***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 6 *****
Continuing debate
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 18 Sep 14 at 01:40
|
|
I read that another bottomless pit of money, for an Independent Scotland, could be the disposal of waste from their two nuclear power stations and their eventual decommissioning. Specifically, Scotland would be responsible for the handling and treatment of waste from the plants and, even if they continued with the present arrangements with Sellafield, the end products would have to be stored and disposed of in Scotland. (article in the Times by Ben Webster, their Environment Editor)
|
When the Yes vote comes in, and Scotland signs up to Schengen, there is going to a opportunity for ferries running from Calais to Edinburgh.
The prospect of barbed wire and machine gun posts on the english border does not look so remote now:)
|
|
SFAIK countries that are signatories to the Schengen agreement are members of the EEC. I am not sure that non EEC members are allowed to sign up?
|
>> SFAIK countries that are signatories to the Schengen agreement are members of the EEC. I
>> am not sure that non EEC members are allowed to sign up?
Current Schengen includes Switzerland/Liechtenstein, Norway and Iceland all of which are outwith EU. The position of a prospectively independent Scotland in EU is, for all the bluster on both sides, unclear.
|
>> >> outwith EU.
>>
I think the use of Scottish dialect words is going to be devolved?
|
>> I think the use of Scottish dialect words is going to be devolved?
>>
Will that mark the retiral of dialect words south of the border?
Or will there be a stushie over it?
|
Interesting to see that Ed Miliband was forced to abandon his Edinburgh walkabout by YES supporters being intimidating.
|
>> Interesting to see that Ed Miliband was forced to abandon his Edinburgh walkabout by YES
>> supporters being intimidating.
Would be nice to see that level of political engagement in roUK. Miliband looked a bit hapless though. I doubt Gordon Brown would have looked quite so much like a rabbit in the headlights.
|
>> Gordon Brown would have looked quite so much like a rabbit in the headlights
Yeah, he'd just have been overheard getting into his car "Haven't all these anti-English bigots got jobs to go to?"
|
|
Now if it had been John Prescott, he'd have decked them...
|
It strikes me that a stushie is inevitable, whatever the result, given that almost exactly half the population won't like it.
As Wodehouse points out, 'It is never difficult to tell the difference between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine'...
|
I have used "outwith" quite naturally since working for a Scottish business over thirty years ago.
Useful word. I think we should have that, and they can have the gaelic.
|
>> I have used "outwith" quite naturally since working for a Scottish business over thirty years
>> ago.
>>
>> Useful word. I think we should have that, and they can have the gaelic.
Me too but by a slightly different route.
Picked it up from various sources including the handbook of the SYHA where various rules were suspended or varied 'outwith the season'. Reinforced in period 2002-13 when I worked for a cross border public body with specific representation for Scots and an office in Edinburgh.
It was a retired senior copper there who inroduced us to terms 'stushie' or 'stramash' both of which apparently refer to a bar or street brawl.
|
Listening to Salmond last night being interviewed by David Dimbledor made me laugh - how he wants Scotland to be free of Trident.
Does he think in the event Mr Putin gets trigger happy, he is going to somehow just target England and all the fall out will waft away from Scotland?
And where exactly are all these wonderful new jobs going to be created for the 16 yr olds he has managed to pursuade to vote Yes going to come from?
If Scotland is going to be able to create all this so called wealth and prosperity after independence, why hasnt it done so already. Does he honestly feel the economic downturn was just in Scotland and didnt affect the rest of the UK, EU, the World?
He either has exceptional foresight and optimism or is just a confused person.
|
>> Listening to Salmond last night being interviewed by David Dimbledor made me laugh - how
>> he wants Scotland to be free of Trident.
>> Does he think in the event Mr Putin gets trigger happy, he is going to
>> somehow just target England and all the fall out will waft away from Scotland?
So Scotland will be in exactly same place as every other nation without nuclear weapons. I'm sure we'll all die lots happier knowing Trident has taken out some bits of Russia too.
>> And where exactly are all these wonderful new jobs going to be created for the
>> 16 yr olds he has managed to pursuade to vote Yes going to come from?
Keynsian economics seem to have worked to a degree in US.
>> If Scotland is going to be able to create all this so called wealth and
>> prosperity after independence, why hasnt it done so already.
Lygonos has already posted stats showing Scotlands relative wealth income vice rest of UK.
>>Does he honestly feel the economic
>> downturn was just in Scotland and didn't affect the rest of the UK, EU, the
>> World?
A world view common amongst those who blame Labour for current 'mess'.
Seems to me that a lot of folks here have swallowed hook/line/sinker the line on Scotland (welfare addicted etc) that Monbiot lambastes the press for in today's Guardian:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/16/media-shafted-people-scotland-journalists
|
>> Listening to Salmond last night being interviewed by David Dimbledor made me laugh - how
>> he wants Scotland to be free of Trident.
>> Does he think in the event Mr Putin gets trigger happy, he is going to
>> somehow just target England and all the fall out will waft away from Scotland?
It's an example of muddled thinking granted. He wants Trident gone from Scotland, yet wants to join NATO. The two aren't really compatable.
|
>> It's an example of muddled thinking granted. He wants Trident gone from Scotland, yet wants
>> to join NATO. The two aren't really compatable.
Genuine question, why?
Only NATO members with nukes are US, UK and France. Granted tactical nukes might be stationed in eg Germany but possession of 'the bomb' is hardly a pre-requisite for membership.
|
My understanding is that NATO members who currently do not have nuclear weapons agree with NATO possession & potential use of nuclear weapons. The Nationalist position in Scotland is, I believe against their use in any form, hence the unwillingness to even have them on their territory.
|
>> My understanding is that NATO members who currently do not have nuclear weapons agree with
>> NATO possession & potential use of nuclear weapons.
>>
Exactly. You can't subscribe to the basic rule "An attack on one is an attack on all" and impose limits on the weapons that the others are going to use to help defend you.
|
>> >> My understanding is that NATO members who currently do not have nuclear weapons agree
>> with
>> >> NATO possession & potential use of nuclear weapons.
>> >>
>>
>> Exactly. You can't subscribe to the basic rule "An attack on one is an attack
>> on all" and impose limits on the weapons that the others are going to use
>> to help defend you.
>>
The whole premise of the SNP seems to be that they're under the illusion that they can have both the penny and the bun. See currency, NHS, etc.
My personal guess is that 55% of the Scottish electorate will see through Salmond's bluster and bluff and vote to remain as part of the Union. Regrettably this will not be enough to stop the allegations from the "Yes" camp of a manipulated result, even though current evidence on vote-rigging or gerrymandering points the finger of blame squarely in that area.
|
>>
>> Genuine question, why?
>>
>> Only NATO members with nukes are US, UK and France. Granted tactical nukes might be
>> stationed in eg Germany but possession of 'the bomb' is hardly a pre-requisite for membership.
>>
>>
Correct you don't need to own them to get in, however objecting to them will be. The snp are anti nuclear then want to join up to a group that has the capacity capability and intent to use them. Its a nonesense.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Wed 17 Sep 14 at 16:50
|
>> the capacity capability and intent to use them.
I say, steady on sooty... intent to use them, er, when all other defensive postures fail, when escalation of threats reaches that point, something like that?
|
>> Correct you don't need to own them to get in, however objecting to them will
>> be. The snp are anti nuclear then want to join up to a group that
>> has the capacity capability and intent to use them. Its a nonesense.
Nonetheless 'non nuclear' is a stance taken by one or another political party in most European democracies. Most/all of them NATO members. It's perfectly rational to be within that group but to argue a non-nuclear position analogous to that espoused for many years in UK by CND.
|
>> Nonetheless 'non nuclear' is a stance taken by one or another political party in most
>> European democracies. Most/all of them NATO members. It's perfectly rational to be within >> that group
>> but to argue a non-nuclear position analogous to that espoused for many years in UK
>> by CND.
>>
Don't believe, and I may be wrong on this, that any other country is in the position Scotland would be in with the governing party and majority of "MP"s anti nuclear, dont want them here, and still wants to be part of NATO.
If they are, IMHO, they are just as hypocritical as a Scots membership of NATO would be.
Most of the CND members/flyers/books etc I knew and read in the 60s / 70s were totally anti nuclear and wanted nuclear weapons removed from everywhere and did not want anyone e;se to use them on their behalf.
But maybe you knew different ones
|
|
My point about CND was that its stance while opposed to all nuclear weapons was firmly unilateralist iro UK. If SNP were first party to reach government espousing such a position well ,somebody had too. I'd have thought though that anti nuclear parties had been in governing coalitions somewhere, give preponderance of PR in electoral systems.
|
You never give in Bromp do you? :-)
CND in the 60s / 70s when I knew a few people who were involved, wanted unilateral disarmament in the fond hope that everyone else would follow suit, I do not believe any of the folk I knew then, and certainly none of the literature I read at the time contemplated being part of an alliance with anyone with nuclear weapons, they would not have seen that as anything to be desired.
As far as coalitions go with ant nuclear minorities, maybe there are but we all know what big issues minorities in coalitions can fix.
|
Assuming Scotland has any kind of airforce, and assuming its part of nato, one does not have to assume but can be sure, that the Scottish airfields are targeted by soviet nuclear weapons in the event of war.
In fact even if they don't have an airforce or are part of nato, the airfields are still targeted.
Scotland wont need to rely on UK nuclear fallout drifting over the border, they will have plenty of their own.
The only reason Alex want nuclear weapons out is to scrape up the crumbs of the green lobby vote.
|
It's perfectly rational to be within that group
>> but to argue a non-nuclear position analogous to that espoused for many years in UK
>> by CND.
>>
No idea how you figure that's rational. How an earth they can put forward a policy to join a group that one of its cornerstones of defence that they find immoral ive no idea.
Pure hypocrisy, if they'd have gone the way of Ireland that would have been at least honest.
|
>> Pure hypocrisy, if they'd have gone the way of Ireland that would have been at
>> least honest.
I agree - it's one thing to say that it's not necessary for every NATO country to have nuclear weapons, quite another to say we want the benefit but remove them from our soil.
Equally odd that the SNP promotes independence, yet wants to be in the EU - and ultimately to be governed more, rather than less remotely, than they have been hitherto.
I can't see any good coming from this, whatever the result of the referendum. An awful lot of political energy is going to be spent on what will at best be a zero sum game, in which there is a protracted squabble over who gets what, while that much less attention is paid to productive thinking.
The people most disappointed if Scotland goes will be the ones who expected it to be a panacea. But I'm sure Eck will find somebody, anybody, else to blame.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 17 Sep 14 at 19:32
|
>> non-nuclear position analogous to that espoused for many years in
>> UK
>> >> by CND.
I too, in my lefty days, hoped briefly that if Britain banned the bomb, others might be inspired to do the same.
But CND over egged its pudding and was an utter PITA. It was against nuclear power too although that may yet be needed to save civilization. And needless to say it hated oil and natural gas too.
Oh yes chaps, let's go back to the middle ages. Makes me want to go mediaeval on the carphounds, although they include some of my nearest and dearest, the idiots.
|
>> Makes me want to go mediaeval on the carphounds, although they include some of my nearest and dearest, the idiots.
Except they're right in their way. Nothing wrong with pacifism in principle. Much better than belligerence. Veteran soldiers aren't too keen on war, and they know what they're talking about.
It's a pity in a way that a serious, effective defensive posture should be necessary for any serious state. But that's the way it is.
By the way, am I alone in thinking a solid phalanx of world leaders, with the French president front and centre, is excessively flattering to the Islamist toerags running about in the Sahara and Sahel? They are cockroaches to be exterminated, a dirty job but no big deal. Of course boots will be needed on the ground.
The US representative looks narcissistic and ineffective. I hate to say it but the whole US regime is looking frazzled.
|
>> It's a pity in a way that a serious, effective defensive posture should be necessary
>> for any serious state. But that's the way it is.
Quite agree, a necessary evil.
>>
>> By the way, am I alone in thinking a solid phalanx of world leaders, with
>> the French president front and centre, is excessively flattering to the Islamist toerags running about
>> in the Sahara and Sahel? They are cockroaches to be exterminated, a dirty job but
>> no big deal. Of course boots will be needed on the ground.
Quite agree. A weird form of political correctness.
>>
>> The US representative looks narcissistic and ineffective. I hate to say it but the whole
>> US regime is looking frazzled.
Yes. Be careful though AC...before long you'll be agreeing that a firmer hand is needed on the tiller...come back Dubya all is forgiven!
|
>> Yes...before long you'll be agreeing that a firmer hand is needed on the tiller...come back Dubya all is forgiven!
Firm hand one ting, effin chimpanzee in charge another ting altogether.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Wed 17 Sep 14 at 19:57
|
"The prospect of barbed wire and machine gun posts on the english border does not look so remote now:)"
Yes, but the Leader has promised a Socialist Republic of Scotland which resembles the promised land - as portrayed by Jehovah's Witness publications; the machine guns will be in place to stop the English migrating north.
|
|
The only problem is that all the incomers will not be able to understand the scottish accents, and make the country FKnUK their 2nd choice.
Last edited by: sherlock47 on Wed 17 Sep 14 at 15:42
|
|
If the Scots want rid of Faslane, will they be footing the bill to relocate it? I'm not a huge fan of nukes, but a cold war still seems preferable to a hot one.
|
Just to suggest that it might be appropriate to be careful with the all encompassing vitriol directed at the the "theys" and the "thems". Bear in mind that it's likely that whatever the outcome nearly half the population will be unhappy about it.
The fat bloke might get his way but the fat lady will have far from sung.
|
4 million registered to vote.
80% turn out - 3.2 million vote
51% yes = 1.63 million voted for independence. 2.37 million didn't.
Thats democracy. Thats also how the scots end up with a tory government.
|
I'm looking forward to Friday. As it happens I shall coincidentally be in Scotland that day. To state my position, had I had the opportunity I think I'd have been a wavering 'No' but it's tough to be sure not having lived there for many years. Maybe I'd have had a different view if I still did.
If the vote is "Yes" I suspect it'll feel like being in the company of a bloke who has just left his wife and with all the mixed emotions that creates or if it's "No" it'll be like being with a couple who have decided not to split for the sake of the children and are pretending to like each other in public.
It'll all be quite exciting anyway. For a while.
I wish the people all best. The politicians can take their own chances.
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Wed 17 Sep 14 at 19:03
|
Can anyone explain..succinctly..why the SNP want to be free of Westminster, but would willingly be ruled by Brussels?
I genuinely don't understand.
|
>> Can anyone explain..succinctly..why the SNP want to be free of Westminster, but would willingly be
>> ruled by Brussels?
>>
>> I genuinely don't understand.
Because ruled by Brussels is, in reality, a myth. I asked on here a few months ago for personal examples of EU Directives affecting individual people.
SP highlighted some rules about 3 wheel cars which were clearly ill-researched but otherwise, silence.
Sure, there are complex rules about say slaughterhouses but would they be any less complex set by/for UK alone?
|
>> Because ruled by Brussels is, in reality, a myth. I asked on here a few
>> months ago for personal examples of EU Directives affecting individual people.
>>
>> SP highlighted some rules about 3 wheel cars which were clearly ill-researched but otherwise, silence.
>>
>>
>> Sure, there are complex rules about say slaughterhouses but would they be any less complex
>> set by/for UK alone?
There must be 1000's of directives, laws, EU court rulings, etc that affect all of us.. off the top of my head 56mph speed limit for lorries...155mph max limit allowable on most cars...
Don't those figures seem odd to you?..Why not a mph rational figure such as 60mph speed limit for lorries and 150mph max for cars?
You'll have to do better than that.
|
So you found two
>> Don't those figures seem odd to you?..Why not a mph rational figure such as 60mph
>> speed limit for lorries and 150mph max for cars?
that don't affect you.
>> You'll have to do better than that.
Indeed you will.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 17 Sep 14 at 20:08
|
>> There must be 1000's of directives, laws, EU court rulings, etc that affect all of
>> us.. off the top of my head 56mph speed limit for lorries...155mph max limit allowable
>> on most cars...
That's what everyone says. But asked to name those that affect them personally or professionally answer tends to be silence and a shuffling of feet.
>> Don't those figures seem odd to you?..Why not a mph rational figure such as 60mph
>> speed limit for lorries and 150mph max for cars?
If you're going to have such restrictions, and I bet there'd be a backlash from various lobbies if their abolition were proposed, what sense does it make for them to be different in UK from rest of Europe? Plenty UK trucking companies limit below 90kph/56mph for economy or whatever. Do you think Scania will build a lorry with 60mph limiter just for small minority in a small market market? And UK has had a 70 limit for pretty much all our lifetimes so 150/155 for cars is academic.
>> You'll have to do better than that.
Can you name a directive that's adversely affected you personally?
As the much missed NoFM2R pointed out it matters much more whether laws are sensible rather than whether they originate from Brussels, London or wherever.
And as usual this debate ignores US/Multinational attempts to pervert our right to make own ruiles whether via the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Treaty or attempts by Congress at laws with international reach.
|
>> And as usual this debate ignores US/Multinational attempts to pervert our right to make own
>> ruiles whether via the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Treaty or attempts by Congress at
>> laws with international reach.
As the poor bloke who sold batteries found out.
|
The poor bloke who sold the batteries.
Is he still in prison? What went on here seems nobody was interested defending him.
|
"Can you name a directive that's adversely affected you personally? "
I was under the impression that, in return for fuelling the European gravy train with vast amounts of money, we received lots of lovely rules and regulations in return e.g. concerning the size of vacuum cleaners, hairdryers etc.
I am now persuaded that these rules are a fiction ……….. so, why are we paying all this money to Europe?
|
Changing Marathon to Snickers was always wrong. Still rankles that.
;-)
|
>> Changing Marathon to Snickers was always wrong. Still rankles that.
>>
>> ;-)
Don't forget Opal Fruits to Starburst.
Mind, I blame the Eu for the removal of the blue smartie
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 17 Sep 14 at 21:16
|
And Jif to Cif?
Line 'em up I says.
|
>> And Jif to Cif?
>>
>> Line 'em up I says.
>>
I notice that when SWM's Oil of Ulay tanker pulls up outside the house.....it's now spelled Olay.
|
>> "Can you name a directive that's adversely affected you personally? "
>>
>> I was under the impression that, in return for fuelling the European gravy train with
>> vast amounts of money, we received lots of lovely rules and regulations in return e.g.
>> concerning the size of vacuum cleaners, hairdryers etc.
>>
>> I am now persuaded that these rules are a fiction ……….. so, why are we
>> paying all this money to Europe?
When was the last time you did the breedin vacuuming?
|
"When was the last time you did the breedin vacuuming?"
The condition of my wife continuing to work was that I did the breeding vacuuming. I'm not saying that I do a good job, or that I enjoy it, or that I do it anywhere near often enough ……… but I do it. A vacuum with twice as much suck does the job twice as fast (v. important IMHO) and uses about the same amount of energy (and no, Brompt, I can't give you the precise figures!).
|
>Can you name a directive that's adversely affected you personally?
I can give you one that affects me personally.
I cannot buy Original Equipment tyres for my Chevy (they're not a common size in Europe) and have them shipped over because US manufactured tyres do not have the letters "EU" stamped on the sidewall.
Goodyear Europe used to produce them to special order but I don't think they even do that anymore.
Instead, I have to buy inferior tyres that cost more than those specified by the manufacturer.
|
>> Instead, I have to buy inferior tyres that cost more than those specified by the
>> manufacturer.
Well that's two then and both motoring related.
But same issue might well arise with an OE supplier unwilling to comply with/stamp sidewall for UK specific requirements. Furthermore, UK owners of French or German classics might face same issue due unwillingness of EU mfrs to stamp a BS approval number on tyres.
Like SP's 3 wheeler issue it's also susceptible to pragmatic solution if 'victims' talk to EU.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 18 Sep 14 at 01:38
|
>Well that's two then and both motoring related.
Well this aint mumsnet. What did you expect?
>But same issue might well arise with an OE supplier unwilling to comply with/stamp sidewall
>for UK specific requirements.
Tyres that complied with US DOT/NHTSA standards were perfectly acceptable in the UK until the EU directive. US and UK standards were considered to be comparable to all intents and purposes. It was the responsibility of the vehicle owner to ensure that the tyres fitted were suitable.
>Furthermore, UK owners of French or German classics might face same issue due unwillingness
>of EU mfrs to stamp a BS approval number on tyres.
See above.
>Like SP's 3 wheeler issue it's also susceptible to pragmatic solution if 'victims' talk to EU.
You asked for an example of how we've been adversely affected by EU directives. I gave you one.
Instead of trying to defend an ill thought out directive why don't you try to tell us why it was needed in the first place.
Do you really think that having "EU" stamped on the sidewall of your tyres guarantees their quality?
|
'There must be 1000's of directives, laws, EU court rulings, etc that affect all of us.'
According to this link, £27.4 billion worth of EU laws.
tinyurl.com/mbe3fcd
|
>> 'There must be 1000's of directives, laws, EU court rulings, etc that affect all of
>> us.'
>>
>> According to this link, £27.4 billion worth of EU laws.
>> tinyurl.com/mbe3fcd
>
Are all of those really areas where we'd not need alternative domestic legislation with similar compliance costs?
|
snipquote!
>> Sure, there are complex rules about say slaughterhouses but would they be any less complex
>> set by/for UK alone?
That question entirely misses the point, which is that the EU is about creating a federal Europe - do you seriously dispute that?
Currency and monetary union is the declared objective. You can't have that without political union. I think Carney said that recently in so many words, though it should be obvious.
For the nth time, I have no problem with a USE if that is what a majority wants - as long as they know what they are getting in to.
Of course we all know that most people, especially politicians, are only concerned with the short term.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 18 Sep 14 at 01:38
|
>> That question entirely misses the point, which is that the EU is about creating a
>> federal Europe - do you seriously dispute that?
>>
>> Currency and monetary union is the declared objective. You can't have that without political union.
>> I think Carney said that recently in so many words, though it should be obvious.
... and no one has been able to answer my question about the SNP being happy to be ruled by Brussels, but not Westminster.
|
Snipquote!!!!
>> ... and no one has been able to answer my question about the SNP being
>> happy to be ruled by Brussels, but not Westminster.
Because they know they wont be ruled by Brussels, the same as we are not ruled by Brussels.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 18 Sep 14 at 01:37
|
>> Because they know they wont be ruled by Brussels, the same as we are not
>> ruled by Brussels.
>>
Depends on your definition of 'rule' fair enough, but if someone makes a law they you have to comply with, then it fits mine.
|
>> Depends on your definition of 'rule' fair enough, but if someone makes a law they
>> you have to comply with, then it fits mine.
But if we'd otherwise need to have a domestic law in similar terms/complexity to the Brussels one (whether re slaughterhouses or diesel emissions) what's the difference?
Meanwhile Brussels one simplifies business landscape 'cos it's one standard across a market from Shetland to Athens.
|
>> But if we'd otherwise need to have a domestic law in similar terms/complexity to the
>> Brussels one (whether re slaughterhouses or diesel emissions) what's the difference?
I find that a strange argument.
'We need the law anyway, so let's allow Brussels to do it, rather than the elected politicians here'
I want a Brit enacting my laws, so there's half a chance of them understanding our needs, culture, foibles, etc.
>> Meanwhile Brussels one simplifies business landscape 'cos it's one standard across a market from Shetland
>> to Athens.
That isn't always the right thing. What might be right in Athens might not be so in Berlin, etc.
|
>> That isn't always the right thing. What might be right in Athens might not be
>> so in Berlin, etc.
But you still haven't come up with any laws that are the "wrong thing" for us.
|
>>> I find that a strange argument.
>>
>> 'We need the law anyway, so let's allow Brussels to do it, rather than the
>> elected politicians here'
If you're going to have a 'Common Market' then you need some common rules. Frankly I don't care whether they're made in London, Brussels or Athens so long as they're sensible and practical.
>> I want a Brit enacting my laws, so there's half a chance of them understanding
>> our needs, culture, foibles, etc.
So where are the specific laws that impinge on our needs, culture, foibles, etc. (not accepting that I'm accepting foibles have same weight as needs,
>> >> Meanwhile Brussels one simplifies business landscape 'cos it's one standard across a market from
>> Shetland
>> >> to Athens.
>>
>> That isn't always the right thing. What might be right in Athens might not be
>> so in Berlin, etc.
So let's have some examples
|
>>So let's have some examples
The premise of your approach here is that the EU will only issue directives that have little material impact on the legislation that UK would enact anyway?
That being the case, we shouldn't worry about it?
11 countries (with a lot less to lose than the UK) are in favour of a Tobin tax. I suppose that will be OK with you when we are forced to develop the statute, and devastate the only big industry we have left?
Then Al (where is he?) can get rid of the monarchy and we won't even be a decent theme park:)
|
>> Because they know they wont be ruled by Brussels, the same as we are not
>> ruled by Brussels.
No, we are not ruled by the EU, and you know I didn't say that, but you do understand that that objective is its purpose, don't you?
This is not conspiracy theory, just fact.
What do you think the Maastricht treaty was for?
For the (n+1)th time, this is a fundamental premise of the whole debate. If we don't buy into it. we should think in terms of not being in the EU 20 years from now.
If there was a referendum on the EU now, I'd expect widespread support for that. If there was one on whether UK should be a state of the USE, the answer would almost certainly be very different.
I could live with it. What I find difficult to accept is the implicit belief that the Euro can survive without substantial further ceding of sovereignty by its members. Even the EU doesn't pretend otherwise.
ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/reding/multimedia/articles/towards-political-union_en.htm
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 17 Sep 14 at 23:16
|
|
It' s going to be a comfortable "No" majority. Always was. Opinion polls tend to favour more gung-ho response than actual voting when people tend to act more cautiously. Stand by for endless hours of post election analysis.
|
Not sure about comfortable Norwich.I have seen the divisions in Belgium no love lost between the Flemish and the French speaking lot.
|
My new car was handed over yesterday. It has EURO stars, a Saltire, and "SCO" on the number plates. My Scottish pals will take the mick but I will tell them it is to pacify the natives.
The bookies are still going for a No vote.
While chatting to the salesman he told me that the sales in their premium dealerships have been disastrous recently. The press is reporting many English folk are cancelling Scottish holidays.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 18 Sep 14 at 01:36
|
>>The press is reporting many English folk are cancelling Scottish holidays.
Is there real evidence of this and why? If the bookies are right then no real change except greater devolution.
The press report all sorts of bowlux for reasons varying from proprietors politics or commercial interests to use of teenage subbies.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 17 Sep 14 at 20:55
|
|
Can you show me the list of countries who applied to rejoin?
|
"Can you show me the list of countries who applied to rejoin?"
No, but I sense that e.g. Egypt has gone downhill a bit. Maybe it's just pride?
|
>> No, but I sense that e.g. Egypt has gone downhill a bit. Maybe it's just pride?
Starting from a rather poor base after being 'managed' from afar.
www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp
www.tradingeconomics.com/egypt/gdp
Mibbes they'll no be wantin' back after a' ?
|
>> Can you show me the list of countries who applied to rejoin?
Oh good lord, the jocks now claim they are a downtrodden colony. Still I suppose its the first step to claiming reparations. I'm sure Robert Mugabe will be the first to congratulate King Salmon the first.
|
>> >>The press is reporting many English folk are cancelling Scottish holidays.
>>
>> Is there real evidence of this and why? If the bookies are right then no
>> real change except greater devolution.
www.scotsman.com/news/transport/english-tourists-cancelling-holidays-to-scotland-1-3544968
|
>> www.scotsman.com/news/transport/english-tourists-cancelling-holidays-to-scotland-1-3544968
OK. One named booking agent claims bookings meltdown. Others say 'work to do'. Maybe people misinterpret the 'conflict' which is no more than what we always saw in days when engagement was enough for an 80% turnout for an election or whatever.
Never underestimate the stupidity of etc.
I can honestly say that contemplating a trip to Lewis next year I'd not given the referendum and its consequences a second's thought. Same if I'd been going to Edinburgh or Glasgow.
|
Don't forget the Hootsman has come out as a 'No' supporter so any cases of "we've not seen any change in bookings" when they 'researched' their story aren't likely to get much sunshine.
Although I'm surprised - normally the Scotsman just regurgitates whatever I read on bbc.co.uk the previous day.
|
Out and about today in Glasgow and from what I am seeing on the news.
I do think this is going to be a Yes vote tomorrow.
|
>> Out and about today in Glasgow and from what I am seeing on the news.
>>
>> I do think this is going to be a Yes vote tomorrow.
>>
I think there is a silent majority of No voters that don't feature in the polls and keep a low profile, time will tell.
|
I'm expecting 55-45 for the 'No' camp.
Judicious use of Devo-max should then kick independence into the long grass for 20 years.
Don't forget Holyrood is in a position no-one thought possible in 1998 - a single majority party.
THAT is how unpopular Labour were after the financial meltdown - even in their stronghold they got the boot.
Even if there is a Yes vote, there is no guarantee (and I expect it's more likely than not) that after the next Holyrood elections the SNP is back in minority administration or even a Lib-Lab coalition takes charge.
I would find it pretty sweet if the Tories were in the position of Kingmaker but I'm not holding my breath.
|
>> Don't forget Holyrood is in a position no-one thought possible in 1998 - a single
>> majority party.
>>
>> THAT is how unpopular Labour were after the financial meltdown - even in their stronghold
>> they got the boot.
I think you over egg pudding and underestimate the poltical sophistication of your compatriots.
SNP for Holyrood but Labour for Westminster?
|
If it is a Yes, then I feel that at the next Scottish election, Labour could get in.
That is, if this was a new Labour that went back to its traditional roots and wasn't the Tory Blair version of labour. And I assume that would be the case as they would be free of UK Labour shackles.
Away at the beginning, and ON touched on this there, I said that all the folk who want Indie will go out and vote tomorrow and at that point I wasn't convinced that all the No's would bother.
But with the polls being so close now I do think that the No's realise their vote is needed.
Whatever way this vote goes, there has been an almighty huge lot of effort and resource that has went into this on both sides and I don't think that can be switched off tomorrow night. There are many more people now engaged in politics and that could actually stand us in good stead moving forward
|
>> Whatever way this vote goes, there has been an almighty huge lot of effort and
>> resource that has went into this on both sides and I don't think that can
>> be switched off tomorrow night.
>>
If NO wins then, sadly, I expect rioting.
Why stop at defacing posters.
|
>>If NO wins then, sadly, I expect rioting.
It's not London we're talking about.
As a wise criminologist once said: "It's not much fun rioting in the rain."
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 17 Sep 14 at 22:57
|
>> If NO wins then, sadly, I expect rioting.
>> Why stop at defacing posters.
I agree with Bobby that the political engagement won't stop. But it's a good thing and should be picked up by both sides going on to the new world of Devo Max.
Deafacing posters, heckling meetings and giving politicos the hard ride Miliband got yesterday should be politics normal. They're positive signs of a public taking an interest rather than the inertia of bland brands we've had post 1997.
|
>
>> But with the polls being so close now I do think that the No's realise
>> their vote is needed.
Here is a question, should opinion polling during elections be banned? it is in some countries.
>>There are many more people now engaged in politics and
>> that could actually stand us in good stead moving forward
Has this vote got anything at all to do with politics?
|
>> Has this vote got anything at all to do with politics?
Of course it has.
Not the yoo-bah party stuff maybe but public debate and plebiscite on nationality are politics in tooth and claw.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 17 Sep 14 at 23:07
|
>>
>> I do think this is going to be a Yes vote tomorrow.
>>
Do you want a shilling on it?
|
|
Is that a Pound Sterling Shilling??? :)
|
>> My new car was handed over yesterday. It has EURO stars, a Saltire, and "SCO"
>> on the number plates. My Scottish pals will take the pi** but I will tell
>> them it is to pacify the natives.
>>
The plates were not specified by me, apparently they are fitted to all the cars from this chain of dealerships. I hope I don't get the car vandalised when I am "dahn sarf". :)
|
|
terrific stuff guys - bogbrush
|
Strip away the details and what remains is that the clear and present objective of those running the E.U. IS the creation of a Federal State of Europe with its constituent previous countries being just "Regions".
If that is your goal and you are prepared to acknowledge that, then you have a genuine position and policy to which you are wholly entitled.
If on the other hand you do not wish this country with its long history of sturdy independence to be subsumed in a European Super State in which our voice will be but one among many (and with correspondingly little influence) then the argument for quitting the EU and looking out towards the wider world is pretty compelling.
This is also a genuine position and a policy to which many of us are wholly entitled.
|
Independence Vote - Vol 5 - wokingham
