Jump to content

This Scottish referendum


HarryBosch

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

She works for the governing body, I'm more incline to believe her than you or anybody else for that matter

 

 

I'd be careful with that approach if I were you.

 

The link above for Fullfact, read it - they are an independent outfit that factcheck politicians and media claims with the facts that are available to them.

 

Based on Parliamentary studies the figure you quoted from UKIP/Viviane Reding (elected in Luxembourg) is a nonsense, however it could be anything from fifteen to fifty percent depending on how you massage the numbers. 24hrs also said that those laws even though they apply to Dear Old Blighty, they are not actually used or mean anything: like standardising the kilometre or what have you.

 

I've seen what she's got to say, and I've fact checked it from what's available in the above links - and what she's saying is nonsense.

 

I can't change the way you feel about things, but do yourself a favour and check the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'd be careful with that approach if I were you.

 

The link above for Fullfact, read it - they are an independent outfit that factcheck politicians and media claims with the facts that are available to them.

 

Based on Parliamentary studies the figure you quoted from UKIP/Viviane Reding (elected in Luxembourg) is a nonsense, however it could be anything from fifteen to fifty percent depending on how you massage the numbers. 24hrs also said that those laws even though they apply to Dear Old Blighty, they are not actually used or mean anything: like standardising the kilometre or what have you.

 

I've seen what she's got to say, and I've fact checked it from what's available in the above links - and what she's saying is nonsense.

 

I can't change the way you feel about things, but do yourself a favour and check the facts.

I've just read that link again and it appears to me they are just going off what has been said by different people at different times and from there they have drawn up a conclusion... Hardly definitive is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just read that link again and it appears to me they are just going off what has been said by different people at different times and from there they have drawn up a conclusion... Hardly definitive is it?

 

Yeah, the Commons Library Research paper means :censored: all.

 

Four legs good. Two legs baaaad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although the sheer volume of law coming from Europe hints that most of it could simply not be bothered with, it's not really important what the ratio is. Two or three laws could have really major impacts (good or bad) whilst you never notice thousands of others. Personally I prefer the Common Law model where you can do anything not specifically illegal, we seem to be entering a stage where most things we do need permission or rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yeah, the Commons Library Research paper means :censored: all.

 

Four legs good. Two legs baaaad.

No one is saying it means :censored: all, what I'm saying it not definitive.. It's pretty much says so-so says this percentage, such and such recogns it's this percentage and him over there thinks it's this percentage so we conclude that it's somewhere in the middle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is saying it means :censored: all

 

Good. I'm glad we've sorted that out.

 

So we can both agree that neither of our sources are definitive as we have any figure from fifteen to seventy five percent.

 

You can relax, mind - meddling Brussels eurocrats aren't going to take your kettle, Russia won't invade Scotland, although brace yourself for 'Scotch(sic), comeing over hear tacking ower jobs...'

 

However, a Hadrian's wall rebuild could create jobs for the next ten-fifteen years, so there's that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Good. I'm glad we've sorted that out.

 

So we can both agree that neither of our sources are definitive as we have any figure from fifteen to seventy five percent.

 

You can relax, mind - meddling Brussels eurocrats aren't going to take your kettle, Russia won't invade Scotland, although brace yourself for 'Scotch(sic), comeing over hear tacking ower jobs...'

 

However, a Hadrian's wall rebuild could create jobs for the next ten-fifteen years, so there's that.

 

No doubt the poles will get that building contract , there good at building don't you know

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did he mean "I don't know"?

 

We were waiting for a bus.

 

He meant yes. He meant it's time formally for Scotland to turn its back on Westminster politics, which the SNP has not untruthfully identified as the problem. If they had a referendum here on getting rid of those bastards, I'd be voting yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We were waiting for a bus.

 

He meant yes. He meant it's time formally for Scotland to turn its back on Westminster politics, which the SNP has not untruthfully identified as the problem. If they had a referendum here on getting rid of those bastards, I'd be voting yes.

I take it exiled scots get a vote then ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We were waiting for a bus.

 

He meant yes. He meant it's time formally for Scotland to turn its back on Westminster politics, which the SNP has not untruthfully identified as the problem. If they had a referendum here on getting rid of those bastards, I'd be voting yes.

Yeah, they will have a really clean political system now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it exiled scots get a vote then ?

 

No they don't. My mate is from Edinburgh.

 

 

Yeah, they will have a really clean political system now.

 

That's not the point. The point is that enough people might believe they're getting a cleaner system, or that they're ditching a demonstrably :censored:e system, with a yes vote. They've every right to vote yes just because they hate Westminster politics. That's a fantastic reason to vote yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No they don't. My mate is from Edinburgh.

 

 

 

That's not the point. The point is that enough people might believe they're getting a cleaner system, or that they're ditching a demonstrably :censored:e system, with a yes vote. They've every right to vote yes just because they hate Westminster politics. That's a fantastic reason to vote yes.

Westminster politics might be better without being over represented at every level by products of corrupt party machines North of the border. I'll miss their skill at spending my money.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Westminster politics might be better without being over represented at every level by products of corrupt party machines North of the border. I'll miss their skill at spending my money.

 

There are many potential advantages for Westminster from separation, but the people charged with yealding those advantages are all bellends.

 

And unionists of all political persuasions have cause to rue the fact that politics north of the border stopped being bent. That's the extent of the disarray of the party system. They can't even be bothered with old school low-level stitch-ups and backhanders and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

And unionists of all political persuasions have cause to rue the fact that politics north of the border stopped being bent. That's the extent of the disarray of the party system. They can't even be bothered with old school low-level stitch-ups and backhanders and so on.

Not even in Falkirk?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not even in Falkirk?

 

I don't know anything about that case. When the parties (Tory or Labour) impose a candidate on constituencies, they call it "parachuting", invoking a glamorous image of the Milk Tray man or woman jumping out of a plane to serve the hard-pressed burghers of :censored:face-on-the-Wold. When local people in local party machines promote a local candidate over a centrally imposed one, there are guaranteed cries of entryism, invoking a sense that the candidate is not valid because they do not have central approval. That's Wesminster politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very Arsene Wenger

 

I honestly don't. What I do know is that Guido Fawkes, all London-based newspapers and all the main party machines thought it was a disgrace that a trade union's preferred candidate got the nomination after trade union members loaded the ballot in the local party (perfectly legitimately, by becoming members and working the machine). I think I know who the :censored: are in that situation.

 

It happens all the time in the Tory party (not that you'd know, because Her Majesty's fourth estate either turn a blind eye or fall in on the side of the local punter). It happened on a grand scale with Cameron's A-list system. More than a few of the candidates who won nominations and then seats under the A-list system are turning their backs on politics after only five years (or less) in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I honestly don't. What I do know is that Guido Fawkes, all London-based newspapers and all the main party machines thought it was a disgrace that a trade union's preferred candidate got the nomination after trade union members loaded the ballot in the local party (perfectly legitimately, by becoming members and working the machine). I think I know who the :censored: are in that situation.

 

The problem was that the trade union members didn't know that they were voting, or indeed that they had joined the Labour Party. Ask your holier than thou mate Tom Watson about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem was that the trade union members didn't know that they were voting, or indeed that they had joined the Labour Party. Ask your holier than thou mate Tom Watson about it.

 

Just because I give £7 to his party every month doesn't make him a mate, you bellend. And I don't think Tom Watson has ever pretended to be holier than thou. Who started this bollocks anyway, whereby anyone who calls anyone else out for something has set themselves up as "holier than thou"? The Lord knows that we are all sinners, but some of us sin more than others, and in more serious ways. Is tampering with a ballot in Scotland (if that's what happened) as serious as, for instance, the systematic corruption of the Metropolitan police and politics over a number of decades?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although the sheer volume of law coming from Europe hints that most of it could simply not be bothered with, it's not really important what the ratio is. Two or three laws could have really major impacts (good or bad) whilst you never notice thousands of others. Personally I prefer the Common Law model where you can do anything not specifically illegal, we seem to be entering a stage where most things we do need permission or rules.

 

But then you get loopholes e.g. tax avoidance, which are normally accessed by the rich and powerfull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...