and by the way - any EU loans/grants made to Scotland for the changes that the SNP want to establish - will come at a very high interest rate that the people will be expected to pay! 

Are you Nigel in disguise ? Will you be discussing the football at all ? Do you think that David Raven deserves a three year deal ? Should we retain Dean Brill or OFW ? Where on earth are we going to get that forward we are crying out for, do you think we should look to Europe ?

Edited by Kingsmills
  • Agree 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calls himself, or herself, the professor. Aye, the professor of bilious xenophobic claptrap. Not one statement spouted above has any truth in it

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't suppose we will hear from "Professor" again.  It bears all the hallmarks of someone who wants to post his or her views on as many forums as possible and places the same post on each before moving on to the next one.  Reference to the "Doctor's strike" suggests this comes from England with just token editing for a Scottish audience.  Incidentally, I wonder if he/she could let us know which doctor it is that is striking?

The funny thing here is that if someone is going to bother to sign up to various forums to post their message of perceived wisdom, why would you not first make sure that opinions expressed are based on fact rather than post this drivel?  I don't think "Professor" is Nigel in disguise.  To be fair to Farage, I am sure he would cringe at what "Professor" has written.  As with many causes, it is the outspoken zealots spouting ill informed nonsense who actually do so much to discredit the causes they are trying to promote!  There may be a case for leaving the EU - but this isn't it.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

I don't suppose we will hear from "Professor" again.  It bears all the hallmarks of someone who wants to post his or her views on as many forums as possible and places the same post on each before moving on to the next one.  Reference to the "Doctor's strike" suggests this comes from England with just token editing for a Scottish audience.  Incidentally, I wonder if he/she could let us know which doctor it is that is striking?

The funny thing here is that if someone is going to bother to sign up to various forums to post their message of perceived wisdom, why would you not first make sure that opinions expressed are based on fact rather than post this drivel?  I don't think "Professor" is Nigel in disguise.  To be fair to Farage, I am sure he would cringe at what "Professor" has written.  As with many causes, it is the outspoken zealots spouting ill informed nonsense who actually do so much to discredit the causes they are trying to promote!  There may be a case for leaving the EU - but this isn't it.

Farage may well sign him up. Prof blames the EU for a lot,  but he doesn't blame it for a toaster he doesn't know how to use. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe if we could put the "Professor" behind us and focus on the referendum campaign.... it's a horrible feeling of deja vu isn't it?

The faction who want to maintain the status quo legitimately highlight possible weaknesses and difficulties in the case for change..... and the faction who want to change things start sounding off about "Scaremongering" and "Talking Britain/Scotland Down".

In fact I wonder how many Nats are now getting quite righteously indignant about all this terrible talk about the said "Scaremongering" etc?

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they will be indignant at all.  The will just quietly ignore it.  The Nats don't care one jot about the utter hypocrisy of their position and using the same arguments to remain in the EU as their opponents in the Indy referendum used for staying as part of the UK.  Their thinking is that Scotland voting to stay and the UK voting to leave will be the best outcome to fuel the case for independence.

Political activity in Scotland is quite rightly focussed on the Holyrood election at the moment, but I rather doubt whether the SNP will campaign too much for the EU referendum after the election - unless it looks as though Scotland just might vote to leave.

  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DoofersDad said:

I rather doubt whether the SNP will campaign too much for the EU referendum after the election - unless it looks as though Scotland just might vote to leave.

In which case the Nats would, of course, lose a potential source of grievance and discontent.

Deary me! What a miserable and cynical view of life to have as the fundamental strategy of a political party!

Edited by Charles Bannerman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

I don't think they will be indignant at all.  The will just quietly ignore it.  The Nats don't care one jot about the utter hypocrisy of their position and using the same arguments to remain in the EU as their opponents in the Indy referendum used for staying as part of the UK.  Their thinking is that Scotland voting to stay and the UK voting to leave will be the best outcome to fuel the case for independence.

Political activity in Scotland is quite rightly focussed on the Holyrood election at the moment, but I rather doubt whether the SNP will campaign too much for the EU referendum after the election - unless it looks as though Scotland just might vote to leave.

In case it has escaped your attention the SNP and the First Minister in particular are in the forefront of the campaign in Scotland for the UK to remain in the EU and given that the Yes campaign, which was a much broader church than merely the SNP, during the Independence Referendum, was making a case for an independent Scotland firmly within the EU, the two positions could hardly be more consistent.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, it is the inconsistency of their position which is consistent.  All the nonsense which so stirred up the electorate in the Indy referendum about the right to control one's own destiny and being governed by a government elected by the people of Scotland is precisely what the leave campaign is stirring up the electorate with now.  The big difference is that it is UK nationalism rather than Scottish nationalism.  In essence, the SNP and UKIP are broadly similar. The reason why the SNP dislike UKIP so much is that UKIP keep pointing out the inconsistency in the SNP position.  If people want the kind of self determination called for in the Independence referendum, then UKIP point out that you will not get that by remaining a part of the EU.  The SNP have consistently failed to reconcile this truth so instead have a policy of ridiculing and attacking UKIP rather than arguing with them.

  • Disagree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

In other words, it is the inconsistency of their position which is consistent.  All the nonsense which so stirred up the electorate in the Indy referendum about the right to control one's own destiny and being governed by a government elected by the people of Scotland is precisely what the leave campaign is stirring up the electorate with now.  The big difference is that it is UK nationalism rather than Scottish nationalism.  In essence, the SNP and UKIP are broadly similar. The reason why the SNP dislike UKIP so much is that UKIP keep pointing out the inconsistency in the SNP position.  If people want the kind of self determination called for in the Independence referendum, then UKIP point out that you will not get that by remaining a part of the EU.  The SNP have consistently failed to reconcile this truth so instead have a policy of ridiculing and attacking UKIP rather than arguing with them.

The reason that the SNP devote little time in 'arguing' with UKIP is that they, thankfully, remain largely an irrelevance to Scottish politics and the views of the very great majority of Scots, whether Nationalists or Unionists, as Nigel Farage will discover today in his flying visit to Inverness.

The SNP and UKIP are on opposing sides when it comes to the question of Scottish self determination, they are on opposing sides when it comes to the UK's continuing membership of the EU, they have polar opposite views on the matter of immigration and their attitude to the refugee crisis, on the matter of taxation and just about everything else.

The SNP are a broad church whereas UKIP's only Scottish elected politician compares a government minister to a terrorist sympathiser on the basis of his religion and skin colour and still blames the victim of that appalling slur for the resultant furore for failing to 'get the joke', they have a former MEP who refers to African nations in need of aid as 'Bongo Bongo Land' and an elected councillor who thinks it's a jolly jape to black up as a comedy negro.

To liken these two parties at the opposite ends of the political spectrum is not just disingenuous it's utterly preposterous and does your argument no credit whatsoever.

  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make my point very well!  Your answer ridicules and attacks UKIP but completely fails to address the central inconsistency in the SNP's position.  What unites UKIP and the SNP are that they are both nationalist parties.  The SNP's raison d'etre is to take Scotland out of the UK Union whilst UKIP's is to take the UK out of the European Union. That is the prime policy driver and the rest of the policies are developed to get as many of the electorate on their side as possible.  The electorate in Scotland is a little left of the electorate in England and the policies of the two parties reflect that.  This means some policies are different but equally, many are broadly the same.  

Interestingly you state that their views on taxation are poles apart but yet the UKIP election leaflet that dropped through my letterbox this morning states that UKIP will "Keep Scottish taxes in line with the UK".  That seems to be broadly what the SNP are doing!  It's the same tactic Sturgeon used in the UK election, laying into Farage at one of the leaders' debates for blaming immigrants for the housing crisis (which, incidentally, he didn't) and then later the same day, on a different programme, stating that a major factor in the housing problems in her constituency was the numbers of immigrants who also need to be housed (which is what Farage actually said in the debate!)

I quite accept that there are some nutters in UKIP but that should not detract from the core fundamental similarities of the two parties.  The SNP is an older and more mature party and has evolved from a different background.  The SNP has emerged from a rather more disciplined intellectual movement and whilst there have been some pretty unsavoury individuals emerging, the SNP has been far more disciplined in weeding these folk out.  On the other hand, UKIP has emerged following the demise of rather more right wing and racist parties like the National Front and the British Nationalist Party and has had to face the problem of former members of those parties trying to find a home with UKIP.  

The SNP (and others) like to demonise UKIP as xenophobic and racist, but a proper read of their literature will make it clear to any fair minded individual that they are neither. Indeed, they have many in their ranks, including councillors, who are from different ethnic backgrounds. Of course there are also xenophobic and racist individuals in their ranks, but then there are xenophobic and anglophobic individuals in the SNP's ranks and that doesn't make the party xenophobic and anglophobic. 

The differences between UKIP and the SNP are therefore essentially cosmetic reflecting the different backgrounds, the maturity of the 2 parties and the different political environment either side of the border.  In terms of the prime political objective (separation from a union) and the strategy for achieving that objective (see what the people want and then reflect that in the policy), they are like two peas in the same political pod.

 

  • Disagree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that a couple of posters have 'red dotted' DD for his last post. That is really no substitute for debate. If you disagree with him, or indeed me or anyone else, surely the mature and positive thing to do is to post your own contrary view and add to the debate.

  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kingsmills said:

I see that a couple of posters have 'red dotted' DD for his last post. That is really no substitute for debate. If you disagree with him, or indeed me or anyone else, surely the mature and positive thing to do is to post your own contrary view and add to the debate.

Thanks for that, Kingsmills.  We may have differing views on politics but we share a view on this.  I see you have also been hit with the curse for your troubles!  I take the view that when people are expressing their views in a reasonable manner, a red dot simply signifies that the anonymous dotter doesn't like what is said but is unable to argue against it.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A new poll published today puts support for remaining within the EU at 76% in Scotland with the position in England too close to predict. Could we actually be faced with a situation where England narrowly votes to leave but is forced to remain against it's will due to an overwhelmingly contrary vote north of the border.

That, I suspect, would prompt some interesting responses among Eurosceptic Tories and UKIP supporters.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that does happen then I am sure there will be a handful who will bemoan the fact that Scotland had not first voted to leave the UK, but I am sure the overwhelming view will be to simply accept that it was a UK vote.  Very few in England will be claiming the result was an outrage with England being forced to stay in the EU against it's will.

It is interesting that now the Holyrood elections are out of the way, the SNP have ramped down the suggestion of a 2nd indy referendum following a Brexit.  This, of course, has nothing to do with finally accepting that they should honour their earlier statements about it being a once in a generation thing, it is about the fact that polls are showing that even if we did leave the EU, the people of Scotland would still be unlikely to vote for independence.  Had they been a bit more honest about this before the election and not muddied the waters with talk of a potential 2nd referendum, then maybe we could have had a bit more focus on addressing Scotland's worsening financial situation.

  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kingsmills said:

A new poll published today puts support for remaining within the EU at 76% in Scotland with the position in England too close to predict. Could we actually be faced with a situation where England narrowly votes to leave but is forced to remain against it's will due to an overwhelmingly contrary vote north of the border.

That, I suspect, would prompt some interesting responses among Eurosceptic Tories and UKIP supporters.

Is this the poll in the "Record"?  As normal, the poll is reported incorrectly as actually it was 58% who said they would vote to stay in with a large 19% who were don't knows.  And whilst it was published today, it is not actually the most recent poll.  Polling for the Record was done on May 2nd but a larger YouGov poll for "The Times" did it's fieldwork between the 2nd and the 4th.  This reported 49% in favour of staying, 32% for exit and also 19% don't know.  Clearly there is a significant gap between the two sides in Scotland, but the Record is using a bit of journalistic license here in order to sell copy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this issue quite bizarre. This is a referendum within the constitutional entity of the UK, of which Scotland is hence no more than a region or subdivision. It therefore shouldn't matter a hoot what the breakdown is within that region compared with the rest of the UK. For instance if south west England voted IN and the rest of the UK voted OUT, I wouldn't expect any minority pressure group down there to start shouting for a further referendum on secession. This is just the SNP searching for a grievance as an excuse to pursue their sole policy. Indeed why didn't they start shouting for "independence" for Glasgow and Dundee after Sep 2014?  Quite frankly, as a Scot as much as any of them, I am getting rather embarrassed at their perpetual Whingeing Jockery which is making us a laughing stock in the eyes of the rest of the world.

It would be far better if this minority government would shut up and try instead to rectify some of the domestic chaos they have created.

  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

I find this issue quite bizarre. This is a referendum within the constitutional entity of the UK, of which Scotland is hence no more than a region or subdivision. It therefore shouldn't matter a hoot what the breakdown is within that region compared with the rest of the UK. For instance if south west England voted IN and the rest of the UK voted OUT, I wouldn't expect any minority pressure group down there to start shouting for a further referendum on secession. This is just the SNP searching for a grievance as an excuse to pursue their sole policy. Indeed why didn't they start shouting for "independence" for Glasgow and Dundee after Sep 2014?  Quite frankly, as a Scot as much as any of them, I am getting rather embarrassed at their perpetual Whingeing Jockery which is making us a laughing stock in the eyes of the rest of the world.

It would be far better if this minority government would shut up and try instead to rectify some of the domestic chaos they have created.

Epiphany Charles ? In correctly describing Scotland as 'no more than a region or subdivision' you appear to have finally grasped one of the principal arguments in favour of independence.

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am more than content to live in a region of Britain which still has some convenient quasi-national features and is one of several regions of a country which has been one of the most successful in the world since it came into existence over 300 years ago. I have far more of a problem with the manner in which the Highlands are treated as a region of Scotland - especially if the break up of Britain had been achieved in 2014.  I have never remotely seen the point of Scottish nationalism and its embittered obsession with turning the clock back to less happy and less prosperous days.

What is completely mystifying is how the Nats can bang on about what they call "Independence" which includes this apparent desire to hand over vast swathes of sovreignty to Brussels. 

I see 3 possible explanations for this apparent Europhilia. You know and accept that in the event of separation you will create such a financial basket case that you'll need the help..... you are so desperate to get away from your hated betes noir "The English" that you'll jump into bed with anyone and..... you are using the European issue as a potential source of grievance en route to the only item on your agenda - another referendum.

Edited by Charles Bannerman
  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/05/2016 at 0:54 PM, Charles Bannerman said:

 

What is completely mystifying is how the Nats can bang on about what they call "Independence" which includes this apparent desire to hand over vast swathes of sovreignty to Brussels. 

You'll be voting "leave" then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.