brexit?!!?

[gep]

As someone who lives in Holland I can concur, but they speak German as well, so what does that mean? What about the real countries Germany, France, Italy, Spain,

Interesting; you do not consider The Netherlands a real country? Now Holland, that isn't a real country, despite the fact that quite a few there seem to think it is (or, for that matter, consider Holland to pretty much be The Netherlands, or at least its most essential bit).

all best
gep

[ahinton]

As a Brexiteer, I also didn't want my Country to have to bail out basket case economies and also, the thought of allowing Turkey in, giving rights to its 75 million Muslims to live here was more than sufficient to decide where I was going to vote.

As has been widely circulated, Turkey's chances of joining EU in the foreseeable future are almost negligible; it has to satisfy around 30 conditions of membership of which, to date, it has managed to satisfy only one.

Turkey's population is now just under 80m; what evidence do you have that 75m of them are Muslim? What evidence do you have as to how many Turks, Muslim or otherwise, would actually come to UK? What you imply here (i.e. that they all might just because they'd be entitled to do so) is clearly undermined by the fact that the nonsense once shouted by Mr Farage that almost the entire populations of Romania and Bulgaria would be over here like a shot once they became EU members proved to be just that - nonsense.

In any case, what do you regard as "your Country"? UK? Or just England? If the latter, what are your views about maintaning the Union, as expressed (clearly more for Ms Sturgeon's benefit than anyone else's) in Ms May's first speech outside no. 10 yesterday afternoon following her having accepted the Prime Ministerial brief from the Queen? I regard Scotland as "my" country to the extent that it is my country of origin, but I feel no sense of possessiveness over it (and not only because I don't live there); I don't own it or any part of it and it doesn't owe me anything. I see myself as European first and Scottish second.

Best,

Alistair

[forte88]

A country that counts regarding the size of the country and the size of its population. And sometimes I wonder with so much diversity if it is a real country, save football, it's the most unpatriotic country possibly in the world that cares nothing for its own language. A country used to being invaded and dominated, a small country with quite a spectacular past and a country that did very well when the Jews moved their international operations from Spain and Portugal to the Netherlands. The start of the VOC but this Golden Age came to an end when Willem III moved to England. The internationals after all prefer the superstate with all above mentioned advantages.
England was still a much larger country than Holland and in 1707 it became superstate Great Britain.
And just look at how the Scottish aristocracy used the superstate to augment their power and wealth and so much easier to get rid of their serfs, threw them of their land to let them fend for themselves in the cities. My guess is the SNP are trying to replay history, the Scottish elites after all don't care about their own people, they just use their mindless patriotism(like in Ireland) to further their own agenda.

[ahinton]

The whole point Mr Logic is that had there been no mass indoctrination NOBODY would have voted to remain, why vote to stay part of this abomination?

That truly is utter nonsense; on what evidence do you base so rash a claim which, if true, would be a first in British history in that every voter would have voted the same way!

I'll reiterate what I wrote previously

You mustn't repeat; you'll risk having have Thal drawing analogies between what you write and Schubert sonatas!

I won't quote all of what you next write in order to save space, but what IS a "superstate" in your eyes"? Isn't UK itself one, of sorts, albeit on a vastly smaller scale than US and with only some 20% of US's population? You write (quite correctly about various EU member states having very different economies, GDPs and the like but couldn't the same be said fo the four constituent parts of UK?

Perhaps annexed isn't the right word(just from the pov of the superstate as it enlarges their influence and power) as those 2nd world countries are all too glad that the rich nations of the West are willing to send billions in tax payers money in their direction.

But what you realise but omit to take on board here is that international corporations can get to be as rich or richer than some of those poorer states and there's nothing that anyone can do to stop that.

Of course they have very different ideas as they unlike Western Europe haven't been polluted by feminism

This once again displays an attitude that is as reprehensible as it is unfounded; feminism of one kind or another is almost everywhere today.

As someone who lives in Holland I can concur, but they speak German as well, so what does that mean? What about the real countries Germany, France, Italy, Spain, how many people speak fluent English there Mr Logic? Once again a complete non sequitur.

Tell that to Apple and Microsoft. Plenty of Germans speak English, quite a few French do but they prefer not to and the situation is not dissimilar in Spain and Italy but what you forget here is that the internet is predominantly focused on the English language, to the extent that an endangered languages researcher of my acquiantance has on occasion spoken of "the cancer of English".

The Australian composer Malcolm Williamson once infamously said "Andrew Lloyd Webber is everywhere - but then so is AIDS"; likewise, one could say that English is (almost) everywhere and its constant spread means that those fluent in it stand better chances of better jobs wherever they work.

Since when was Poland part of Britain? Poles didn't fight for Britain, they were fighting against Germany, had the joint invasion of Poland not happened would they even have been there fighting for Germany?

Did I ever suggest that it was? Poland fought on the same side as UK and, following the end of the war, many of them settled in UK which is one reason (though admittedly not the only one) why by far the greatest number of immigrants in UK from EU member states today are from Poland.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Thanks for mentioning that, there's just so much to mention, but you're right. As well as the billions that go to the corrupt Erdogan government to supposedly keep the immigrants there, not that this happens so still they come through Greece a country financially destroyed by the Euro.
Now being bought up by the Chinese for next to nothing and a country that obviously now doesn't have the resources to stop the immigrants from getting a foothold in Europe via Turkey.

If and to the extent that what you say about Turkey might be true (and I do say "if"), what does that have to do with EU, or Brexit? Turkey's not an EU member state and is most unlikely to become one during my lifetime but, if all that is already happening, what possible difference would it make whether Turkey's an Eu member state or not?

One point that I've made previously is that, regardless of EU with or without UK, if anough people want to come to Germany, France, UK or wherever else, they'l do it and there would be little that their new host countries could do to stop them; if just 1 in 100 Chinses were to come to EU member states, what could their border controls and security do to stop them? A little, but not very much?

A similar point which addresses some people's concerns about immigration levels to UK not because of racism but born of concerns about available space and infrastructure to absorb them is to ask what will be the effect of large numbers of UK citizens currently living abroad (not only in other EU member states) deciding to move to UK - including some who have never lived in UK; no possible border controls can stop that because they all have entitlement to live in UK whenever they so choose.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Turkey's population is now just under 80m; what evidence do you have that 75m of them are Muslim? What evidence do you have as to how many Turks, Muslim or otherwise, would actually come to UK? What you imply here (i.e. that they all might just because they'd be entitled to do so) is clearly undermined by the fact that the nonsense once shouted by Mr Farage that almost the entire populations of Romania and Bulgaria would be over here like a shot once they became EU members proved to be just that - nonsense.

OK, so we have 600,000 Polish workers in UK and 200,000 Bulgarians and these are only the ones we know about. Farage did not speak any nonsense.

Yet again, you will be alright so no need to worry. Your job is safe from competition.

To give access to millions of Turks would be insane, no matter how many would wish to come.

Yet again, would not affect you, so no need to worry.

Thal

[ahinton]

A country that counts regarding the size of the country and the size of its population. And sometimes I wonder with so much diversity if it is a real country, save football, it's the most unpatriotic country possibly in the world that cares nothing for its own language. A country used to being invaded and dominated, a small country with quite a spectacular past and a country that did very well when the Jews moved their international operations from Spain and Portugal to the Netherlands. The start of the VOC but this Golden Age came to an end when Willem III moved to England. The internationals after all prefer the superstate with all above mentioned advantages.
England was still a much larger country than Holland and in 1707 it became superstate Great Britain.
And just look at how the Scottish aristocracy used the superstate to augment their power and wealth and so much easier to get rid of their serfs, threw them of their land to let them fend for themselves in the cities. My guess is the SNP are trying to replay history, the Scottish elites after all don't care about their own people, they just use their mindless patriotism(like in Ireland) to further their own agenda.

You may guess all you like, but all your froth about Scotland does nothing to explain why the vast majority of Scots, rich and poor alike and in every Scottish constitutency without exception, voted to remain in EU; how could that be and expression of Scottish "patriotism", "mindless" or otherwise? Bear in mind also that, of the four constituent parts of UK, the largest majority for either side in the referendum was in Scotland.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

OK, so we have 600,000 Polish workers in UK and 200,000 Bulgarians and these are only the ones we know about. Farage did not speak any nonsense.

He did, actually; what you omit to recognise here is that the Polish immigrant population in UK was already quite high - and certainly higher than from anywhere else in Europe - even before the forerunner of EU (a group of six Western European nations) was launched in the late 1950s, so it's nothing new.

That aside, I wouldn't want to live anywhere without immigrants (and that's not just because I am one myself); as a Welshman born in Wales said to me many years ago, "although I love Wales, what I deprecate about it is that there are so many Welsh people living there and not enough from elsewhere". This insularity prompted him to leave although, of course, there are plenty of non-Welsh people living there today, so at least that lack of diversity has become history.

Yet again, you will be alright so no need to worry. Your job is safe from competition.

How can you be sure what worries me or how much? As I've said before, I do not have a "job" and never have had one; moreover, what I do is work in a self-employed capacity in what's always been an insecure profession and that insecurity would be unaffected by numbers of immigrants, although if UK really did become a kind of "fortress Britain" (which of course it won't), that would affect my position adversely as I would expect to to affect many other people in UK.

To give access to millions of Turks would be insane, no matter how many would wish to come.

Of course it would - I agree wholeheartedly with you on that - but it's not going to happen unless there's an invasion! Why in any case would "millions of Turks" desiring to leave Turkey (even assuming that so many actually did so) want to come to UK rather than, say, Germany, Austria, France or Spain? - and what makes you think that they'd all want to go to EU member states anyway? But to reiterate, "millions of Turks" are not about to descend upon UK whether or not Turkey or UK is an EU member state at the time.

Yet again, would not affect you, so no need to worry.

Rubbish! Were "millions of Turks" to come to UK, it would affect almost everyone living there - even other Turks already here!

Anyway, to return to more sensible discussion of the subject, one important factor that seems largely to have been ignored so far is that, even if neither the petition nor any of the legal challenges impact upon actions to move Brexit forward, what does anyone suppose might happen should some or all of the many and varied (not to say enormously expensive) negotiations - between UK on its own on one side and a group of 27 countries on the other - be ultimately unsuccessful?

"Brexit is Brexit"? Is it really? Leaving aside that this staement is utterly meaningless, one thing that Brexit is most certainly not and can never become is a set of mutually agreed rules, preordained procedures and predictable outcomes; instead, it is a means whereby a newly appointed captain will steer a sinking ship of her predecessor's making into uncharted waters to meet with EU leaders and other senior executives and hope to negotiate complex sets of terms, conditions, duties, responsibilities and benefits (if any) on the aforementioned 1 against 17 basis over several years.

So another thing that Brexit is not is some nice, easy, cosy fun, for anyone involved. If it all begins and is not subsequently curtailed by legal or other challenge, it is almost certain that those negotiations will be continuing well beyond the next UK General Election even if the current UK government survives to full term (i.e. May 2020).

How much money will likely be left in UK's coffers then, once the costs of all the work involved have been spent and calculated, I dare not even try to imagine; it's also hard to see how it will all be funded in any case should its tax revenues drop because employers relocate operations away from UK.

As the Yorkshireman said of his clumsy wife, "every time she drops something she Brexit"...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

How can you be sure what worries me or how much? As I've said before, I do not have a "job" and never have had one

Hopefully this does not prevent you from appreciating the position of people who have been negatively affected by immigration. Or is it just easier to paint them with the same brush that you would use for Farage??

Please keep your response to under 200 words as my time is limited tonight.

Some of us have work to do.

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

This thread may end up with a greater word-count than the Chilcot report..

[thalbergmad]

Hinty has managed a few million words himself.

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

And just look at how the Scottish aristocracy used the superstate to augment their power and wealth and so much easier to get rid of their serfs, threw them of their land to let them fend for themselves in the cities. My guess is the SNP are trying to replay history, the Scottish elites after all don't care about their own people, they just use their mindless patriotism(like in Ireland) to further their own agenda.

I think this is simplistic. The Clearances were indeed initiated by the landowning gentry, but the "Scottish elites" insofar as they exist nowadays (financial sector, banking, most large businesses, and I suppose the remnants of the landowning class) are very much pro-union thus diametrically opposed to the SNP, which are a centre-left, pro-independence party. And the SNP is a very different party to, say, 40 years ago, as a consequence of repositioning themselves in the centre-left (essentially, taking up the ground the Labour party has largely vacated) - whilst they are pro-independence which can be an appeal to "mindless patriotism" their voter group is more nuanced than that nowadays, as it is tied in with the belief that the SNP are a "social justice" movement. The general political direction and leanings differ considerably between England and Scotland at this point in time. The populist appeal to the working-class vote has been seeping from Labour to UKIP in England for some time; UKIP are significantly to the right of centre in many traditional terms. https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2015

[ronde_des_sylphes]

In a democracy the people can make a bad dessicion and then they have to pay/live with it. It's not their right as most people think, it's their obligation (according to Pericles - another ancient guy): he said that those who do not participate in the affairs of their state are not just useless for their city/nation/state etc., but harmfull to it and should be put to death!!! Now that's maybe a little too much, but in a democracy you HAVE to be informed about the matters of the state, and you have to be able to have an opinion, and you have to express your opinion, or you are not entitled/fit to have a democracy, and by Aristotele, you are born a slave and should leave others make the dessicions for you...

And Plato: "the penalty of failing to participate in politics is to be ruled by ones inferiors". The problem with being "informed about the matters of the state" is that it's virtually impossible to find impartial sources of information - everyone has an agenda.

[iansinclair]

I think this is simplistic. The Clearances were indeed initiated by the landowning gentry, but the "Scottish elites" insofar as they exist nowadays (financial sector, banking, most large businesses, and I suppose the remnants of the landowning class) are very much pro-union thus diametrically opposed to the SNP, which are a centre-left, pro-independence party. And the SNP is a very different party to, say, 40 years ago, as a consequence of repositioning themselves in the centre-left (essentially, taking up the ground the Labour party has largely vacated) - whilst they are pro-independence which can be an appeal to "mindless patriotism" their voter group is more nuanced than that nowadays, as it is tied in with the belief that the SNP are a "social justice" movement. The general political direction and leanings differ considerably between England and Scotland at this point in time. The populist appeal to the working-class vote has been seeping from Labour to UKIP in England for some time; UKIP are significantly to the right of centre in many traditional terms. https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2015

Don't feed the troll!  That said.  The SNP is centre-left, having migrated there from a far left position, and are very much the party of the lower and middle class people of the central belt; their original strength was in Glasgow.  They don't, frankly, represent either the Borders or the Highlands and Islands particularly well, nor -- since those areas are very thinly populated -- do they need to to govern.  It is well to remember in that regard that Scotland is really five rather poorly integrated regions -- the Borders, the Central Belt, the Highlands, the Western Isles and the Northern Isles.  These regions have, historically, had remarkably different populations and also, historically, have gotten on remarkably poorly.  The Scots of lore and legend -- Scots wha' hae wi' Wallace and all that -- have been mostly the Highlands and Western Isles; the Scots which annoyed the English so badly for a few centuries that they were deported to the Colonies (where they turned up at the Battle of Saratoga and clobbered Burgoyne) were the Border reivers.  The seafarers and explorers were the Northern Isles, and are to a great extent Norse, not Celtic, in origin.  The central belt was mostly farmers and merchants and, in more recent years, workmen.  The five regions even speak different languages (not dialects): the central belt is English (although that can be hard to believe in Glasgow!).  The Western Isles Gaelic; the Highlands either Gaelic or Doric, and the Northern Isles either Gaelic or Old Norse -- although almost everyone now speaks English (of a sort!) as well.

What has all that to do with today's politics?  Just this: the SNP has a firm belief in the virtues of central planning and control (provided they are doing the planning and controlling).  To use the lamentable modern vernacular, it's in its DNA.  It remains to be seen what their attitude to the EU would be if they were a very small country within it, but forward vision has never been popular in political circles.  The remainder of the country would just like to have someone pay some attention to their particular problems -- which neither Westminster nor Holyrood have in the past -- but, barring that, they don't mind the EU subsidies, which are generous.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a direct descendant of the Earls of Orkney, and the present Earl of Rosslyn (Peter St. Clair-Erskine) is a distant cousin (whom I have never met).

[forte88]

the largest majority for either side in the referendum was in Scotland.

Mr Logic strikes again....

[forte88]

@Ronde:

I suppose the remnants of the landowning class) are very much pro-union thus diametrically opposed to the SNP

The Scottish elites would be for the superstate as I explained, because the EU is bigger than Britain and I've already explained why they would prefer that(concentration of wealth, concentration of power). And since the mass media are the the craven dogs doing their bidding it's not surprising that a) the mindless Scots(quite a few judging by this thread) can actually believe that the Scottish National Party is a nationalist party and not what they really are, namely a party that wants to hand over Scottish sovereignty to the EU superstate

[forte88]

Don't feed the troll

Who's trolling?
Perhaps because an English nationalist who doesn't like the idea of an EU Trojan horse within the British Isles is a little to much of a threat for your treacherous ideas?

[ronde_des_sylphes]

@Ronde:
the mindless Scots(quite a few judging by this thread) can actually believe that the Scottish National Party is a nationalist party and not what they really are, namely a party that wants to hand over Scottish sovereignty to the EU superstate

I think you would be very surprised at how many Scottish pro-independence voters will suddenly change their stance on the EU should Scotland get independence. (And I think the SNP hierarchy will also get a big surprise in this respect.) There is a significant body of opinion which voted to remain because they see the EU as a mitigating factor to protect Scotland from the wilder aspects of far-right Toryism (a justifiable point of view, imo) - but this "lesser of two evils" factor ONLY exists if Scotland isn't independent.

And I would add that, on the pro-independence side, almost nobody believes a word the media says. Out of 35 mainstream newspapers publishing in Scotland at the point of the referendum, ONE supported independence (and it was a Sunday paper). It's practically a trope that the BBC is not neutral. Rightly or wrongly, that is what people believe.

[forte88]

think you would be very surprised at how many Scottish pro-independence voters will suddenly change their stance on the EU should Scotland get independence. (And I think the SNP hierarchy will also get a big surprise in this respect.) There is a significant body of opinion which voted to remain because they see the EU as a mitigating factor to protect Scotland from the wilder aspects of far-right Toryism (a justifiable point of view, imo) - but this "lesser of two evils" factor ONLY exists if Scotland isn't independent.

And I would add that, on the pro-independence side, almost nobody believes a word the media says. Out of 35 mainstream newspapers publishing in Scotland at the point of the referendum, ONE supported independence (and it was a Sunday paper). It's practically a trope that the BBC is not neutral. Rightly or wrongly, that is what people believe.

'The lesser of two evils' I think the problem with Scotland and Ireland is that they look too much to the past(the mindless nationalism I spoke of previously), the lesser of two evils would be to chose Britain first and then 'become a nation again'.
As I've stated previously I really believe there's a negative campaign going on against Britain and all things British led by the BBC, supposedly for the British audience and definitely financed by the British public(a bit like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were in the interest of the British and American populace).

But let me remind those who know nothing about history.....
The new paradigm started with Newton an Englishman, Watt a Scot applied the science and started the industrial revolution. That is how England and Scotland ought to work together.
The traitors in the mass media obviously want to stir up mindless nationalist sentiment because that's how they destroy the magic that exists between the two nations. And I've got Scottish parents so I KNOW how mindless this nationalism is...
The same applies to Ireland. Where would the music scene be without the blending of the English and Irish cultures? No Beatles for sure, no James Joyce, etc etc.

I'm all for Scottish independence. Actually I would even go further. The nation state is an outdated construct. We've got the technology to decentralise, smaller is better. That's the European ideal, that's what distinguished Europe from the rest of the world, that's why Europe achieved so much more than the rest of the world.
Greece, Italy and Germany all suffered as a consequence of becoming a nation state.

That said the British Isles, despite the animosity stirred up by the BBC and the other mass media, has a lot to be proud of. If only the BBC would point to the achievements instead of stirring up division, I'm sure Brits, regardless of nationality/city state etc would understand as is apparent that we share a common history, speak the same language, have achieved great things together and obviously have more in common than the USA occupied superstate EU. Perhaps if they realised that Britain could be great again!  

Also I don't think there's a way out if Scotland chose for the superstate. First they would introduce the Euro(and see what a calamity that caused in Ireland and the other PIIGS countries) then, since the Eurocrats can do no wrong according to the mass media, when this turns out to be an abysmal failure(as it's already proven many times to be case) they'll say it's because the tax system isn't harmonized. And then when after implementing that the Euro turns out to be a failure they'll say it's because the nation states have too much sovereign power and for the Euro to work they have to hand over all power to the superstate...etc etc...

It'll be what they call an 'escalation of commitment'. I think that's why the EU has been such a unifier for those 'two nations' Northern Ireland and Ireland. Now because of the failures of the Euro and the damage it's caused to Eire, they depend on the superstate subsidies to survive. And yet because of the nationalism stirred up by the mass media, despite most of the trade coming from Britain, they're willing to go down just to spite the English...

[iansinclair]

The topic of the proper size of a social grouping -- to avoid the term nation or state completely -- and the degree and nature of interaction between social groupings is an exceedingly complex one, and a good deal of time and effort has been expended to analyse it (to no certain conclusions) -- and it is certainly more complex than can be managed even in a good discussion on a good forum like this one!

It involves things like distribution of resources -- which are never evenly set out.  Safety and order vs. freedom or liberty.  Ethnic solidarity vs. commitment to a larger, diverse group.  And so on.  At one time the UK did pretty well at it, but -- in my opinion -- the loss of the balance power of the landowning Lords pretty well put paid to that.  The US and Canada have both done remarkably well, using quite different approaches.  In my judgement the Germans have done pretty well at it, so far, although there is a lot of strain.  The Italians never quite got the hang of federation -- nor did the Spanish.  The European Union -- and the French -- both suffer badly, in my view, from excessive central control.  The Russians and the Chinese have never known anything except absolute central control, and so make poor study cases.  Many African and Middle Eastern nations, however, suffer from various extremes of various kinds of tribal division.

Difficult.  Fascinating.

[ahinton]

Hopefully this does not prevent you from appreciating the position of people who have been negatively affected by immigration. Or is it just easier to paint them with the same brush that you would use for Farage??

But who has been negatively affected by immigration that might not as easily have been negatively affected by population movements within UK?

You've mentioned one negative aspect of immigration to UK as being the encouragement that it give to unscrupulous employers to breach the law by paying certain foreign workers less than the national minimum wage, thereby undercutting and doing UK citizens out of work. Whilst I don't doubt that some employers do break the law (at their own risk, obviously), that's hardly the fault of immigrants.

For proof of that, should it be needed, consider the case of a farm not far from here that has to rely entirely on staff from EU states in eastern Europe as berry pickers during the summer (not that we've had one yet this year); they pay £2 per hour above the minimum wage but cannot attract a single Brit for the work because none of them want to do it.

They say that, should Brexit eventually mean that they can no longver hire such workers (which of course is not certain at this early stage), they'll probably have to fold, which means that they and their office and administrative staff will be added to the unemployment figures - and they're all Brits.

Since you ask, I wouldn't paint anyone with the same brush that I'd use for Farage, nor would I do with that brush what I would if confronted with Farage...

Are you against all immigration to UK, irrespective of circumstance? - in other words, are you in favour of a kind of "fortress UK" situation? Do you think, for example, that I ought to return to Scotland? What do you think about Brits emigrating to other EU states? I ask these questions because you seem to present a view that almost all immigration is a bad thing. If it were all a bad thing, the nations of Britain ought to have given some thought to that before they started colonising.

Some of us have work to do.

Including me. I probably spend a lot less time posting here than you might assume me to do.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Hinty has managed a few million words himself.

Have you been counting? I thought that you had work to do!

In any event, I don't appear to be the only member here who has written long posts on the topic. I do so in any case because I take it seriously, just as I take seriously others' comments on that topic.

Best,

Alistair

[forte88]

The topic of the proper size of a social grouping

Look up Dunbar's number

[ahinton]

I think this is simplistic. The Clearances were indeed initiated by the landowning gentry, but the "Scottish elites" insofar as they exist nowadays (financial sector, banking, most large businesses, and I suppose the remnants of the landowning class) are very much pro-union thus diametrically opposed to the SNP, which are a centre-left, pro-independence party. And the SNP is a very different party to, say, 40 years ago, as a consequence of repositioning themselves in the centre-left (essentially, taking up the ground the Labour party has largely vacated) - whilst they are pro-independence which can be an appeal to "mindless patriotism" their voter group is more nuanced than that nowadays, as it is tied in with the belief that the SNP are a "social justice" movement. The general political direction and leanings differ considerably between England and Scotland at this point in time. The populist appeal to the working-class vote has been seeping from Labour to UKIP in England for some time; UKIP are significantly to the right of centre in many traditional terms. https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2015

I agree with what you write here, except that the only seeping of "working class" (oh, how I loathe that term!) has been on the somewhat spurious and oft-exaggerated grounds of the notion of people "coming over here and taking our jobs"; even then, it's rather foolish, since UKIP can do little to represent such disgruntled workers as they no longer have a leader and have only one out of 650 MPs in Parliament.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Don't feed the troll!  That said.  The SNP is centre-left, having migrated there from a far left position, and are very much the party of the lower and middle class people of the central belt; their original strength was in Glasgow.  They don't, frankly, represent either the Borders or the Highlands and Islands particularly well, nor -- since those areas are very thinly populated -- do they need to to govern.  It is well to remember in that regard that Scotland is really five rather poorly integrated regions -- the Borders, the Central Belt, the Highlands, the Western Isles and the Northern Isles.  These regions have, historically, had remarkably different populations and also, historically, have gotten on remarkably poorly.  The Scots of lore and legend -- Scots wha' hae wi' Wallace and all that -- have been mostly the Highlands and Western Isles; the Scots which annoyed the English so badly for a few centuries that they were deported to the Colonies (where they turned up at the Battle of Saratoga and clobbered Burgoyne) were the Border reivers.  The seafarers and explorers were the Northern Isles, and are to a great extent Norse, not Celtic, in origin.  The central belt was mostly farmers and merchants and, in more recent years, workmen.  The five regions even speak different languages (not dialects): the central belt is English (although that can be hard to believe in Glasgow!).  The Western Isles Gaelic; the Highlands either Gaelic or Doric, and the Northern Isles either Gaelic or Old Norse -- although almost everyone now speaks English (of a sort!) as well.

What has all that to do with today's politics?  Just this: the SNP has a firm belief in the virtues of central planning and control (provided they are doing the planning and controlling).  To use the lamentable modern vernacular, it's in its DNA.  It remains to be seen what their attitude to the EU would be if they were a very small country within it, but forward vision has never been popular in political circles.  The remainder of the country would just like to have someone pay some attention to their particular problems -- which neither Westminster nor Holyrood have in the past -- but, barring that, they don't mind the EU subsidies, which are generous.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a direct descendant of the Earls of Orkney, and the present Earl of Rosslyn (Peter St. Clair-Erskine) is a distant cousin (whom I have never met).

At last, some good sense about Scotland from someone who knows his subject from the inside! OK the thread's not about Scotland per se, but the fact that Scotland attracted the largest majority in the referendum does inevitably focus attention on it in that context.

How Scotland might fare economically as an independent country as an EU member state in its own right is rguably as hard to predict as are the ways in which Brexit negotiations might progress if indeed they ever commence. Whilst its population is small, almost one third of EU member states have smaller populations - Ireland with 4,625,885, Croatia with 4,225,316, Lithuania with 2,921,262, Slovenia with 2,062,874, Latvia with 1,986,096, Estonia with 1,313,271, Cyprus with 847,008, Luxembourg with 562,958 and Malta with just 429,344 (according to official figures from last year), so it would not be unprecedented. Scotland's economy is also in better shape than the economies of most of those smaller member states.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Mr Logic strikes again

"Logic" doesn't come into it. There is no "logic" to the simple fact that the largest majority vote in the referendum was in Scotland; it's just that - a simple fact, to which no attempt to apply "logic" would make the slightest difference.

Best,

Alistair

[forte88]

Mr Logic strikes again
"Logic" doesn't come into it

Thanks for proving my point

[ahinton]

I think you would be very surprised at how many Scottish pro-independence voters will suddenly change their stance on the EU should Scotland get independence. (And I think the SNP hierarchy will also get a big surprise in this respect.) There is a significant body of opinion which voted to remain because they see the EU as a mitigating factor to protect Scotland from the wilder aspects of far-right Toryism (a justifiable point of view, imo) - but this "lesser of two evils" factor ONLY exists if Scotland isn't independent.

And I would add that, on the pro-independence side, almost nobody believes a word the media says. Out of 35 mainstream newspapers publishing in Scotland at the point of the referendum, ONE supported independence (and it was a Sunday paper). It's practically a trope that the BBC is not neutral. Rightly or wrongly, that is what people believe.

What do you think about Northern Ireland's position in this? The vote was not such a high majority in favour of Remain as in Scotland, nor did its every constituency vote Remain as was the case in Scotland, but their situation is rather different, having a land border with an EU member state which England, Wales and Scotland do not; NI people can in many cases apply for Irish citizenship and, if enough of them do so successfully, NI will effectively become a UK member state in which UK citizens would be in the minority.

To return to Scotland, I do not believe that there would be anything like such an appetite for independence from UK had Remain won with an acceptable majority across UK (i.e. at least 60%) and Scotland would therefore have remained within EU, after all, when the first independence (and perhaps only) referendum was held there, the possibility that UK might leave EU was not on the agenda and the vote went for Scotland to remain within UK; circumstances are very different now.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Thanks for proving my point

I didn't; furthermore, I couldn't, since you hadn't made one. I simply stated that the majority in Scotland in the EU referendum was the largest of the four UK member states. That is a fact. No "logic" is required in order to prove it. Your "Mr Logic strikes again" remark was therefore not only irrelevant but also redundant. Not much change there, then.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

This thread may end up with a greater word-count than the Chilcot report.

Somehow, I doubt it - but then that report would itself have run into an eight-figure word count and taken considerably longer to reach publication had Chilcot's brief included investigating and pronouncing on whether or not the war in Iraq was illegal; the very fact that this aspect of the case was excluded from his remit is what has dismayed some people, especially those who lost friends and family in that war.

Never mind that, just imagine what the word count of years of Brexit negotiations, changes to the law and all the rest will be if these ever get under way; it will dwarf the Chilcot report, that's for sure!

Best,

Alistair

[forte88]

I didn't; furthermore, I couldn't, since you hadn't made one. I simply stated that the majority in Scotland in the EU referendum was the largest of the four UK member states. That is a fact. No "logic" is required in order to prove it. Your "Mr Logic strikes again" remark was therefore not only irrelevant but also redundant. Not much change there, then.

Best,

Alistair

Quote
the largest majority for either side in the referendum was in Scotland.

Mr Logic strikes again....

[ahinton]

@forte88:

You appear to be struggling to understand something here but I cannot help you with this because it is not clear what that is.

Have a quick look at the vote counts for all four UK member states and it ought to be obvious to you; if it still isn't, thee's nothing to be done.

Best,

Alistair

[forte88]

You've probably got the name already of being slow and your comments certainly don't make me any more inclined to believe that they got it wrong.
Just a pity a serious topic like this is trivialised, I guess I thought there would be more intelligent people here willing to debate a topic that is going to have a lot of consequences for generations to come. If everyone in Scotland is like that all I can say is good riddance coz you're dumbing down the national average and the EU needs mindless slaves like yourself. England can go its own way, it always has....

[ahinton]

You've probably got the name already

I have my given name, yes; what's that got to do with anything here?

your comments certainly don't make me any more inclined to believe that they got it wrong

That who got what wrong? If by that you refer to members' opinions rather than the voters' decisions, who are you to be an arbiter of this? Do you know all the members of this forum and have you questioned them all about whatever it is that you're trying to say?

Just a pity a serious topic like this is trivialised

It would indeed be so if it were being trivialised but, with only a few exceptions, that has not been the case.

I guess I thought there would be more intelligent people here willing to debate a topic that is going to have a lot of consequences for generations to come.

It is indeed something that will have a lot of consequences for generations to come; you're totally correct on that. That's why I'm so deeply concerned about it for a number of reasons. Even you have made some worthwhile points when you've disciplined yourself sufficiently to avoid wandering off the topic.

If everyone in Scotland is like that all I can say is good riddance coz you're dumbing down the national average and the EU needs mindless slaves like yourself.

"National average" what? Pathetic and failed attempts at ad hominems do not a cogent argument make, though they might contribute to the "trivialising" and "dumbing down" of a discussion such as this one, please note.

What you write here appears to imply that you would advocate not merely UK's departure from EU but the break-up of EU itself, given your contempt for what you call "superstates". What about UK? Same fate? US? Canada? Yorkshire? Cornwall? Herefordshire? Where might you stop?

England can go its own way, it always has

Leaving aside the questionability of that statement, what's this got to do specifically with England? The referendum was held about UK's continued membership of EU, not that of England which is just one (albeit by far the largest in population terms) of the four constituent member states of UK, as of course you know. And what gives you the idea that England has in any case just one way to go, endorsed and agreed by all of its citizens (including those from just about every other country in the world, including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland)?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

In view of the tragedy that occurred last night in a southern city of UK's closest neighbouring nation and on of the greatest countries in EU - and given that the French Prime Minister has announced a three day national mourning in that country - might it be an idea temporarily to suspend this discussion as a mark of respect to the French people?

Just a personal thought; I would welcome other members' views on this, whatever they may be.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

If it shuts you up for a few days, I am all for it.

Luv

Thalxx

[ahinton]

If it shuts you up for a few days, I am all for it.

It won't - so are you therefore against it?

Best,

Alistair

[forte88]

In view of the tragedy that occurred last night in a southern city of UK's closest neighbouring nation and on of the greatest countries in EU - and given that the French Prime Minister has announced a three day national mourning in that country - might it be an idea temporarily to suspend this discussion as a mark of respect to the French people?

This event actually makes this topic all the more relevant. That's what happens when 'nice' people stick their heads in the sand to what's happening to their country when their country's being run by traitors who are out to destroy European civilisation, while the mass media and the education system are/have been creating a knee jerk reaction in the populace making it almost a crime to say anything about it by branding any dissenting voices as fascists or racists or just plain stupid.
This is what happens when European culture is allowed to be criticised while desert cultures can get away with murder.

What happened in Nice on the Promenade Anglais is a kind of reductio ad absurdum of the the policies endorsed by the Bremainers

[ahinton]

This event actually makes this topic all the more relevant. That's what happens when 'nice' people stick their heads in the sand to what's happening to their country when their country's being run by traitors who are out to destroy European civilisation

I'm sure that this is just the kind of helpful and sympathetic thing that French citizens want to hear right now...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

It won't - so are you therefore against it?

Best,

Alistair

If it don't shut you up then I am against it and also, I fail to see the point as it is relevant to this thread.

Or at least it is for me, because I can actually see the Islamification of Europe and this is one of the reasons why I voted for Brexit in the hope that we can get rid of that European Human Rights crap and have the power to deport those that are considered to be a threat to the Public, instead of it taking years and costing millions of Pounds.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

I'm sure that this is just the kind of helpful and sympathetic thing that French citizens want to hear right now...

They probably don't want to hear anything.

I assume they wish their government to talk less and act more.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

This is what happens when European culture is allowed to be criticised while desert cultures can get away with murder.

It is also possible that this is what happens when you allow thousands of people into Europe you know nothing about.

Note I said possible before certain others start shouting racist.

Thal

[ahinton]

It is also possible that this is what happens when you allow thousands of people into Europe you know nothing about.

Note I said possible before certain others start shouting racist.

I for one am not about to shout "racist" at that; however, a Brexited UK will continued to allow thousands of people into it from many places just as it and EU have done and will continue to do; as to "not knowing anything about" immigrants from outside Europe, how much of what kind of information about any of them might you believe any European country should have at its disposal (assuming any or all of it could be believed or proved in the first place) before allowing them in to settle there? And how far would you go with that? No one asked me for any security or other information when I first entered England from Scotland; when I moved from Bath to Herefordshire, no one in Herefordshire "knew anything" about me and they don't know much more now (nor do they need to).

Your remarks here in any case cover only legal immigrants; the illegal ones are not "allowed" to enter Europe - they just do - and, with the best will in the world, nothing can, or will ever be, guaranteed to stop them all.

Best,

Alistair

[forte88]

It is also possible that this is what happens when you allow thousands of people into Europe you know nothing about.

If you mean there ought to have been selection, I agree. If you mean that the politicians didn't know what they were letting us in for I disagree. There's been so much bungling at the very highest levels that there can be no doubt this was planned by our special ally on the other side of the 'pond'. Since we've been effectively occupied by them since 1945, they not only destroyed our empires also our national cohesion and identity...

[forte88]

I'm sure that this is just the kind of helpful and sympathetic thing that French citizens want to hear right now...

Best,

Alistair

As you stated yourself we can't stop illegal immigration, why? Because the EU doesn't mind letting in millions of immigrants. First they destroy countries like Greece(our first line of defence) and Italy by making them so impoverished that they don't have the resources to do anything about it and country's like that are only too glad to be rid of them even if it's at the expense of other nation states especially the rich northern states who've imposed such harsh austerity on them that children are fainting in the class due to malnutrition while the elderly are experiencing similar hardship.

If this doesn't waken France up to the reality of the EU I don't know what will. They've already got so many problems in their banlieues  and now all these terrorist attacks. Instead of shooting the messenger they ought to point the finger at the Eurocrats who caused all these problems

[ahinton]

If you mean there ought to have been selection, I agree. If you mean that the politicians didn't know what they were letting us in for I disagree. There's been so much bungling at the very highest levels that it there's no doubt this was planned by our special ally on the other side of the 'pond'. Since we've been effectively occupied by them since 1945, they not only destroyed our empires also our national cohesion and identity

US has done nothing of the kind - and, had it intended to try to do so, why might you suppose that it would have singled out and picked upon UK rather than any other European state? (or do you believe that it's done the same to every other European state as well?).

Furthermore, there's little evidence that UK's "national cohesion and identity" (such as it is or ever was) have been "destroyed" in any case, any more than have those of the EU member states or indeed of all of the member states of Council of Europe (which was formed several years earlier than EU's predecessor and has 19 more member states than EU, including all EU member states).

Since France is very much at the forefront of our minds right now, would you really say that there's evidence of France's loss of "national cohesion and identity"?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

They probably don't want to hear anything.

I assume they wish their government to talk less and act more.

Indeed - and let's hope for the sake of French citizens and all othes living in France that it does just that, to the best of its ability, although it will inevitably be a very difficult if not impossible task.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

They probably don't want to hear anything.

I assume they wish their government to talk less and act more.

Exactly.

France should be very worried as to the future. Thousands of disaffected youths with no future shunted into ghetto areas:  easy meat for radicalisation. Whilst white male European youths traditionally channel their adolescent rebellions through drink, drugs and sex, ghettoised immigrants are being encouraged to choose something much more destructive. And there is the history of North African conflicts in the 1950s and 60s to add to the mix. I fear it has now reached the stage where containment rather than prevention is going to be the modus operandi.

[forte88]

US has done nothing of the kind - and, had it intended to try to do so, why might you suppose that it would have singled out and picked upon UK rather than any other European state? (or do you believe that it's done the same to every other European state as well?).

In regards to the empires, Europe was in ruin after being involved in two world wars(1913 FED) where America made a killing off of European blood. The Marshall plan, ostensibly to help Europe back on its feet actually served other purposes. Think of the blackmail that went on during Suez . They had a policy of forcing European states to decolonise with all the disastrous consequences... had they not been debt slaves to the great US of A the problems experienced in Africa and India wouldn't have occurred(like Iraq now). Are you really saying if they could effect national policy in such a manner that they couldn't tell so called sovereign states to do as they tell them in other matters too?(think education and mass media).
And I already mentioned above that it was European empires not just Britain(although they hated us with a vehemence that you wouldn't expect from a wartime and 'special relationship'
ally).

Furthermore, there's little evidence that UK's "national cohesion and identity" (such as it is or ever was) have been "destroyed" in any case, any more than have those of the EU member states or indeed of all of the member states of Council of Europe (which was formed several years earlier than EU's predecessor and has 19 more member states than EU, including all EU member states).

Since France is very much at the forefront of our minds right now, would you really say that there's evidence of France's loss of "national cohesion and identity"?

Best,

Are you really saying that a 'multi cultural society' is good for cohesion and unity?
If those incompatible cultures were truly compatible they'd blend and become one but the truth is very different. In fact they are often more radical(like Scarface, we only got the scum, the highly educated ones went to America that did have a selection procedure and even then..)
than the country of origin

[ahinton]

If it don't shut you up then I am against it

OK - that's fine by me!

I fail to see the point as it is relevant to this thread.

In what way? We do not yet know what the background to this tragic and appalling act is, although the facts will doubtless emerge in time.

Or at least it is for me, because I can actually see the Islamification of Europe and this is one of the reasons why I voted for Brexit in the hope that we can get rid of that European Human Rights crap and have the power to deport those that are considered to be a threat to the Public, instead of it taking years and costing millions of Pounds.

If by the Islamification of Europe you mean the spread of Islam within Europe, that can be achieved (if it's going to be) without any illegal acts on anyone's part; the more people who convert to Islam, the more that will happen and it is not in any case all about Muslims coming to Europe from outside Europe - some of it's about people already in Europe being converted to Islam.

In the context to which you draw attention here, whether or not UK remains subject to the European Convention on Human Rights will make no difference, for two reasons; firstly, UK will retian its own Human Rights legislation and if that does not overcome your fears then they will continue not to be overcome and, secondly, UK will in any case remain subject to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights just as are all United Nations member states - and somehow I do not imagine that you believe that UK (provided that it remains intact) would seek to withdraw from United Nations membership.

Best,

Alistair