Sign in to follow this  
Alex MacLeod

EU In or Out

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

This is an illustration of what I was talking about with people putting different interpretations on what may or may not be facts.  Confusion results, not least amongst those who bandy these statements about.  In the example above, the only feasible option is A - a spade.  B is clearly wrong because a spade and a shovel are two distinctly different tools.  A spade is used primarily to cut into and loosen earth etc whereas a shovel is used to scoop up and move stuff- hence the upturned edges to hold the soil in place.  If Charles has been using a shovel for the purpose for which a spade is more appropriate, it is little wonder he feels calling it a f*****g shovel is a valid option.  C is also not an appropriate option because whilst a spade can be used to transport soil, that is not it's primary function and if used for that function, the user will find that not much soil can be transported on a spade and that much of what was placed on the spade initially is likely not to be still on the spade when you reach the intended transportation destination.

My message to Charles is that you are in a hole,  so put your spade down and stop digging.  Pick your shovel up and move the soil to build a ramp to help you get out of the hole.  Then when you are out of the hole, get back on topic and engage in some sensible and constructive debate on what is a very important subject.

Great post DD :lol::lol: and your last one was good as well especially the last sentence :wink: 

Share this post


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

It possibly also helps fondly to remember the last time we had a significant politician to whom pro bono publico was more important than self advancement. That in my view was Labour's John Smith who died in 1994.

Will agree with you on that Charles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Much more fun to sit in front of the TV, watching a bunch of politicians having a nonsensical and destructive shouting match.... and imagine how you could most gratifyingly deploy the f*****g shovel.:smile:

DD... we've now had six more or less unbroken years of disingenuous, self-seeking chancers of all parties and persuasions in our faces and boring the backsides off us making transparently nonsensical statements. It really is becoming quite difficult to take politics and politicians seriously any more - especially since this Euroref is simply becoming a clone of the dreadful Indyref, right down to the respective sets of seceders becoming visibly more and more embarrassed at having Alex Salmond/Nigel Farage in their ranks. It just gets to the stage where you have to take the rip for light entertainment but at the same time stand up and protest in the hope of damage limitation. It possibly also helps fondly to remember the last time we had a significant politician to whom pro bono publico was more important than self advancement. That in my view was Labour's John Smith who died in 1994.

Regardless of what your opinion of our politicians is, the fact remains that they are the people who make our laws and we, as the electorate get the politicians we vote for.  There's an element of chicken and egg here but the reason why so many top politicians these days appear to be so focussed on their own self advancement is that the public want their politicians to be personalities.  This, of course, is largely spearheaded by the media which is dominated by interviewers and journalists who are even more concerned with their own self publicity than the politicians are.  The popular media is not interested in conveying the issues, it is interested in getting a story.  Interviews are structured not to extract the views of the interviewee but to catch them out.  And then if the politician's do make a faux pas it gets picked up in the print media and the focus is on that and not on all the other sound stuff the person may have said.  But the media only do this because it boosts viewing figures and sales of copy.  In other words, as long as we, the electorate, want our politicians to be performers and want to revel in their embarrassment when they get caught out in one way or another, then we will get politicians who reflect those warped priorities.  And as long as we have a large proportion of the electorate who get swayed by nonsensical sound bite promises rather than reasoned argument, these politicians will be keep on making the  promises.  If we took politics and politicians more seriously we would have better politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Much more fun to sit in front of the TV, watching a bunch of politicians having a nonsensical and destructive shouting match.... and imagine how you could most gratifyingly deploy the f*****g shovel.:smile:

DD... we've now had six more or less unbroken years of disingenuous, self-seeking chancers of all parties and persuasions in our faces and boring the backsides off us making transparently nonsensical statements. It really is becoming quite difficult to take politics and politicians seriously any more - especially since this Euroref is simply becoming a clone of the dreadful Indyref, right down to the respective sets of seceders becoming visibly more and more embarrassed at having Alex Salmond/Nigel Farage in their ranks. It just gets to the stage where you have to take the rip for light entertainment but at the same time stand up and protest in the hope of damage limitation. It possibly also helps fondly to remember the last time we had a significant politician to whom pro bono publico was more important than self advancement. That in my view was Labour's John Smith who died in 1994.

For once, a post in a political thread, or, more accurately, a sentence in a post by you  I agree with. The late John Smith was a man of the greatest principle and highest personal and political integrity and I am in no doubt that had it not been for his untimely death and replacement by Tony Blair the World and not just the United Kingdom would be a better and less divisive and dangerous place today.

He would, without doubt, disagree with many of the views you seem to espouse but would do so with logical argument, respect and humility all of which seem to some to be alien concepts rather than sneering sarcasm and contempt.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 5:47 PM, DoofersDad said:

This is an illustration of what I was talking about with people putting different interpretations on what may or may not be facts.  Confusion results, not least amongst those who bandy these statements about.  In the example above, the only feasible option is A - a spade.  B is clearly wrong because a spade and a shovel are two distinctly different tools.  A spade is used primarily to cut into and loosen earth etc whereas a shovel is used to scoop up and move stuff- hence the upturned edges to hold the soil in place.  If Charles has been using a shovel for the purpose for which a spade is more appropriate, it is little wonder he feels calling it a f*****g shovel is a valid option.  C is also not an appropriate option because whilst a spade can be used to transport soil, that is not it's primary function and if used for that function, the user will find that not much soil can be transported on a spade and that much of what was placed on the spade initially is likely not to be still on the spade when you reach the intended transportation destination.

My message to Charles is that you are in a hole,  so put your spade down and stop digging.  Pick your shovel up and move the soil to build a ramp to help you get out of the hole.  Then when you are out of the hole, get back on topic and engage in some sensible and constructive debate on what is a very important subject.

DD, whilst I agree with your descriptive interpretation of a spade, and with the uses of both spade and shovel, I'm having some difficulties on the shovel aspect. We can, probably, all agree that the spade, no matter the manufacturer, is generally of a standard size and shape. Whereas the shovel, on the other hand, is of two very different shapes. We have your shovel which I believe to be of the square mouthed variety indeed used for scooping and transporting. We also have the round mouthed shovel which was designed more with the purpose of digging holes. The 'round mouth' actually comes to a point to allow for breaking up the spoil with more ease. My conclusion hereis that although we can call a spade a spade with ease the same can't really be said for the shovel

So far as I am aware the EU has not yet passed any laws on the design of either spade or shovel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I would want to add that on the Euro issues themselves, it's a tight call for me. Shaking off Brussels bureaucracy and taking decision making back to the UK are big Leave points and immigration to a lesser extent. Economic factors and collective security incline me towards Remain. The "Nat factors" - which are not really EU related - tend to cancel each other out. If they say Remain, then I want to leave, but if we get a Remain they would have to go and look for some other excuse to hold another Scottish referendum.

What is therefore probably now pulling me towards Remain is that I don't want a scenario whichwould give that arch-idiot Boris Johnson any more influence. The same might be said of the execrable Farage and former PandJ striker turned archetypal Oily Tory Git Michael Gove.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just over a week to go now and nationally things are heating up.  It looks from the polls as though the momentum is with the leave campaign but whether they will win on the day is not something I want to predict.  As usual, the political debate is generally of pretty poor quality and it is difficult to find any decent objective analysis which might help in deciding how to vote.

I want to see the European project work and so my gut feeling is to vote to stay.  On the other hand, in general I have found the arguments of the brexiteers rather more convincing although it cuts both ways.  Here's a few thoughts on one or two of the issues.

On the economy, Remain state that there will be serious economic consequences.  The impression is given that millions of jobs will be at risk if we leave but I'm not clear why that would be.  As Leave argue, EU States are not suddenly going to put jobs at risk in their own countries by stopping trading with us. We will also have more flexibility in trading elsewhere in the world.

They state that farmers will suffer by not getting the EU subsidies, but why can a UK Government not pay them at least as much out of the money it will not now be paying into the EU.  We can also make the rules to suit our distinctly different farming environment.

In terms of workers rights, environmental standards etc, Remain states these will all be at risk if we leave.  But again, no good reason is given.  Why would a UK (or Scottish) Government wish to get rid of these things if they are seen as beneficial, particularly when a future Government will know that applying the same standards as the EU in these areas will help in encouraging investment in the UK?  

Then today we have the absurd charge from Sturgeon that Brexit will result in the nation being exposed to the most right wing Tory Government in living memory!  If we vote to leave the EU next week we will still have the same MPs in Westminster.  But what we will also have is an utterly divided Tory party which will be at serious risk of tearing itself apart.  Even if Cameron resigns and a right wing Brexit Tory cabinet takes over, there is no way they will be able to get enough support to push through policies to the right of Cameron / Osborne.  Longer term, the schism in the Tory ranks is much more likely to result in a centre / centre left Government next time round - if only Corbyn doesn't drag Labour too far to the left.

As for the leave camp, I have two big concerns about their campaign.  Firstly on EU contributions they claim that all the money spent on membership of the EU will be able to be spent on the NHS etc as well as covering the costs of all the farmers subsidies etc which are currently EU funded.  They can't spend it on everything.

Then the big issue - immigation.  Immigration from the EU is seen as the main reason why many people are supporting Leave,  But what we don't hear much about is the fact that more of the immigrants to this country currently come from outside of the EU. They come in because there are jobs here and their coming here is a reflection of market forces more than anything.  Today we have also heard of a further fall in the unemployment rate so it is not a question of foreigners taking our jobs.  If our economy were to benefit from leaving the EU then we might need to increase immigration even further in order to fill the vacancies!

In short, we are being fed hysterical nonsense from both sides and it is difficult to know what to believe and even more difficult to understand the implications.   But despite what some would have us believe, employment and immigration levels demonstrate that we have a pretty vibrant economy compared to most places in the world today.  We have a vibrant economy whilst we are in the EU.  We may or not have a vibrant economy because we are in the EU,  but it does seem a bit of a risk to leave and therefore I think on balance I will vote to stay.

Are there particular issues which have made others decide one way or the other?  Or if you are undecided, what is it that is stopping you from deciding one way or the other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it's pretty well a dead heat on the issues so I'm looking for tiebreakers and I think there are two. Firstly, if it's six and half a dozen, why go through all the hassle of changing? And secondly, there are certain people I'd rather not align with. For instance if complete roasters like Boris and Farage are rabidly for leaving, then that's a good reason to vote Remain. Then there's the SNP who tell us they want to remain but, given they don't actually give a toss and used to be fervent Anti Marketeers, what they reallly mean is they want a Scotland- in and UK- out vote. So do I vote UK-in or lodge an Out vote which is 12 times more influential in Scotland? Interesting indeed to see Sturgeon back on the Tory grievance trail again.

Share this post


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

what is it that is stopping you from deciding one way or the other?

I heard a member of the public being interviewed on the radio the other day, and she was voting Leave so that we can get more powerful hairdriers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

there are certain people I'd rather not align with.

Based on something I saw on Facebook, if you can't decide on the issues and confusing information, perhaps give some thought to who you trust most.

Here are a few that strongly believe the UK should remain a member of the EU:

• Governor of the Bank of England
• International Monetary Fund
• Institute for Fiscal Studies
• Confederation of British Industry
• Leaders/heads of state of every single other member of the EU
• President of the United States of America
• Eight former US Treasury Secretaries
• President of China
• Prime Minister of India
• Prime Minister of Canada
• Prime Minister of Australia
• Prime Minister of Japan
• Prime Minister of New Zealand
• The chief executives of most of the top 100 companies in the UK including Marks and Spencer, BT, Asda, Vodafone, Virgin, IBM, BMW etc.
• Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations
• All living former Prime Ministers of the UK (from both parties)
• Virtually all reputable and recognised economists
• The Prime Minister of the UK
• The leader of the Labour Party
• The Leader of the Liberal Democrats
• The Leader of the Green Party
• The Leader of the Scottish National Party
• The leader of Plaid Cymru
• Leader of Sinn Fein
• Martin Lewis, that money saving dude off the telly
• The Secretary General of the TUC
• Unison
• National Union of Students
• National Union of Farmers
• Stephen Hawking
• Chief Executive of the NHS
• 300 of the most prominent international historians
• Director of Europol
• David Anderson QC, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation
• Former Directors of GCHQ
• Secretary General of Nato
• Church of England
• Friends of the Earth
• Greenpeace
• Director General of the World Trade Organisation
• WWF
• World Bank
• OECD

Here are pretty much the only notable people who think we should leave the EU:

• Boris Johnson, who probably doesn’t really care either way, but knows he’ll become Prime Minister if the country votes to leave
• A former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who carried out a brutal regime of cuts to benefits and essential support for the poorest in society as well as the disabled and sick
• The guy who was Education Secretary and every single teacher in the country hated with a furious passion for the damage he was doing to the education system
• Leader of UKIP
• BNP
• All the racists in the land

• Vladimir Putin

• Donald Trump
• Keith Chegwin
• David Icke

• Jim Sillars

 

Hopefully that helps!

 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

I heard a member of the public being interviewed on the radio the other day, and she was voting Leave so that we can get more powerful hairdriers!

:lol: If Mrs Pankhurst and the promoters of the Great Reform Act heard that they would be rotating in their graves! There are indeed times when you have to wonder if universal suffrage is such a good idea after all and whether some "fitness to vote" test might be a good idea - for the same reasons of public protection as we have tests of fitness to drive.

Was the woman Scottish? If she was, I'd love to know her reason for voting Yes in 2014? On the other hand, if Merryl Streep can do it, might this Leave fanatic with a need for powerful hairdriers simply (sic!) have been Donald Trump in drag?

Edited by Charles Bannerman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Yngwie said:


• David Icke

I was thinking about David Icke this morning when I read a report quoting a leading member of the Separation Camp at Holyrood as stating that Jesus was telling them to persevere with it. He said that Jesus is back here at the moment for his Second Coming.

Presumably Jesus is also taking the opportunity to visit his chum Alex Salmond as he plans for his Second Referendum.... or are the two of them simply the same person?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yngwie said:

Based on something I saw on Facebook, if you can't decide on the issues and confusing information, perhaps give some thought to who you trust most.

Here are a few that strongly believe the UK should remain a member of the EU:

• Governor of the Bank of England
• International Monetary Fund
• Institute for Fiscal Studies
• Confederation of British Industry
• Leaders/heads of state of every single other member of the EU
• President of the United States of America
• Eight former US Treasury Secretaries
• President of China
• Prime Minister of India
• Prime Minister of Canada
• Prime Minister of Australia
• Prime Minister of Japan
• Prime Minister of New Zealand
• The chief executives of most of the top 100 companies in the UK including Marks and Spencer, BT, Asda, Vodafone, Virgin, IBM, BMW etc.
• Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations
• All living former Prime Ministers of the UK (from both parties)
• Virtually all reputable and recognised economists
• The Prime Minister of the UK
• The leader of the Labour Party
• The Leader of the Liberal Democrats
• The Leader of the Green Party
• The Leader of the Scottish National Party
• The leader of Plaid Cymru
• Leader of Sinn Fein
• Martin Lewis, that money saving dude off the telly
• The Secretary General of the TUC
• Unison
• National Union of Students
• National Union of Farmers
• Stephen Hawking
• Chief Executive of the NHS
• 300 of the most prominent international historians
• Director of Europol
• David Anderson QC, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation
• Former Directors of GCHQ
• Secretary General of Nato
• Church of England
• Friends of the Earth
• Greenpeace
• Director General of the World Trade Organisation
• WWF
• World Bank
• OECD

Here are pretty much the only notable people who think we should leave the EU:

• Boris Johnson, who probably doesn’t really care either way, but knows he’ll become Prime Minister if the country votes to leave
• A former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who carried out a brutal regime of cuts to benefits and essential support for the poorest in society as well as the disabled and sick
• The guy who was Education Secretary and every single teacher in the country hated with a furious passion for the damage he was doing to the education system
• Leader of UKIP
• BNP
• All the racists in the land

• Vladimir Putin

• Donald Trump
• Keith Chegwin
• David Icke

• Jim Sillars

 

Hopefully that helps!

 

 

OK.  So which way are you going to vote?

Share this post


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

OK.  So which way are you going to vote?

Well Tesco don't mind being an Outie !

So at least if there`s a Brexit I might still get my Brussel Sprouts half price!:crazy: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/06/2016 at 1:05 AM, DoofersDad said:

OK.  So which way are you going to vote?

:lol:

The opposite way to Thomas Mair, the latest Leave ambassador to be added to that list!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably Mair is entitled to vote given that he has not yet been convicted.  He may already have voted by post if his actions were pre-meditated.  This is in stark contrast to Jo Cox whose right to vote he took away when he so brutally murdered her   On the other hand, his actions may well push floating voters toward the remain camp.

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

Presumably Mair is entitled to vote given that he has not yet been convicted.  He may already have voted by post if his actions were pre-meditated.  This is in stark contrast to Jo Cox whose right to vote he took away when he so brutally murdered her   On the other hand, his actions may well push floating voters toward the remain camp.

 

Hasn't he been charged with an act of terrorism? I presume that's why he appeared in court in London and not Yorkshire? If so I think he's lost his right to vote. Also, could what he did maybe even be seen as an act of treason? Murder of a member of the queens parliament.

Back on topic I'm for stay

Leaving the immigrant argument aside I'm amazed at the 'unelected bureaucrats making our laws' waffle. Many workplace and quality assurance laws are ratified in Brussels but thousands of those are British laws adopted and adjusted to suit whole of Europe. Britians Safety at Work act is the basis for much euro workplace H&S legislation. Our Electricity in the Home laws have been used to develop EU law. Indeed we were also the forerunners on a lot of the human rights and environmental legislation. I'd also point out that unelected bureaucrats are responsible for drafting much of the UK's own legislation. All EU law comes through the Council of Ministers (chosen by the elected governments of all member states) and the MEP's (chosen by the public). Pretty democratic in my opinion unlike the UK where law comes through Parliament (chosen by the public) and then through the 607 unelected members of the Lords

  • Agree 2

Share this post


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

Hasn't he been charged with an act of terrorism? I presume that's why he appeared in court in London and not Yorkshire? If so I think he's lost his right to vote. Also, could what he did maybe even be seen as an act of treason? Murder of a member of the queens parliament.

Back on topic I'm for stay

Leaving the immigrant argument aside I'm amazed at the 'unelected bureaucrats making our laws' waffle. Many workplace and quality assurance laws are ratified in Brussels but thousands of those are British laws adopted and adjusted to suit whole of Europe. Britians Safety at Work act is the basis for much euro workplace H&S legislation. Our Electricity in the Home laws have been used to develop EU law. Indeed we were also the forerunners on a lot of the human rights and environmental legislation. I'd also point out that unelected bureaucrats are responsible for drafting much of the UK's own legislation. All EU law comes through the Council of Ministers (chosen by the elected governments of all member states) and the MEP's (chosen by the public). Pretty democratic in my opinion unlike the UK where law comes through Parliament (chosen by the public) and then through the 607 unelected members of the Lords

No. Not terrorism. The reason he appeared initially at Westminster Magistrates Court and will subsequently appear at the Old Bailey is that he is charged with the murder of a member of parliament.

Some of the rhetoric especially on the out side has been inflammatory and poisonous. Whilst not perhaps directly culpable, those like Farage who peddle thinly disguised racism and xenophobia for their own narrow and narrow minded political ends must bear some responsibility when troubled individuals like Thomas Mair act on such views with such tragic and devastating consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for clearing that up KM

Now to the point on immigration. In Scotland 3.4% (I think) of the population are EU citizens while 2.1% are from outside EU. Its not a lot really in the big scheme of things. My understanding is that many of the EU settlers are from Italy, France, Spain and Germany who have settled here since we joined EEC. How come there was never an outcry before EU opened up to former 'behind Iron Curtain' countries? The whole immigration outcry we are hearing now is not about EU citizens. They are used as a front but the real fear is the hundreds of thousands of refugees that managed to get into Europe and subsequently across Europe via Turkey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a very interesting poll published in "The Times" yesterday.  It broke down voting intentions of over 7000 people to identify various demographics including where they lived and what political party they support.   No surprise that Scots voters were the most pro-EU, but given the very strong and united pro-EU stance of the SNP leadership it was perhaps surprising that SNP voters were less pro-EU than Scottish voters as a whole.  UK wide, Labour, Lib Dem and Green voters were all more pro-EU than SNP voters; and as SNP voters only vote in the most pro-EU part of the UK, that is a really very striking statistic indeed.

This maybe explains Sturgeon's rather late involvement in wholehearted campaigning for Remain and why we are hearing rather less about a "democratic outrage" should Scotland vote to stay and the UK vote to Leave.  It is also consistent with the most recent poll which asked Scots voters how they would vote in a 2nd independence referendum following a UK Brexit vote.  In this poll only 39% said they would vote "Yes".  If about 40% or more of SNP voters are going to vote Leave in the EU referendum, it begs the question if they would subsequently vote for independence if to do so would take them back into Europe.  Their choice would be either an independent Scotland in Europe or being part of the UK outside of Europe.  The evidence suggests that many would chose to remain in the UK rather than in Europe.

This is why Sturgeon is correct now that she has changed her tune and is telling voters that the best way to secure Scottish independence is to ensure the UK remains in Europe.  If the UK remains in the EU then the sizeable UKIP wing of the SNP will not have that dilemma to face and the "Yes" vote will be stronger.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. I suppose it stands to reason that many of the people who people Scotland should control it's own affairs also believe that Scotland should control it's own affairs, even if their leaders take a more muddled and unprincipled stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/06/2016 at 10:52 PM, Yngwie said:

I heard a member of the public being interviewed on the radio the other day, and she was voting Leave so that we can get more powerful hairdriers!

Another good one I heard - "I'm voting Leave because David Cameron only wants us to stay in so that he can get a job at the EU when he stops being prime minister, like all his predecessors....like Neil Kinnock!"

Share this post


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

 If about 40% or more of SNP voters are going to vote Leave in the EU referendum, it begs the question if they would subsequently vote for independence if to do so would take them back into Europe.  Their choice would be either an independent Scotland in Europe or being part of the UK outside of Europe.  

In the event of a "Scotland - IN, UK - OUT" result, I suspect that a fair number of that 40% of Nationalist Brexiteers/ Little Scotlanders will undergo overnight conversions to "Indignant, Shettleston", "Disenfranchised, Lochee" ..... or "Pure Dead Bilin', Drumchapel".

Edited by Charles Bannerman
  • Disagree 1

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.