BS: voting? (UK)

Subject: BS: voting?
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 02:54 PM

firstly - why are there so few threads in this section?

anyone intending to vote in the upcoming elections? i'm going for labour in the general - not with any enthusiasm but there is a tory threat and a lively ukip thing (nick griffin is an mep for west cumbria) In the local election i will vote green -for me! - but wish that (as it used to be) cumbria was in scotland so i could vote snp for both. i guess that most folk outside of s.east would be voting for snp -or a more progressive labour party, given the chance.....

lets just hope that labour win with snp support, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: voting?
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 03:15 PM

I always was puzzled by governments that propose compulsory voting. There seems to be so many confounding issues associated, that make it seems unworkable (or, of of marginal value) to me.

Subject: RE: BS: voting?
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 03:15 PM

I will be voting but don't publish my intentions. Having moved a bit less than four years ago I am, for the first time in my life, in a marginal (Southampton Itchen, 192 majority to labour last time.) I anticipate rather more visitors and attention than in previous elections.

I have emailed questions to several candidates but not had a reply yet. Odd. Maybe my questions are too inconvenient

Subject: RE: BS: voting?
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 03:20 PM

nah - you will find, like anywhere, that you rarely get a canvasser but may get some leaflets. a sad part of our system where the vote only counts in about 60 constituencies, dmcg - yours may be one,so you could have a chance to enjoy the arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: voting?
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 03:30 PM

Oh, I didn't expect #personal# visits. More lots of the (ahem) great and good turning up in the constituency for a photo stop

Subject: RE: BS: voting?
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 03:35 PM

I'll definitely be voting SNP, the polls say they will sweep the boards in Scotland. Traditional labour voters are deserting in droves.

On "progressive" policies, the economy is in such a poor condition that no matter who gets into power, real living standards look sure to fall all over the UK.
We all want a better health service, but it look sure to get worse unless the better off allow themselves to be squeezed just as the poorer people are.

People in Scotland are beginning to look at a different style of government, where contribution to society is based on ones ability to contribute. Time to level the economic playing field so that some real equality is achieved. I am sure that it will not be easy after independence, but the SNP will soon provide the people of Scotland the power to punch well above their weight, Westminster will make it difficult, they will do nothing to help and as I said already, a TORY LABOUR, LIB DEM coalition will certainly be a possibility to deny Scotland freedom.

Subject: RE: BS: voting?
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 03:38 PM

at the last election, after being flooded out i was staying in carlisle for several months. it's a labour/tory marginal and there were a few stalls in the town centre on a few saturdays before the vote. it felt like something quite old fashioned strolling between them, i enjoyed some good arguments. with reference to another thread - my guilty pleasure at the time was a good discussion with the bnp bloke. far more intelligent and principled than labour or tory candidates. we hated each other's arguments but were able to respect each other and laugh about it. taught me a lot

Subject: RE: BS: voting?
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 03:48 PM

Get ready for the sticks an' stones Ach   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: voting?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Mar 15 - 05:18 PM

My opinion is that there has never been a more important time to keep out the Tories. I live in a Tory-LibDem marginal. All other parties in my constituency are more or less wiped out every time. If I vote on principle, for Labour that would be for me, I might as well be voting Tory. There is a real danger of this seat going Tory this time. I voted LibDem last time to keep out the Tories and the LibDem man got in, but I got the Tories anyway. I have a hunch that that will not happen again. Principle dictates that I vote Labour, but the infinitely bigger principle is that I will do anything (bar vote fascist) to keep out the Tories. If I lived in Scotland, I might be inclined to vote for the most progressive party, the SNP. But every seat the SNP takes from Labour makes a Tory victory more likely and I can't think of anything worse for Scotland than that. The SNP would be the best party for the Scots, no doubt, but that means next to Jack Shit if the Tories are in power. If I lived in Scotland I'd vote Labour, my second choice in Scotland. Here in North Cornwall I think I'm going to have to vote LibDem again.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 01:44 AM

My part of the south west - makes no difference who I vote for
the tories always get back in.

despairing innit !!!???

Similar dilemma to Steve, I want to vote Labour on futile principle,
but have always voted strategically for the Liberals...

2110 the tories only beat the libs by a narrow margin.
Labour gained barely a quarter of the tory vote.
Now that we know how treacherous the libs can be,
who knows this time round how many labour supporters will actually vote labour ?

What may be an interesting factor is last year's bureaucratic exercise
to force everyone to re-register for their right to vote.

Town Hall demanded my mrs provide her passport to prove her identity
at least twice before the system recognised her.
A town hall worker admitted there was a glitch in the system that
was automatically disqualifying many married women
until they made the effort to prove their ID beyond question.

f@ck knows how many previous voters have now fallen off the register
for whatever reasons and are now ineligible to vote...???

Makes you wonder; hard to determine if it's a deliberate conspiracy, or just fukwitted inept bureaucracy !!!???

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 01:55 AM

Harrogate and Ripon is blue through and through. Hope the greens make a good showing and reduce the majority considerably. I work on the basis that whoever you vote for, the government always get in.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 02:25 AM

What a discouraging choice between the Tories, Liberals, and Labour, they are all slaves to the system....when in power they all behave in exactly the same way.

Greens are not really a party....more of a tiny protest group, but there are better ways of protesting.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 02:26 AM

My old mates a fair distance away along the M5 in Bridgwater
are proud to live in a west country town
with a history of ferociously pro labour & unions activism.
It's a rare socialist oasis in an arrid tory dominated region.
But the local conservative MP still always wins...

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Megan L
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 03:06 AM

Why bother voting for any of them they are all only in it for what they can get. If I am at home when someone tries to put election junk through my door I make them take it back.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 03:10 AM

Akenaton forgot to mention SNP when he gave a list of slaves to the system. Although their commitment to prosperity through equality and promised low taxation for large multinationals to bring inward investment is commendable.

However, down here we swing between the two parties. Tory have it at present but won it last time from Labour. As an MP, he has been visible, personally pushed a few things I like such as an EU funded rural broadband partnership advertised at inward investment and better transport access to a large industrial estate that needed a kick-start.

That said, I will search for the donkey with the red rosette and vote accordingly. After all, you get a constituency MP as a bonus. It is a presidential election these days and has been since Th*tcher.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 03:33 AM

I guess most people will respect the years and years of organisation, struggle and and protest that got us the vote for some men, then most men then all men and finally all women.

Vote Labour. Yes I know we have done bad things and we get things wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Ian
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 03:59 AM

In Colne Valley it's very close between the three main parties with Labour tending to be weakest. Before constituency changes it was Liberal for a long time . Last two have being Tories. I support Labour but voted Liberal last time as I thought it was the best chance of keeping the Tories out,but it failed.

I don't know what to do this time after the Liberals betrayed us and put the Tories in. I hope the Liberals crash and burn in the election as their previous actions deserve. I hope enough other people vote labour.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:13 AM

Greens are not really a party....more of a tiny protest group, but there are better ways of protesting.

They're still pulling a lot of Labour support, especially membership. Depressing. I think the Green Party are a Tory plot to scupper the opposition. If they were a tiny protest group, I'd probably join - otherwise they're a deluded bunch of vote sappers for disaffected middle-class Labour supporters...

Vote Labour. Yes I know we have done bad things and we get things wrong.

Heartening stuff, Les! I agree.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:24 AM

Trouble is in such a safe Tory seat as Skipton and Ripon (Sorry, got the name wrong last time) the choices are either Tory or a protest vote. Since 1983 when the constituency was created, it has been a Tory stronghold. The prior constituency, with slightly different boundaries, was the same. Last time the Labour vote was 10%. So, as it is impossible to get the buggers out here, the protest swing is the only important factor.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: DMcG
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:27 AM

Interesting comment about passport verification there, punkfolk
A friend of mine is on disability benefits and was saying on Friday she would love to visit France even if just a day trip but cannot justify the cost of a passport on her income. I wonder if your town hall would deny her a vote

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:32 AM

Vote CAMRA!

Don't tell me they failed to put up any candidates,   again!


Or is that nice Mr Farage standing for the CAMRA party?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:42 AM

How can Labour loose with friends like these

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:25 AM

All will be revealed when the Scots are in a position to sue for independence, they will be vilified by all the Unionist parties including Labour.

I'm sorry, but the labour party are shackled to a sinking ship...and it is their own fault for abandoning socialism as an ideal, simply because the media made Blair electable.

We need to stop banging on about personal rights and concentrate on what we can all contribute to society.....the wealth gap must be closed and if that means revamping the system , so be it.
Too many people without work, too many EU immigrants, too many short term contracts, too wasteful a lifestyle for too many people.

A new Scottish government will be forced to address these important issues when they come to power.

Is it not about time you people who remember the principles Labour was built on, stopped clinging onto the belief that a Messiah will appear?.....if one does, he will very soon morph into Mr Blair.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Stu
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:30 AM

Not much point in me voting as if they stick a blue rosette on a turd here it'd get in.

I do vote though, and seeing as I live in the UK and can't vote SNP I'll probably vote Green. Labour, Tories and LibDumbs are all facets of the same corporate-eastablishment-media axis and are a total waste of time. We need principled people in parliament, not shills.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 07:35 AM

Pretty much the boat I am in, Stu. I think the sooner that party politics takes a back seat, or at least the party whip is removed, the better. As I said earlier, if the SNP do support a minority Labour government they do so with the benefit of being able to pick and chose the policies they support. The same should have been true of the LibDems with the Tories but sadly they decided to sleep with the devil instead. Oddly enough, considering the behavior of some on here, I still tend to trust the Scots more and hope, if it comes about, they will do the right thing :-)

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: BrendanB
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 07:54 AM

For the first time in several years the constituency in which I live could end up with something other than a Lib Dem. (We have a very popular costituency MP but he's retiring).
The Green Party looked interesting but I have connections with Brighton in Sussex which has the only Green local authority in the country and they appear to have been an unmitigated disaster.
I find it hard to predict who might get in but I fear that the Tories may be in with a shout. Sadly, I think a labour victory is unlikely. I suspect it will be a race between Lib Dem and Tory, although the record of the Lib Dems in government may work against their candidate. I do not know if there is a UKIP candidate, I sincerely hope not.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 08:16 AM

and if that means revamping the system , so be it.

What system and what revamping, or is this just empty words?

Is it not about time you people who remember the principles Labour was built on, stopped clinging onto the belief that a Messiah will appear?....

Who are you talking to? "You people"? A list, please.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 08:38 AM

Interesting point about "chapping on doors", the SNP with over 100000 members have an army of canvassers primed up and ready to hit the streets.

Steve, the present system is based on profit making, hence the huge gap between rich and poor, I would hope that the new Scotland would extend the scope and strength of public services rather than encourage personal enrichment...a completely new concept after years of rabid capitalism.
Most native Scots are proud of their country I think that the removal of WMDs from our soil, tackling drug problems, narrowing the wealth gap and improving public services would get a terrific response from our people.

There would also need to be regulation of house sales to overcome the present situation where absentee landlords from the South deprive our young folks of an affordable home.

Time to wield the big stick, we need contributors to the new Scotland, not drones

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 09:00 AM

If the SNP supported a minority Labour Govt would it be fair to ask for policies not in and probably against LP policies?

If the Greens supported a minority Labour Govt would it be fair to ask for policies not in and probably against LP policies?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 09:10 AM

Economics 101

It's not as simple as some people would have us believe. There is no magic wand that will remove capitalism as the major communist powers that were have proven over the last 100 years. Capitalism is not evil per se but the people running things do not seem to understand basic economic and human concepts.

To be honest I have always said that anyone who believes they can run a country should be banned from doing so on the basis of diminished responsibility. If we had the likes of Branson, Musk and even the old grouch himself, Sugar, having a serious say in the economy we may fare better. We may not either and they would need to be accountable but, as I say, there are no magic wands.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 11:05 AM

It's not about magic wands, it's about convincing people that they must be satisfied and happy with less personally.
Financial aspiration IS evil.....it makes people ignore their consciences....if they ever had them.

Its the job of a good government to inspire people to be less selfish, not more so.

It is very simple..... it's getting automatons like us to listen which is difficult. We are programmed by the system to value only money, when money is the least "valuable" thing on earth.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 11:13 AM

Sorry Les, don't understand your question.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 11:17 AM

it's about convincing people that they must be satisfied and happy with less personally.

Only certain people. Those on minimum wage, those on benefits and those who are less fortunate have enough to put up with without being told they must manage on less. If 90% of the wealth is owned by 10% of the population there is little the lowest earners can do but it is those who keep being told they must tighten their belts. There is nothing wrong with financial aspiration as long as it is used compassionately. I am firmly in the middle ground and I would be than happy with a penny or two on my upper rate. As long as it goes to help those less fortunate and not to line the pockets of those who already have too much. There is nothing wrong with capitalism as long as the excesses are curbed and the field is leveled a little as the article I link explained.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 11:29 AM

The SNP would have a bargaining position to start from but they are quite used to getting what they can and not always what they want. So I imagine they'd get by with a measure of what they want rather than risk actually bringing a potential Labour gvt down. I'd think they would insist on full delivery of the Vow re what was promised re more powers for the Scottish parliament. Salmond famously said they'd hold their feet to the fire over that. Labour could hardly say it isn't their policy when Milliband signed up for it and got Gordon Brown to trumpet it.

They would probably see themselves as perhaps influencing Labour economic policy (ie large sections of Labour MPs would agree with the SNP anyway) rather than actually writing it. Rather like the Lib Dems suggest Tory policy is not Lib Dem policy but they had a influence and restrained the Tories a bit. Except even if offered, which it wouldn't be anyway, I don't think the SNP would accept gvt posts. I think they'd much prefer to be seen as a party trying to influence Labour. Try and take some credit where they can and shy away from the blame for unpopular policies.

Likewise they would look for a Labour gvt not to spend billions on the new Trident which may be a step too far for Labour. Don't think that would be a deal buster despite all the rhetoric. The Nats would probably just blame Labour for being intransigent in spending on bombs rather than bairns and say it would be pointless forcing the issue as the alternative Tory gvt supports the renewal anyway. Same re the House of Lords being abolished. SNP policy which would be blamed on Labour if it didn't materialize.

Most of all they wouldn't want to do anything to upset their seemingly massive lead in the Holyrood polls for the next Scottish election. So I think some commentators (mostly Tory) who say they will just come to intentionally cause mayhem are seriously wide of the mark.

Plus it remains to be seen actually how many there will be anyway. Sturgeon is being very coy and reminding people that even 12 or 13 MPs would be a success in that it is more than they've ever had before. They seemingly believe (bar some big sea change) that should get in the 30s perhaps even to 40 seats. If they got 50 or more I'm sure they'd be over the moon but they know that the people suggesting that will happen are talking about a uniform swing across the country - and it doesn't necessarily happen like that. Plus for instance the Electoral Calculus site has for my constituency (which once was solidly Lib Dem) the Nats on 34.8% and the Tories on 32.4% which is well within any margin of error. Yes they have the likelyhood of an SNP win at 52% and the Tories only about 37%. I honestly don't see how they get to that!

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 11:43 AM

"If the SNP supported a minority Labour Govt would it be fair to ask for policies not in and probably against LP policies?"

Of course it'd be fair to ask. After all the SNP have a responsibility to their supporters who voted for SNP policies. Whether their wishes would be granted or not is a different matter. Labour would still be the dominant partner!

What is fair is that the SNP are telling the Scottish electorate that if they are in a position to they will support by some means a Labour gvt; they are saying that they will vote against any Tory Queen's Speech; so if you like that vote for us! If not vote for someone else. That is much fairer than what happened in my constituency last time when Michael Moore the Lib Dem candidate told potential SNP and Labour voters to vote for him instead because he was the only alternative to the Tories in this area. Then his party went into coalition with same said Tories and Moore took a Cabinet post as Scottish Secretary in same said gvt. That was not fair!!!

And unbelievably the Lid Dems are using the exact same argument here this time. Saying past Westminster elections show they are the only possible alternative to the Tories here. Despite them being third in the polls and despite the coming a poor third in the Holyrood vote here. They must think people are genuinely fools.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 12:14 PM

Breathe deeply Richard - and agree with Mither. Hold nose and vote Labour. ANYTHING to keep the self-servatives out. Maybe in 5 years time Left Unity will have an electable party together - but don't hold your breath, there are some real axe-grinders on their facebook pages!

The "feminists" who rationalise transphobia, and those who wish to disenfranchise sex workers, the ones who think that sex is a male plot against women - they're all there!

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 12:18 PM

I fear some SNP voters, judging by the confused rambling by one person on here, don't seem to know what the SNP policies are Allan...

Both "equality leading to prosperity" and "tax breaks for multinationals who bring inward investment" are good, sound SNP policies, yet seem to be derided by an SNP voter here.

Never mind, I'm sure they are politicians and don't mind where the votes come from so long as they do. I'm sure they, just like any other party, will disappoint some who believe in them for reasons they would rather not be associated with..

I don't know if McMusket has said how he will be voting, as I haven't been following everything about Scotland on these threads lately, but the dilemma of a party that puts equality into practice and is proud of their championing LBGT issues is something I'm sure he is interested in, but a party that thinks Scotland voted how it did because they were taken in by English promises?

Wow.. SNP do sometimes arrogantly think they know better than the electorate, and in case anybody missed it, Scotland doesn't want independence.

Mind you, I am happy with SNP. I get invited to meetings for those of us who invest in Scotland, (not much in my case, just a few dozen holiday lets, student lets etc) and we get wined, dined and thankfully not 69'd by them, together with incentives to provide further investment.

You see, people can complain about the system all they wish, but it would be far better to see how the system can work better. Business pays for social infrastructure, and without it? Even North Korea sell products on the international market in order to feed their people. Sanctions against rogue dictators are usually commercial, because you need business in order to achieve anything.

Sadly, the system is broke, and to some degree, always was. But in the same way that a large company used to not be concerned about who runs a council because they had factories, shops etc in other towns and counties, multinationals don't feel constrained by parochial affairs such as country level.

Not only a good reason to remain in The EU, which has critical mass, but also to ensure out elected members remember the world is smaller now, and little England or little Scotland is irrelevant. World economics pay for the pensions, social care, NHS and security. Any party candidate who thinks it is still 1952 and we still have an Empire to fall back on is unfit for office. Yet Tory and UKIP candidates seem to think the world owes us a living. Labour are fuzzy about where the money is coming from but at least have good ideas how to raise living standards and Lib Dem are a wounded lion of the old whigs having their carcass pulled at by hyenas.

Hopefully...

(Greens? I am still a non executive director of a manufacturing company I used to be MD of in Brighton, and the Greens frankly scare me....)

I'll vote Labour as I said, but will scrutinise closely what the parties are saying about NHS. Whatever they promise, they'll not fund it and as someone who has tried for the last fifteen years or so to turn their bloody promises into reality, I'm glad I've just about retired from it..

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 12:19 PM

I would hope that the new Scotland would extend the scope and strength of public services rather than encourage personal enrichment...a completely new concept after years of rabid capitalism.
Most native Scots are proud of their country I think that the removal of WMDs from our soil, tackling drug problems, narrowing the wealth gap and improving public services would get a terrific response from our people.

And if the SNP triumphantly wipes out Labour in Scotland, you won't get any of that, because we would get five more years of Cameron. How hunkydory for the Scots that would be, eh? Not saying that means that the people shouldn't vote SNP. Just think it's important to keep on apprising the Scots of what they might be letting themselves in for.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 01:38 PM

Oh, comfy now, Mither has reverted to being a stinking capitalist.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 03:50 PM

I will be pleased and proud to vote for our excellent Tory candidate. The constant bickering from trouble making shit stirring bitches in the Croydon area beggars belief.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 04:21 PM

I am sure your party are proud of you, Bonzo.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:09 PM

"but a party that thinks Scotland voted how it did because they were taken in by English promises? Wow.. SNP do sometimes arrogantly think they know better than the electorate, and in case anybody missed it, Scotland doesn't want independence."

Various things there. First of all the use of "English" which I think is wrong. Unionist or Westminster would be better usage. I mean Gordon Brown isn't English is he? Some on the Yes side way overestimate the Vow but I think it isn't sensible to dismiss it as of no consequence either. Facts are that the Unionists insisted there was no question on further devolution on the paper despite the Nats being willing to have it on there. It was to be either in or out the union. Any further devolution would be discussed after the referendum. That was until the polls were neck and neck just prior to the vote. So all three unionist leaders, with Brown as spokesmen, suddenly promise much further powers to Scotland in the wake of a No vote. Thus there was to be guaranteed further devolution without even a vote - even though the Scottish Tory leader had said there was a line in the sand. No more powers. It is absurd to think that didn't swing some people. It didn't need to swing that many. 20 people in a room then 11 had voted No and 9 voted Yes. It would only have taken the promise of devolution to have swung one out of the 11 No voters to make it a stalemate.

Lastly yes it is true that Scotland didn't vote for independence but various things there. The SNP are not heading to Westminster to claim a mandate for Scottish independence anyway. They are heading to Westminster to among other things ensure the further powers are delivered. Whether individual Scots want independence or not is by the by - the facts are that when it comes to fighting for Scotland's interests the Nats are trusted more by the Scottish population as a whole than any of the other parties are.

Likewise it is true that the Nats lost the referendum but it is also true that they are now in a stronger position than they were prior to the referendum debate. The debate started with Yes on about 30% on most polls whereas it finished on 45% a 50% growth in support. The membership of the party has rocketed with them now having by far the biggest membership. The facts of the matter are that the core support for independence is now far stronger than it was even 2 years ago and age demographics is a big threat to the unions slender lead. So the issue, even if on the back burner for the moment can't be dismissed so easily. The No side can't just sit back and say "we won" rather they need to win the hearts and minds of Scots under the age of 65!

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:22 PM

"And if the SNP triumphantly wipes out Labour in Scotland, you won't get any of that, because we would get five more years of Cameron"

I don't think that is necessarily so. Labour MPs are potentially being replaced by Nat MPs not Tory or Lib dem MPs. The Nats have said they would vote against any Tory Queen's Speech and offer support to Labour. The Lib Dems look like losing all their Scottish seats bar one so the present coalition seats in Scotland will be greatly reduced by about 10 seats approx whilst the potential anti coalition gvt block looks like greatly increasing by that said number.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:32 PM

Croydon North will beyond doubt stay Labour. Suck it up Bonzo.

Croydon South you could put a conservative rosette on a pig (a fairly commonplace occurrence) and it would get elected.

Croydon Central will be more interesting. It could well go Labour as UKIP pressures the core vote for ignorance and a return to the 1800s in the conservative party; and as people realise how much poorer Scumeron has made most people other than the top 5%. Some pollsters so predict.

Croydon Council is Labour.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 05:50 PM

It's all in the arithmetic, Allan. Without a considerable number of Scottish seats Labour won't get anywhere near a majority. Unless they are the largest single party by a good few, we're going to get five more years of the same.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 06:11 PM

Yeagh but Labour not getting an overall majority is not the same as another 5 years of Cameron. In truth neither party is likely to get a majority. But the way the seats look like panning out in Scotland suits a potential Lab-Nat group much more than it does a renewed Tory-LibDem grouping.

In the last election the current coalition got 98 seats more than Labour and the SNP did combined. If the Lib Dems do lose the predicted 10 Scottish seats than that instantly drops to 78 seats a massive 20% or so change from only 8% of the population. Then there is the Lib Dem collapse in England along with the swing from Tory to Labour since last election. ie The Tories had about a 7% lead last election whilst in BBCs poll of polls the two main parties are neck and neck so far.

So Labour are trying to say in Scotland that vote SNP and we have no chance of getting a majority and you may well get the Tories but they have two problems with that. Firstly none of the gains with the possible exception of my own constituency have any chance of being Tory gains. Scots who vote SNP know the Nats will oppose the Tories in Westminster just as much as any Labour MP would do. Secondly people who vote SNP don't want Labour to have a majority.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Mar 15 - 06:22 PM

I hope you're right. {Scary face emoticon}

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 08:15 AM

I've always been a capitalist, Bridge. There again, I've never voted Tory.

In fact, I have always voted Labour.

How's about you?   

By the way. The term capitalist isn't described well on these threads. After all, I am a Socialist too. When your balls eventuality drop, you'll realise they are not incompatible. A good social policy to raise standards for all requires to be paid for.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 08:23 AM

Around here people are moving from Labour to the Greens because Labour is not declaring against fracking.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 08:24 AM

I'm pretty sure that is what I was trying to say too. Maybe I am Musket as well! :-D

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 08:47 AM

"A good social policy to raise standards for all requires to be paid for.".......yes, but its never by the rich....its ostly by the poor buggers on PAYE.

Don't try and defend this stinking system here, you "equality warriors"   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:01 AM

"I'm a Socialist too :0("....Oh no you're not! Absentee landlords with multiple properties don't qualify.
People who believe in unregulated Capitalism don't qualify either.

Especially in Scotland!

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:12 AM

yes, but its never by the rich....its ostly by the poor buggers on PAYE.

That's the whole point! If no-one has any money, who is going to pay for it? As I said earlier there is nothing wrong with funding a social policy through business generated capital. It is far preferable to funding it through the poor buggers you mention! This is one of the major points of government and perhaps the most worrying. Leaving an economy in the hands of well meaning amateurs is a recipe for disaster.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:26 AM

Why don't you just save yourself a lot of heartsearching Dave and just vote Tory?....."Would you like kick my arse sir?.....Oww thank you sir"...:0)

Everyone should pay. One sector of society should not be allowed to get away with it, to provide a "financial aspiration model" for the rest of us to gaze at in admiration and try in vain to duplicate.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:46 AM

Everyone should pay.

Never said otherwise. In fact I have advocated that those with more should pay more on this thread. Rather than just using invective why don't you try reading what people say? Who is 'gazing in admiration' at the rich BTW? Certainly not me and to even suggest that anyone does says a lot about how you think.

FWIW I have have been a lifelong Labour and Trade Union supporter. Sadly, both cocked up in the 60s and 70s causing the right wing backlash that was Thatcherism and we are still suffering from that. It will level out eventually when people realise excesses in anything are never a good idea. Hopefully in my lifetime. Certainly in my childrens.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:52 AM

Sounds like you never supported clause 4 Mither. That makes you the enemy - indeed the enemy within.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:53 AM

Why do you think the leaders of the UK financial system are not in prison, when John down the road who claimed a few pounds a week benefits and padded it out with a part time job digging gardens was fined and given a criminal record......."equality" my arse!

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 09:55 AM

Sounds like you never supported anti paedophilia legislation Bridge.

We can both play that fucking game, cunt.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 10:02 AM

Clause four was well meaning. The redesign by Labour to rid the confusion of ends with means was also well meaning.

It isn't for or against, but a definition by the Labour party. As I am not a member and never have been, I doubt I had an opinion one way or another. I support most Labour objectives, rather than your voting record of Tory a few years ago Bridge.

How did it look from your one world conservatism perspective? (Which is the same thing, but substitute the word "worker" with "shareholder."

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 10:08 AM

could we get back to the point? surely all the insults that ever needed to be chucked around on here have been done so many times. or, musket, is this just another attempt to close down a thread as you don't like the way it is proceeding? calm down eh.....i suggest a camberwell carrot

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 10:20 AM

Aye an' ah'll suggest tae him wherr tae stick it!

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 11:38 AM

Agreed, achmelvich. I guess the point is UK voting for the forthcoming election rather than some pie in the sky ideas about replacing capitalism with a system of money-less egalitarianism where health and social care are provided by magic fairy dust? :-) Why not tell off your countryman about unwarranted invective as well? He is enough to drive a saint to swear!

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 11:42 AM

I think Achmelvich, that there is a big difference between flinging insults about and making veiled accusations of paedophilia?
Then there's the continued denigration of women.

"equality warriors" indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 11:46 AM

I and a growing number of people wish for one overarching principle – that the laws of this country be made by the people who live in this country!

We wish to be trading partners with Europe, but not governed by it.

We wish that our politicians be more than cardboard cut-outs and cared more for the people they are meant to represent than they do about their careers.

What do we want other than these basic demands? Lower taxes, yes I mean for poorer people. No tax on the minimum wage. Cheap and reliable energy so we don't have to worry about putting the heating on. Oh, and one more thing – actual border controls so we can control who and how many people come in to our country.

"Little or no financial rewards" for the politicians of LibLabCon you say?

You must be joking! Has the expenses scandal left your mind already?

Thanks but I will be taking Edward Johnson's advice and UKIP will have my vote.

M. Goodwin

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 11:51 AM

Then, M. Goodwin, you are a prime example of those who have been hoodwinked by the present administration, the press and the snake-oil patter of Farage.

Back to the main event rather than the comedy stage. Interesting article from a self-confessed Tory!

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 11:58 AM

If you are asking people to stop trading insults Achmelvich, note Bridge's insults as well as perfectly justified reactions.

I want to get this thread closed? What fucking planet are you on?

The guest above meanwhile has posted possibly the worst words on this thread. If you don't understand Euro trading, do the country a favour and be in bed with flu on voting day. I want us to trade with Europe and have a say. The Norways of this world are bound by all the European laws and regulations but cannot influence what they are.

What makes you think we can keep the vast majority of our trade if our largest market puts tariff conditions on us or uses the preferred partner directive?

If we don't trade, you can dream up all the no tax for minimum wage laws you want. The exercise will help distract you from the fact we would all be starving.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Ian
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 12:02 PM

Read the article above. Deserves more publicity. Shame it isn't in the main news.
I found it offensive yesterday when the BBC newsreader kept using the Tory catchphrase "long term economic plan". It hardly seemed impartial.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 12:27 PM

musket - i did suggest that everyone-it's not all about you - stops trading insults. i mentioned your name as your latest outburst did catch the eye more than most. i think you may have asked me what planet i am on before. i havn't bothered to really work it out yet - but it is some old hippy idealist red/green one to be sure. at least i don't have to work out who i am. today.

i always found it odd that some folk prefer to hide their voting intentions. as i can honestly say i have not had more than half a dozen conversations in 40 years with people who make the conservative argument, i would guess people are not so happy to do so as are us loud-mouthed lefty types. are they ashamed or is there no humane argument to be made for today's unprincipled capitalism?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 12:47 PM

"Croydon Council is Labour" and what a buch of prime lying shits they are.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 12:48 PM

"Butch"!!! perhaps one or two are!!! Bunch was meant of course.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 01:25 PM

and what a buch of prime lying shits they are.

Pretty much standard politicians then. At least their influence is limited to Croydon. Have you read the linked article yet?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 01:47 PM

Mither you are acting and speaking foolishly. Indeed when you resort to stupiod "peedo" insults you sound as bright as a kipper. You said you were a capitalist. Capitalism leads ineluctably to the oppression of labour (indeed, the exploitation of labour) precisely because for the capitalist the lowest cost of production is always preferable.

And let's see, the last time I voted conservative, before I fully grew up, before I fully realised how evil most conservatives were, was probably about 40 years ago. A rational person should be prepared to be convinced by improved data.

You, on the other hand, seem to have progressed from perhaps almost a socialist to being one of the exploiters.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 02:48 PM

Regardless of whether one is a socialist or a capitalist, M Goodwin is correct in the points he makes.
We want to be a trading partner with the EU, not governed by it.
We really must have some control over who and how many people come here from the EU.
I will be voting SNP, but even in an independent Scotland these points would be valid. I don't agree with everything the SNP say they are in favour of (like EU membership), but on balance they get my vote.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Apr 15 - 03:29 PM

We want to be a trading partner with the EU, not governed by it.

Yes, and the only way to be in 'the club' is to comply with it's rules. If we don't like the rules, the best place to get them changed is from within. UKIP are a one trick pony and a very bad trick at that. Don't be fooled by them. There is plenty to go round for everyones but it is held by the top 1%. You must have heard the old joke. A Tory, a Daily Mail reader and a Romanian are sat at a table with a plate of 10 biscuits on it. The Tory eats 9 biscuits and says to the Daily Mail reader, "Watch that Romanian, he is after your biscuit." As my Mum used to say, many a true word spoken in jest.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: MikeL2
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 09:56 AM

hi

I am in George Osborne's constituency.....soooooo my Labour vote is lost in a sea of blue.

I went to see George the other night and watched and heard him deliver a "sound-bite" speech about the plan for the Northern Powerhouse !!!

The man lives in an ivory tower and has no idea of how the real World lives outside his dreams.

So I will not be voting yet again.

Cheers

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 02:57 PM

Musket:
The guest above meanwhile has posted possibly the worst words on this thread. If you don't understand Euro trading, do the country a favour and be in bed with flu on voting day. I want us to trade with Europe and have a say. The Norways of this world are bound by all the European laws and regulations but cannot influence what they are.

Your point might have some weight, were it not for the fact that, as trading partners our balance of payments with the rest of the EU shows that we purchase more from them than they do from us. If we were not in the EU the EU would still want to trade with us because it is a source (net) of income for them.

Of course, if we could trade as we wished with the rest of the world, ignoring European fish quotas, the CAP & European import tariffs, we might find that we would be better off not trading so heavily with the EU.

The leaders of the other members of the EU do not want to keep the UK as a member for the UK's benefit, but because the UK is a net contributor to the EU 'common' purse. To what extent, it may be difficult to say, as the auditors have been unable to agree the books of Europe for many years.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 04:48 PM

Well said Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: BrendanB
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 04:52 PM

There is a delicious irony in the fact that Musket claims to have multiple personalities to encourage posters to focus on the post and not the poster while at the same time hurling personal obscene abuse and invective at anyone who posts in opposition to him.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 05:11 PM

My last post appears to have been deleted. Not sure why. Possibly because it pointed out that MikeL2 should vote, even if only to register a protest. Go for it Mike, if you see this. Moderators, you have been rumbled... :-P

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 05:19 PM

The overall risk (economically) of the UK leaving the EU exceeds likely benefits: http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/pdf/2014/pb_britishtrade_16jan14-8285.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Apr 15 - 05:21 PM

http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/smc_final_report_june2014.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 01:40 AM

So Nigel. What happens during the ten years where we find new markets? Eat each other? The whole of the western world is in trade agreements.

Of course, the UKIP method requires labour rates lower than Bangladesh in order to be competitive.

Nice to see Bridge state why hypocrisy is often found out. His specialism if nobody knows, is leeching his own pot from sustaining the capitalist aspects of royalties in the music industry.

I didn't watch the leaders debate last night. But read a review or two. My concerns with the two people who could be Prime Minister are that they seem to be unable to brush aside false claims by others. By not addressing bullshit, people might think there could be a reason.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 02:28 AM

No Brendon. Just returning in kind. If you happen to like his bollocks about me, you can't really complain about my bollocks about him.

Presumably Bridge can get a crystal ball and deliver my opinion of clause 4 followed by calling me the enemy within for holding an opinion I never put forward in the first place.

The last person to call me the enemy within was Th*tcher in 1984. It seems you can take the public school educated solicitor out of The Con Club but you can't take The Con Club out of the public school educated solicitor.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 02:38 AM

Vote Labour

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 02:55 AM

Mither, you are a twerp. You say you are a capitalist, and then deny opposing clause 4. It is simply impossible for both to be true. Capitalism necessarily involved capital - not the workers - owning the means of production and benefitting from the fruits of the workers' labour.

Clause 4 read "To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service"

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 03:29 AM

Richard, there is simply no alternative to leaving the EU.

It is about numbers, not what immigrants contribute or take from our economy.
Immigration rates are presently running at ten times what they have been in the past with no signs of falling....do you think given our financial position and infrastructure this can be allowed to continue for ever.....OK we have cheap labour, but most of the money earned by economic immigrants goes straight back home.
Nobody blames these folks for wishing to feed their families or build houses for themselves, but our government have a duty to look after our own people, there is no reason why our people could not be trained to run the Health service, build houses, or run the transport system.......Not to do so is madness and short term thinking, only lining the pockets of the unscrupulous employers.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 05:16 AM

No-one seems to address much the issue of the almost 2 million British people living elsewhere in the EU. It is an exchange of peoples not just an influx into Britain. Plus could any UK party guarantee their rights of abode should we withdraw from the EU. Maybe unlikely but should for instance the Spanish say to the million or so Brits there "sorry you guys are no longer EU citizens so no longer have the right to stay here" what kind of massive human tragedy would that cause?

The Tories and UKIP were quick to blame the Scottish gvt for not having the legality etc ironed out 100% with Brussels - but in reality Holyrood couldn't do that as discussions would need to be with the member state's gvt itself. But prior to any EU referendum will the UK gvt have all the legal issues ironed out with Brussels over what the legality would be in the wake of British succession What would be the consequence for Brits abroad?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 05:21 AM

Immigration has always yo-yoed up and down and will continue to do so. There is a very good alternative to leaving the EU. and that is to stay in the EU. Battle to make it more accountable, more democratic and less of a gravy train for bureaucrats, but stay in. No-one has ever called me or my son up to get killed fighting another European nation and I wouldn't mind keeping it that way if you don't mind. That's among all the other arguments in favour. As for the cheap labour sending most of their money back home, no they bloody don't and you know it. Most of their below-living wages, paid by BRITISH capitalists, are spent on paying spiv BRITISH landlords inflated rents and on just about keeping themselves alive. Have you anything to say about those millions of UK expats who live in Europe but spend their UK state-provided pensions in another country? Isn't that us sending taxpayers' money abroad, which has got to be worse than an Estonian plumber sending a few hard-earned quid back to his family which he earned, at least, by unblocking your bog?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 06:05 AM

I never knew Hugh Gaitskill and I were Tory lackies? You live and learn. Although as I have never been in The Labour Party, I never had a view, prat.

I'll not take lessons from a solicitor on the morality of making money, if its all the same to you. Still advertising how you use computers to keep costs down for your clients, after making your staff redundant?

I notice the recent ten year period statistic showing immigration over the last ten years has contributed rather than been a burden to the economy. I also notice The Scottish government has just sent one of the other Muskets with others on a tour of India and Pakistan to try to encourage people to apply for doctor posts in Scotland. Medical schools can provide consultants in about fifteen years from enrolling as students for the less complicated specialties, and often longer for the more complex careers. Meanwhile, after the threat of independence, over 10% of consultant grade posts in Scotland remain unfilled. Everybody hesitated rather than face working in an independent Scotland with an uncertain future.

I also notice that blaming sections of society for all the problems is the usual resort of politicians bankrupt of ideas. Hitler started the modern craze in the late '20s, but of course, everybody has always been at it. I just marvel at the lack of intelligence required from people in order to fall for it.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 06:25 AM

I just marvel at the lack of intelligence required from people in order to fall for it.

:-D It astounds me too, Musket. I generally work on the basis that everyone is the same. No one is any better or worse than me and that philosophy helps me to treat people as equals regardless of race, colour, creed, sexuality or ethnicity. On seeing how some people fall for the same old lies over and over again I do sometimes have serious doubts though...

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 07:22 AM

Oh there's one or two worse than you mate... In fact we appear to have a commune of them on here.!

Be good

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 07:40 AM

Allan, the trouble with most UK people living abroad is that they are mainly wealthy pensioners buying houses in Spain and living on their high UK pensions, houses are cheap and their money goes in the exchequer of whichever country thy chose to live in.
Most EU immigrants to the are from very low wage, ex communist countries....there is no exchange of workers TO these countries because it would not be financially viable.
UK immigrants can live basically here on the minimum wage and still send money home to keep their families and in some cases build their own houses.....do you think it would be possible for UK workers to do that in Bulgaria?
As I said before, I don't blame the immigrants...I would have done the same when I was young. I blame consecutive UK governments who as a short term measure saw unregulated immigration as an opportunity to pull themselves out of the hole we were in when our manufacturing sector was binned.

Much cheaper than the proper long term plan to re-train our own young people and pay them decent wages.
There is nothing "left wing" or liberal about allowing unregulated immigration at the present massive rates, it hurts our infrastructure and our young folks chances of a reasonable life.

And for Dave and others of his ilk, it has absolutely nothing to do with race or colour.....I supported the civil rights movement in America and took part in many demonstrations against racial discrimination...some of them very violent, when a member of the CP, so I need no lectures from you pussiecats.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 07:59 AM

Been on any gay pride marches too?

I very much doubt you Marched in support of people seen at the time as second-class citizens. Your odious bigotry suggests otherwise.

Still. Your preferred anonymity allows for fantasy and talking bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 08:04 AM

And for Dave and others of his ilk ... I need no lectures from you pussiecats.

See, there you go again. Pure invective for no reason at all and you then blame other people when discussions turn into full blown slanging matches. What is 'his ilk'? What lecture did I make? Why call anyone a 'pussiecat' (sic)?

What I have spotted is your fixation with (amongst other things) wealthy pensioners. You seem to think that anyone who has scrimped and saved for their retirement is an enemy of some sort. Do I detect some jealousy by any chance?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 08:29 AM

From: Musket - PM
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 01:40 AM

So Nigel. What happens during the ten years where we find new markets? Eat each other? The whole of the western world is in trade agreements.
If you took the time to read and understand what I wrote:
Your point might have some weight, were it not for the fact that, as trading partners our balance of payments with the rest of the EU shows that we purchase more from them than they do from us. If we were not in the EU the EU would still want to trade with us because it is a source (net) of income for them.
You would see that I envisage no need to search for new markets (or sources of supply) but would welcome the freedom for the country to do so.

As to "eat each other", surely you are not suggesting that the EU would raise an embargo on selling us food? Tariffs against buying from us would be more likely, but as I explained, highly unlikely.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 08:32 AM

The outflow of money for workers in this country to their families overseas is notoriously difficult to assess. What is certainly the case is that the vastly greater proportion of it is sent to countries not in the EU. So using that as a reason for our leaving the EU is nonsensical, dishonest - and inhuman. Absolutely piddling set beside the tens of billions of tax evasion by massive corporations and a large number of obscenely-wealthy individuals who employ armies of accountants. At least those minimum-wage migrants are doing something useful. If you want to call yourself a socialist you need to stop demonising hardworking people who struggle on piss-poor, exploitative wages and find a better target.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 08:33 AM

from workers

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 09:23 AM

"Been on any gay pride marches too?"

Some things are worth protesting about, even risking life and limb for.
Others are certainly not.

Steve, these immigrant workers are a large part of why wages are piss poor for most working people.....cant you see the conjuring trick?
"liberals" are arguing against the interests of all working people, when they demand unregulated immigration, and the "free movement of labour within the EU".....is definitely NOT up for debate.

We have no alternative but to get out and as Nigel (Parsons) says the markets will still be there ...and many more besides

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 09:29 AM

Do you call "pussycats" invective Dave?

My but you've led a sheltered life! :0)
I regard veiled accusations of racism, colour prejudice and "homophobia" as invective......ever read any of that stuff on here?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 09:42 AM

I have never said or insinuated that homosexuals were "bad", but support for their "marriage" rights come pretty far down my list of important issues.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 10:00 AM

Why is Akenaton's reference to racism and colour prejudice not in quotes, yet homophobia is? And why is marriage in quotes too when it comes to gay people?

Why are some people worth fighting for in terms of getting them equality and not others? What does it say about your understanding of equality?

Its marriage, not "marriage." Its homophobia, not "homophobia." At least going on Mudcat teaches you what they mean when they say "makes your skin crawl"

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 10:10 AM

"Ever read any of that stuff on here?"

Simple. Click on the blue word above saying "Akenaton." Then go into history of posts. Click on a few at random, especially where the subject is anything to do with gays, travellers and women.

I did have a digest of links to the worst ones that I supplied to Mid Argyll office of Police Scotland and my ISP, British Telecom. You need a strong stomach to click the links though...

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 10:16 AM

Because, I believe the word is being used out of context when applied to people who oppose homosexual "marriage".

I put marriage in inverted commas, as I believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman, for the reasons I have oft documented.

I have answered your questions, now please stop stalking. It become tiresome after a few years.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 10:16 AM

Do you call "pussycats" invective Dave?

My but you've led a sheltered life! :0)
I regard veiled accusations of racism, colour prejudice and "homophobia" as invective......ever read any of that stuff on here?

No, it was the three things together that were invective as I am sure you well know. Or maybe not considering the level at which you communicate. What veiled accusations are you referring to? I never make veiled accusations I either accuse someone or I don't. What you chose to read into other peoples posts is your problem.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 11:00 AM

But there is no such word as "marriage" it's marriage.

What you believe is irrelevant. Anybody can marry the person they love and it is the same as any other marriage. I call you Akenaton. Occasionally Akenhateon but I don't call you wife beater even though statistically, Scottish men are more prone to beating their wives.

You see, in public publications, it helps to use the correct terminology.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 03 Apr 15 - 12:20 PM

I broke open the lead from my old Blackberry phone just now, interesting to find out which of the wires connect to each of the 4 terminals of the nice angled plug. I am going to wire this to a couple of electret capsules you see - £200 worth of mic quality for less than 50p!!! Has anyone else done that I wonder???

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 02:24 AM

I'm sure it happens elsewhere but, presumably because I have emailed questions to the candidates, both Labour and Conservatives are now sending me emails daily to persuade me to go canvassing for them. For at least one party, if not both, this would be most unwise.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 04:42 AM

Bloody waste of time. If any party knocks on my door I shall tell them to fuck off.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 04:46 AM

I know the Brits abroad stereotype is one of them all being pensioners but is that actually correct? Not according to the FT which claims that out of the 1.8 million Britons living elsewhere in Europe 400,000 are claiming a state pension so about 78% are not British pensioners. 22% are pensioners which is slightly higher than their share of the UK population which is about 17% but not that much higher. So there potentially could be 1 million Brits have their rights to abode in Spain at risk! Do UKIP consider this. Just how do you think Spanish residents would be able to come back with their assets if their assets are tied up in Spanish property which is at a low!

Surely UKIP or the Tory right can say what it would offer existing immigrants from the EU but they have no control over how other EU countries would view the situation?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5cd640f6-9025-11e3-a776-00144feab7de.html#axzz3WKbaZatd

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 05:24 AM

Hi Dave

I have seen your second message.

I know that I should vote as it is a valuable possession in a democracy.

The reason why I said I wouldn't is because I will vote Labour but my wife votes Tory so we cancel each other out....so to speak.

We have discussed it and we will both turn out as we feel we can't discuss the election if we haven't voted.

Hope you are well

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 06:41 AM

I am, Mike, apart from my knees which will probably need a good NHS in a few years so you may guess who I will not be voting for:-) Thanks for asking and responding.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 07:08 AM

The trick Mike is to tell your wife you are cancelling each other but sneak out to the polling booth.

Politics is a dirty business.....

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 08:01 AM

I am prepared to accept your figures Allan, but that does not address the large number of young people born here who have no chance of a decent life or decent wages.

Unregulated immigration has helped drive down wages, but profits are still bring made, through zero hours contracts and short time working.
Everything is geared to making money, they say we cant afford to re train or apprentice our people.
As I mentioned already a Rumanian worker can exist in the most basic living accommodation on below the minimum wage, and with the top ups available for children in Rumania can afford to send home enough to build a new home in a few years.

This would be absolutely impossible for a young UK couple.
We are being conned, and I hope to see the SNP get out of the EU soon after Independence.....we cannot afford to keep a generation on pared down benefits, we need to give all our young folks a decent life.

Economic immigration, also affects society in the countries from which they come, who is going to look after the sick and build the homes in Eastern Europe?......another method of driving down wages?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 08:38 AM

Waffle.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 09:42 AM

I know the Brits abroad stereotype is one of them all being pensioners but is that actually correct? Not according to the FT which claims that out of the 1.8 million Britons living elsewhere in Europe 400,000 are claiming a state pension so about 78% are not British pensioners. 22% are pensioners which is slightly higher than their share of the UK population which is about 17% but not that much higher. So there potentially could be 1 million Brits have their rights to abode in Spain at risk! Do UKIP consider this. Just how do you think Spanish residents would be able to come back with their assets if their assets are tied up in Spanish property which is at a low!

Surely UKIP or the Tory right can say what it would offer existing immigrants from the EU but they have no control over how other EU countries would view the situation?

I don't think UKIP are planning on sending anyone back, just on restricting further immigration. So the analogy with UK ex-pats having to come back isn't a valid one. "Tit-for-tat" restrictions would just restrict new emigration of ex-pats.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 10:23 AM

Unregulated immigration has helped drive down wages, but profits are still bring made, through zero hours contracts and short time working.

Now, therein lies a tale, thought ake will not believe anything written by those who he sees as enemies. Immigrant labour is still subject to minimum wage, unless they are working illegally which no amount of regulation will prevent. Zero hours contracts and short time working - Yes, I would agree those things are helping the unscrupulous to make more money. It is the profits being made that are the thing. Unregulated capitalism is indeed a scourge but think back to how things were in the 60's and 70's when the labour unions held the power. I am firmly of the opinion that this caused the Tory backlash that was Thatcherism, that we are still suffering from. As I have tried to explain before we need both labour and capital in balance to achieve economic stability and social justice. Until people from both sides of the fence work in unison, rather than against each other, we will not achieve either.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 11:15 AM

Daily Mirror last November,

"The arrival of large numbers of unskilled immigrants has been blamed by politicians on all sides for driving down wages for UK workers."

"Meanwhile, during a speech to right-wing think tank Policy Exchange, Home Secretary Theresa May said: "There is evidence too that immigration puts a downward pressure on wages."

Labour's Ed Miliband has also weighed in: "When millions of workers already have low pay and poor job security in Britain and we add high levels of low-skilled migration, mostly from within the EU, some benefit but some lose out. It isn't prejudiced to believe that."

But a study published in March by the University of Oxford's Migration Observatory argued that the true picture is far more complicated.

Researchers found that overall immigration actually leads to a rise in the average wage of all workers – although increased competition for low-paid or unskilled jobs can lead to wages falling. There can be little doubt that those suffering most are already at the bottom of the wages pile."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/does-immigration-lower-our-wages-4670067

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 12:30 PM

Thanks, Keith. Proving a point that politicians tell you what you want to hear while proper research gives us a different picture.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 12:53 PM

The reality is as ever somewhere in the middle. Nobody says unfettered immigration is a good thing and here in The UK we don't have it. Both this government and the previous one have made qualifying for citizenship harder.

If we exited The EU, we would still have the same situation with EU citizens, as Norway and others have seen. A common trading zone needs freedom of movement in the job market.

Unless as I said before, some politician has an action plan to replace our trading overnight because the vast majority is within The EU and of the rest, a large portion is due to our EU gateway.

Labour and SNP recognise this and to a degree so do LibDem. I am bemused to see so many Tories not understanding how business and prosperity works.

Two issues here. Prosperity and who gets to benefit from it. The tories and UKIP have a different view of the latter than the others. The others are the only ones addressing the former.

Labour and SNP are committed to The EU. So am I.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,allan conn
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 02:24 PM

Nigel i think you maybe missed the point of my post. How can UKIP dictate the policies of,for instance,the Spanish gvt?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 02:35 PM

Hmmm, things are shaping up nicely for the Grand Coalition of Labour Conservative and three Lib Dems.
This is the only way the Westminster cabal can stop the SNP being the powerbrokers after the election.

Cynical? perhaps, but funnier things have happened and if it does it will illustrate for once and for all the hypocrisy of UK politics.
A coming together of left and right in the National Interest now where have I heard that before??

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Apr 15 - 02:59 PM

Some of you don't seem to understand the meaning of "Free movement of labour".

Labour is never going to freely move in the direction of LOWER wages and poorer services.

Well that is, until our wages and services are lower and poorer than theirs :0)......which may not be long in coming.

In saying that, it's still primarily about numbers.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 01:52 AM

Re which party will work with which. Was interesting again that Ed Milliband was quick to kick Nicola Sturgeon yesterday when he thought she was wounded. Sturgeon's reaction was to reaffirm that if SNP and Labour had more seats combined than the others then she would vote against any Conservative Queen's Speech. Milliband has yet to say whether he'd prefer a Labour gvt over a Tory one even if it depended on SNP backing on votes of confidence etc!

At least Cameron has flat refused to discuss what he'd do in the event of a hung parliament. Milliband, bending to Tory and media pressure, has already said he wouldn't go into formal coalition with the Nats. Something they hadn't asked for anyway!! So what would he do???? That is half an answer Ed

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 01:59 AM

Meanwhile, any leader will form a government with any smaller party and can do so even after saying they never would.

The numbers of seats are the will of the people and either Cameron or Miliband will say it is the will of the people even if they personally would rather not.

Lesson 101 Politics.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 03:11 AM

"A common trading zone requires freedom of movement in the job market"

Not really. It is a choice the EU made and could, if they wished, rescind if everyone agreed. It was an assumption in the work of Friedman and co but one could legitimately build common trading zones on other assumptions.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 03:41 AM

The point though is that politics is about winning votes. Bending to London media pressure by appearing to turn his back on the SNP's offer of some kind of support may win votes in England - but it will likely lose him even more in Scotland. His kicking of Sturgeon at the first opportunity he can get - over a story in the Tory press which appears to be false won't help either. The rise in SNP membership is still rocketing. 2000 new members in the 24 hours after the debate and since the French Ambassador story there seems to be more and more Labour members leaving the party and joining the SNP.

Plus there is some suggestion that some Labour voters in England itself have been impressed with her. I've had several people say to me they wished they could vote for her party. The survation poll of polls re the debate had her on 20% as the winner when those able to vote for her amount to 9% of the population and those willing and able to vote for her is less than 5%. I think Milliband may find himself asked, specially if he loses, why weren't you more like Sturgeon?

Milliband needn't have commented on whether he would work with the Nats or not. Cameron is refusing to comment re UKIP. He chose to bend to anti-Scottish hectoring by top Tories and their media buddies. Yes it is politics but I think either way it is a mistake. If he can't form a gvt then his loss of support in Scotland will be seen as a factor. If he wins enough votes and manages to come to some sort of deal with the Nats (which they are openly saying they want) then he will be lambasted as a hypocrite by the Tory media.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 06:15 AM

Yes, DMcG, it could be an arbitrary condition and you could call something a common trading zone without freedom of movement of employment, but it would then be a weighted trading zone by definition. This is why Norway has to abide by the rules without being able to influence and negotiate them.

Having managed companies both within The EU and beyond, the difference is quite large to my understanding and experience.

Excellent article on it in yesterday's Guardian, not the usual fount of business knowledge but one article writer got it bang on.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 10:00 AM

"The reality is as ever somewhere in the middle. Nobody says unfettered immigration is a good thing and here in The UK we don't have it"

OH yes they do, "Team Musket and their acolytes have been saying it for years on this forum......remember all the hoo hah about "universal equality?"
Anyone who said anything about regulating immigration was immediately demonised and labelled a racist.
All the major parties said it until dragged kicking and screaming by Mr Farage to face the issue.
Now all parties agree that regulation is urgently required, but none have any idea how that is to be achieved under EU rules.
"Free movement" was thought up by capitalists to drive down wages and make us more competitive......but as usual, the long term effects were dismissed and now we are suffering.

Just wait till the Grand Coalition get going....to quote Dave, "you ain't seen nuthin' yet!"

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 11:43 AM

I don't get that, Musket. It is common if everyone agrees and weighted if some agree and some don't, surely? You can't allow text book definitions to take precedence over practice Andy premise was the European could collectively decide against free movement of labour And by definition that would be a common trade agreement


The reason it matters is that whenever one thinks "it must be so " it limits your thinking and therefore your options

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 12:31 PM

It's weighted when the market isn't common. Common means access to the same raw material, Labour, tariff etc. To be fair, if it isn't really common now. Taxes, interest rates, other overheads are certainly not common, but to make it as common as we can, two very important factors are;

Access to raw material means we all pay the same tariff for, for instance, US steel or Chinese widgets. Labour means workers can move around the zone seeking better employment.

They are the sacred cows and as Norway and others have found, to trade with The EU, you either get into tariff or follow their rules. Turkey uses the former, Western non EU countries follow the latter.

Just to address the hilarious post above you.. If I want to read that illogical paranoid crap, I can always read the UKIP leaflets or your favourite tabloids. We do not have unfettered immigration. In fact, quite the opposite. You really need help Akenaton. You see the manifesto of the party you tell us you are a member of as a liberal plot, think that equality means unfettered immigration and that normal people think down at your irrational level.

I didn't think Sturgeon was so desperate for votes....

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 03:17 PM

No "if" in that third sentence.

Chuffing iPad...

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 03:24 PM

Now all parties agree that regulation is urgently required

Because they are politicians for fucks sake. They tell people what they want to hear. Some idiots actually believe them.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 03:32 PM

Notwithstanding the regulations in place are draconian and divisive,which is odd as immigration over the last ten years has been a positive contribution to GDP.

There is an issue to be sure. But neither the issue,the blame nor the solution are being discussed. Akenaton shows why politicians say what they say. It is the feeble weak minded simple folk with votes they are after.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Apr 15 - 05:15 PM

Well, yes, if you *define* common as access to the same raw materials, labour and so on, then your conclusion follows. And I agree these are currently sacred cows. But to push the metaphor beyond reason, you could have got the cows from a different herd and as long as everyone agreed it would still be a common trading zone. For example, it doesn't seem beyond reason to me that in a decade or two we might mutually agree trade barriers as part of a strategy to reduce the environmental impact of transporting goods all over the place. Business would not be happy in the short term but would adapt to a more decentralised approach and carry on successfully.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 03:49 AM

It's interesting but check out G8, check out recent trade agreements and check out why we attract investment by multinationals. Or jobs as we call them.

The UKIP case hurls the baby out with great force before even considering the bath water.....

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 05:02 AM

"There is an issue to be sure. But neither the issue,the blame nor the solution are being discussed."

Oh there is an issue all right, and unregulated immigration is but one symptom of the "issue".

The "issue" is that successive governments have failed the people of this group of nations, by refusing to use future planning and go for an economic system which has produced great wealth for a few and poverty for a huge number.
The cycle is in decline and our governments are unable to affect that decline, other than to punish our very poorest sectors by cutting public services and the derisory benefits which were designed to salve the "issue" in the first place.

We need the "big stick", "community" over "personal rights", forward planning, a war on waste, a levelling of the economy to show that we are moving towards a really fair society, not a phoney "rights" fairyland. Business interests will continue to tell you this mess can be fixed, that we can go back to full employment...real jobs ....a real life, but they lie, their interests are in generating profit for themselves and their shareholders, hence the support for unregulated immigration over training for our own young people and generations of unemployed.

I don't think that could now be achieved in the UK, the problems are too deep seated, but Scotland still has a chance if we follow the correct model......Vote SNP

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 09:26 AM

Vote SNP for a really fair society. Yes, people living in the counties of The UK that make up Scotland can certainly do that.

For starters they say "prosperity through equality" and point out their successful equality legislation, especially in LBGT issues. Something Sturgeon is most proud of.

I don't actually see where Akenaton's homophobic bigotry fits in with that liberal Socialist party though, all the same. It is the same party that invites me to receptions and weekend retreats hoping I will invest in more properties.

One size fits all?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 10:32 AM

I'm just puzzled as to what a phoney "rights" fairyland is! I suppose that anywhere that promotes false liberties is not a good place but I would not describe it as a fairyland. It would be far more dangerous than that. Can you elucidate on what phoney rights are and why they would prevent social and economic progress, ake?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 10:41 AM

Hi Musky

<"he trick Mike is to tell your wife you are cancelling each other but sneak out to the polling booth.

Politics is a dirty business..... ">

Tee Hee....LOL

Think I'll go in disguise and vote as her !!!

cheers

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 06 Apr 15 - 11:58 AM

Thanks to our wonderful Conservative government, unused Personal Allowance up to £1,060 can be passed to spouse to enable tax to be avoided on that amount!

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 06:58 AM

Thanks, boko, i hadn't noticed that - certainly the most important issue in the election. I think will vote to.....nah, couldnwwrite that not even in jest. Sounds pretty desperate if that is the best reason you can think of for supporting that bunch of crooks . Hang on just realised you were being sarcastic. D'oh!

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 08:12 AM

I've had responses from my Labour and LibDem candidates on answer to the question whether they would vote against the current TTIP proposal under which a company can sue the government for decisions arrived at democratically. The LibDem said she would vote against any agreement that permitted this; the labour candidate was more cautious and only committed to voting against it in its current form.

I have only just asked the Conservative candidate so he has not yet had an opportunity to answer.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 11:18 AM

Judicial reviews have always been available, based on the ability to make x decision based on y evidence. As opposed to not liking the decision.

I chaired a health authority that was taken to judicial review over the granting of a GP contract and that was some experience......

My time as a regulator suggests if such a proposal goes through, enforcing regulations in any arena would be difficult. In my old line of work, it would mean a large pharmaceutical company could fetter every decision under a regulatory umbrella whilst a poor independent pharmacy / chemist shop would have to take it on the chin via the appeals process.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 01:19 PM

I'm not sue if your response was about my post, Musket. I'm talking about TTIP: the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Transatlantic. Important though they are, poor independent chemist shops are at a completely different level. This agreement is to try to reach common regulations on both sides of the Atlantic for various aspects of trade. And the dispute resolution mechanism, if agreed, would allow BigOil, for example, to sue the UK if our government voted for different regulations on fracking. [Substitute whatever cause of concern you may have.]   My question is whether, as a matter of principle, we should ever allow a company to sue a government for decisions it has reached democratically, and the two candidates who have replied so far say (a) the agreement on the table would allow this and (b) they are against it.


Judicial review doesn't really come into it. All that can decide is whether an action is lawful or not, and would only apply after the law which I am objecting to had been passed.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 01:39 PM

I should say that the Conservative message to date - and as I say I haven't from my local candidate yet - is the TTIP is much misunderstood and companies suing governments won't happen.

Which is a very different thing to "can't happen", isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 02:37 PM

I see that ake's pin up girl says she would veto any referendum held by the UK about leaving the EU. Good for her.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 02:51 PM

With the greatest of respect DMcG, you are failing to understand TTIP. Healthcare has been the stalking horse in this as NHS spending is increasingly open to competition despite commissioning decisions being slowly taken out of political control. (as chair if a health authority I was appointed to proxy through the board the will of Parliament and ministers) which has led to huge debate amongst MPs regarding the impact of TTIP on the £106 billion of NHS care that could be open to challenge.

Nobody is thinking of fracking. They are thinking of the threat to major issues. To date, judicial reviews are the nearest you can get to challenging democratic decisions by challenging the process.

Perhaps before saying judicial reviews are irrelevant, you might ask somebody to tell you how the affair you refer to is all about swapping judicial reviews for litigation.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 03:28 PM

As you know the details of TTIP are taking place behind closed doors so I think very few of us know what exactly is going on. Yes, there has been a lot of focus on the NHS but it is not limited to that and both GM and fracking have been raised as concerns by the US Center for economic and policy research (whoever they are.) See Wiki on TTIP which includes this extract of the leaked version :


Chapter II, articles 3 to 18 contains general principles for investment. Article 14 contains proposed rules which forbid governments to "directly or indirectly nationalise, expropriate" unless it is for a public purpose, under due process of law, on a non-discriminatory basis, with compensation.[25] Article 14(2) defines the necessary compensation as being "fair market value of the investment at the time immediately before the expropriation or the impending expropriation became public knowledge plus interest at a commercial rate established on a market basis".

So while I defer to your experience with judicial reviews under the current system, I was referring to any review into a case brought under that clause or any of the part of the treaty.

But in any case, that is losing the principle among the detail. And the principle is whether a company should be able to sue a government for decisions arrived at democratically.

I don't claim to know everything about this topic but I do know enough that I want my concerns discussed by my candidates. And they at least give the appearance of being concerned as well
well. That may just be skilled politicking naturally

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 03:37 PM

I've had responses from my Labour and LibDem candidates on answer to the question whether they would vote against the current TTIP proposal under which a company can sue the government for decisions arrived at democratically. The LibDem said she would vote against any agreement that permitted this; the labour candidate was more cautious and only committed to voting against it in its current form.
Okay, I have to admit I hadn't heard of TTIP, so I had to read up on it before commenting.

From all I can find it appears to be an agreement being made between the US & the EU. As such, as long as we are part of the EU, I don't see your local candidates having the opportunity to vote for or against it.

Of course, I'm open to correction! (but not with whips!)

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Apr 15 - 03:54 PM

You are right, Nigel, I think, they will probably have no more influence on it than I do. But since we don't know exactly how it will go we can't say for definite. Arguably it could be seen as a transfer of more powers from the UK...

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 03:46 AM

It is about opening up markets and is being negotiated at EU level. However, the clause that decisions made by governments, councils, authority bodies etc can be challenged on the decision rather than the process leading to the decision interferes with Westminster sovereignty. (and of course other countries.)

Part of me sees why this is being debated. France has a habit of agreeing with everything and then saying they can't interfere when parish council level decisions defy national agreement.

However, I am involved in NHS commissioning still, in an advisory capacity,keep trying to say I'm retired) and am on a think tank discussing the ramifications of this to what is seen as the key market. Private healthcare providers could use this to effectively destroy NHS provision. Fracking is important but less than 0.001% of the potential of these negotiations. (Which also affect non EU trade partners such as Norway.)

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:29 AM

thanks for that, Musket, especially that final bracketed clause, which makes plain that anyone who thinks leaving the EU is the answer to this is sadly mistaken.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 06:06 AM

GUEST,Allan Conn - 04 Apr 15 - 04:46 AM

Didn't quite get the bit about 1 million Brits who own property in Spain having their right to live and own property in Spain put at risk should the UK leave the EU? The two things are completely disconnected, there is nothing whatsoever to stop anyone from outside the EU buying property in Spain, or Portugal, or anywhere else and once bought it is yours provided you pay all necessary fees and taxes. The property market in Spain in particular is such that nobody buying anything would be turned away - and just think how much foreign currency those 1 million Brits bring into the economy.

As to SNP membership rocketing? Currently just passed through the 100,000 mark it has to reach far, far higher than that before membership guarantees anything. The 2011 "landslide" SNP vote in Scotland amounted to less than 21% of the electorate ~903,000.

Musktwat - "Nobody says unfettered immigration is a good thing and here in The UK we don't have it."

Now which of your red rosette wearing "donkeys" told you that?? Ever Blair admitted his Labour Government's policy of unfettered immigration was on reflection a terrible mistake - only one of many that that particularly inept crew owned up to.

"If we exited The EU, we would still have the same situation with EU citizens, as Norway and others have seen."

Really? Only difference would be that it would be up to us to decide what the EU could and could not impose on us (As far as Norway goes the EU cannot tell Norway to do anything or comply with anything related to agriculture, fishing or oil and gas)

"Unless as I said before, some politician has an action plan to replace our trading overnight because the vast majority is within The EU and of the rest, a large portion is due to our EU gateway."

For some time now the UK's trade with the world has been greater than its trade with the EU, only "rules" related to UK exports prevent the real picture being shown (UK goods that are sent out to countries outside the EU via the international container terminal in Rotterdam have to be categorised as trade with the EU, which of course its not). The economy of the EU Eurozone countries has been all but static now for months so they are not buying, the rest of the world is.

"Access to raw material means we all pay the same tariff for, for instance, US steel or Chinese widgets. Labour means workers can move around the zone seeking better employment.

They are the sacred cows and as Norway and others have found, to trade with The EU, you either get into tariff or follow their rules."

Not strictly true, the EFTA countries have more wriggle room and greater Sovereignty. Liked your assumption that just anyone can come to Norway and work - in theory maybe, but I would advise anyone against drifting up to Norway on spec to find a job - if they were to do that they'd have to come cash rich - In practice Norway has too many of their own rules to allow that - still what would I know Musktwat - after all I only worked there for about 30 years. To work in Norway you need:
- A Sponsor and a job before you arrive
- While you pay into their National Insurance Scheme you do so for the first four years at a reduced rate but you have no call or entitlement to any of their benefits - your employer on the other hand has to pay their full whack and the Norwegian N.I. Scheme over the years has made an absolute fortune out of collecting contributions that they know they will never need to pay anything out on - it is this accrued fund that forms the "domestic investment" part of their "Sovereign Wealth Fund" which can only be invested internally in Norway in Norwegian Companies, what they get from their Oil & Gas Wealth goes to the "international investment" part of their "Sovereign Wealth Fund".
- You are given a Personnummer without which you can do or get nothing and there is no avoiding or evading tax (UK could have had the same had they gone for the National ID Card - but guess what? That would have infringed the civil rights of the illegals working here)

Unlike the UK the Norwegian Authorities are well up to speed on knowing who in term of numbers is in their country and where they came from.

Bonzo3legs - 06 Apr 15 - 11:58 AM

Tell me Bonzo which Conservative Government are you talking about? Or is it thanks to our present "wonderful Coalition Government", that whoever wishes to avail themselves of this transfer of unused Personal Allowance up to £1,060 means that that family have up to £1,060 to spend, thereby benefiting the economy? What paltry proportion of that £1,060 would be paid in tax and what would our wastrel politicians blow it on that would be of monitorable benefit to the nation as a whole?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 07:57 AM

Teribus the point was not about buying property in Spain. You are right anybody can buy property there. The point is that there are nigh on a million Brits living in Spain at the moment, many of whom, I'd imagine most of whom have bought property. The price of property in Spain has fallen dramatically over the last few years. There are many people who would struggle, or in fact find it virtually impossible, should they have to relocate back to the UK. What I was asking was how can UKIP guarantee how the likes of, for instance, the Spanish gvt would treat a million permanent residents who are no longer EU citizens? It is a fair question which no-one has yet answered. It is a genuine question to! We know what UKIP are suggesting but do we know how the EU would view it and probably more importantly the individual member countries?

As to the SNP membership then of course having a large membership guarantees nothing. I never suggested it does but it does show a movement of fortunes within the parties in Scotland. It is head in the sand stuff to deny that. One Labour politician the other day described it as a tsunami. For those not in Scotland the figures are quite remarkable.

The estimates for Labour and Tory membership in Scotland are 13,135 and 12,000 each. Looks reasonable for the Tories but they have a lot to worry about due to the demographics in their membership with what I'd imagine is probably a very elderly average age. The Lib Dems have 3,000 members. At the time of the referendum date the SNP had 25,000 members which had grown to 43,644 just 3 days after the vote; then to 62,870 by a week after the vote. People thought it would soon stop but just kept going. Teribus states 100,000 but that is already out of date. At the SNP conference just a couple of weeks ago it had reached 102,000 and is now thought to be at the 103,000 mark.

Potential voting patterns are changing too. Traditionally the SNP do not do all that well at Wesminster elections. Last election they obtained just under 20% of the total vote. In a poll just this week the SNP are now standing at 46% of the total whereas the Labour/Tory/LibDem combined vote is 48% in total. One percentage swing and the SNP are standing equal with all 3 major unionist parties combined.

None of that guarantees anything but it is easy to see who is currently doing well in Scotland!

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 08:15 AM

Blog on the subject from Steve Peers, Professor of EU Law and Human Rights at Essex Uni

http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/what-happens-to-british-expatriates-if.html

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 10:54 AM

Terribulus now thinks I get my thoughts from Labour politicians. Oh dear...

Still, I at least get thoughts. I don't cut and paste them from far right websites eh? 😎

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 11:30 AM

Simple Question Musktwat - 08 Apr 15 - 10:54 AM

Care to tell us all what far right websites" do I cut and paste from? Examples Please. Or is this just more Made Up Shit?

To anyone else following this I predict with almost 100% certainty that there will be no such examples forthcoming from any of the Musktwats.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 03:23 PM

You still alive?

Odious bastard.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 03:29 PM

What a BRILLIANT response!!!   how can anyone take these creatures seriously?

They don't even have the wit to see the irony in their behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 04:57 PM

What a BRILLIANT response!!!   how can anyone take these creatures seriously?

This from the same person that on another thread just said to me Morrison's?......not a grocer? Don't tell me, let me guess....Shelf stacker?

And then says someone else does not have the wit to see irony. You just couldn't make this stuff up. Priceless...

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 05:56 PM

Ah so Musktwat's answer to the "Simple Question":

"Care to tell us all what far right websites" I cut and paste from? Examples Please. Or is this just more Made Up Shit?

WAS

"You still alive?

Odious bastard." - Musktwat - 08 Apr 15 - 03:23 PM

Now what was it that I predicted again? Oh yes:

To anyone else following this I predict with almost 100% certainty that there will be no such examples forthcoming from any of the Musktwats.

By God Guest from Sanity has you lot pegged right. So all the crap about cut 'n'pastes from far right websites is just Musktwat Made Up Shit Thanks for confirming it.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 08 Apr 15 - 06:33 PM

OK, I will take back odious bastard and put thick odious cunt instead. Terribulus and Akenhateon can put vile posts yet don't like it when others show them what their posts come across as.

Mind you, one chuckle in all this. The bit above this saying Goofus has us pegged..

😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹

Goofus's comments are so difficult to swallow you'd need a PEG to digest the contents. I thought he was too busy curing gay people of the illness he reckons they have to care about here any more. Goofus, Keith and Akenaton... You really do have a prize list of people impressed with your contributions Terribulus.

By the way, I assume Akenhateon in his little post above also meant Terribulus where he calls me Musktwat. There again, the little people don't understand their own inadvertent irony.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 02:36 AM

OK then Musktwat - 08 Apr 15 - 06:33 PM

Shifting from gratuitous insult to obscenity - does that display your capability of putting your own thoughts articulated to words? - Doesn't help your argument, doesn't show you in the most favourable light - in fact it makes you all come across as, let me see what would be the best way to put this? "Thick odious cnuts {Anag.} capable only of lowering the tone of the place.

Now here are a couple of simple questions for the three of you:

1: What vile posts? (by the bye you are not the world committee entrusted to judge what is vile and what is not, and the three of you considering your use of language are the very last people on earth to dictate to others what is vile or obscene)

2: What others have shown how what vile posts come across as?

At the moment Musktwats you are on a hiding to nothing, caught out in your own stupid game of scatter accusations about like confetti while demonstrating that you cannot back up a single one with any substantive evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 03:01 AM

No. You lower the tone. Normal people complain about the hue of the tone. Calling me Musktwat and then complaining when you are summed up rather accurately does little more than invite an adjective or two added to the description of you along the lines of hypocrit.

Fool







Sorry. Hypocritical fool.

That's better.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 03:47 AM

Answer the question!....or face the rope!

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 05:14 AM

Oh good heavens no Musktwat, I rarely stoop to obscenity and then only when severely provoked, while to the three of you it would appear to be your "default" setting. That, along with your typical "Bully Boy" argument, which is typified as follows - Flat statement followed by flat contradiction, followed by personal insult, followed by threat of physical attack.

You object to being referred to as Musktwat?? You've never mentioned it before - I think considering your choice of language it rather fits - but when you get my name right I'll get all three of yours right.

Ah back to announcing to the world who are "normal people" and who are not? My, my, what astounding arrogance on your part.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 05:45 AM

I also note that Ms Sturgeon has ruled out the possibility of another referendum unless there is a 'material change' such as Britain quitting the EU against Scottish opinion. Very sensible too.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 06:01 AM

Fortunately it isn't in Ms Sturgeon's gift to call a referendum on the break up of the United Kingdom that power only exists at Westminster, and Scotland as part of the United Kingdom in any UK wide Referendum on EU Membership must abide by the vote of the majority vote of the electorate of the entire United Kingdom (I know that that is not a concept or a reality that the SNP can live with - nevertheless we do live in a democracy and that might eventually sink in).

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 06:33 AM

The Scottish gvt called the last referendum and the UK gvt accepted it with provisos. The precedent is set now. Even Ruth Davidson the leader of the Scottish Tories conceded last night on the leaders debate that the Conservatives would not try to block another referendum should the Scottish gvt hold one.

It is true that there is a hardened minority within Scotland who personally wish to never see another vote but polls show they are a minority. There may be one at some point but it isn't an issue for this election. Sturgeon has laid down how she views one could be had again. The SNP would need to stand at the Scottish election with their manifesto stating they would hold a vote and they would then need to win a majority at Holyrood. The days of "never mind what the Scottish electorate decides we'll override that with the opinion down south" are gone!

As to EU withdrawal then I think the idea of each part of the UK having a veto is a bit of a non starter which just wouldn't be accepted in England. However the legal process as far as the devolved parts of the UK being dragged out of the EU against their wishes is not so straight forward as you seem to think - especially if there is still an SNP administration in Edinburgh. It could well cause a constitutional crisis with another Scottish referendum being a possibility.

http://www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/blog/british-withdrawal-eu-existential-threat-united-kingdom

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 07:55 AM

Hate to disappoint you Allan C but:

Only the Government of the United Kingdom has the power to call and hold referenda, whether they affect the UK as a whole or its constituent parts.

Since 1973 there have been twelve referendums held by the Government of the United Kingdom, the majority of them have been related to the issue of devolution. The first UK-wide referendum was held in 1975 on the United Kingdom's continued membership of the European Community.

1: Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum, 1973, on whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom or join the Republic of Ireland - Result remain part of the UK

2: United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975, on whether the UK should remain part of the European Economic Community - Result remain part of the EEC

3: Scottish devolution referendum, 1979, on whether there should be a Scottish Assembly - Result a small majority voted yes, but fell short of the 40% threshold required to enact devolution

4: Welsh devolution referendum, 1979, on whether there should be a Welsh Assembly - Result no

5: Scottish devolution referendum, 1997, Two questions: On whether there should be a Scottish Parliament - Result yes; On whether a Scottish Parliament should have tax varying powers - Result yes

6: Welsh devolution referendum, 1997, on whether there should be a National Assembly for Wales - Result yes

7: Greater London Authority referendum, 1998, on whether there should be a Mayor of London and Greater London Authority - Result yes

8: Northern Ireland Belfast Agreement referendum, 1998, on the Good Friday Agreement - Result yes

9: North East England devolution referendum, 2004, on an elected regional assembly - Result no

10: Welsh devolution referendum, 2011 - Result yes

11: United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011, 5 May 2011 - Result no

12: Scottish independence referendum, 2014 on the question "Should Scotland be an independent country?", 18 September 2014 - Result NO

Looking at the above although there have been 12 referenda held since 1973 only two of them have involved the electorate of the whole of the UK. As it is the UK that is the EU Member state then any proposed referendum that seeks to alter the status of the United Kingdom's EU Membership will be exactly the same as the one held in 1975 and it would involve a voting process involving the electorate of the whole of the UK.

No precedent was set with regard to the Scottish Independence Referendum, strictly limited temporary powers were transferred as can be seen from reading the following:

Legality of a referendum:
There was debate as to whether the Scottish Parliament had the power to legislate for a referendum relating to the issue of Scottish independence, as the constitution is a reserved matter for the UK Parliament. The Scottish government insisted in 2010 that they could legislate for a referendum, as it would be an "advisory referendum on extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament", whose result would "have no legal effect on the Union". Lord Wallace, Advocate General for Scotland, said in January 2012 that holding a referendum concerning the constitution would be outside the legislative power of the Scottish Parliament and that private individuals could challenge a Scottish Parliament referendum bill.

The two governments signed the Edinburgh Agreement, which allowed for the temporary transfer of legal authority. In accordance with the Edinburgh Agreement, the UK government drafted an Order in Council granting the Scottish Parliament the necessary powers to hold, on or before 31 December 2014, an independence referendum. The draft Order was approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament, and the Order, titled The Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013, was approved by The Queen, following the advice of Her Ministers, at a meeting of the Privy Council on 12 February 2013. Under the powers temporarily transferred from Westminster under the section 30 Order, the Scottish Parliament adopted the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013, summoning the referendum, defining the question to be asked, giving the date on which the referendum was to be held, and establishing the rules governing the holding of the referendum. The Bill for the Act was passed by the Scottish Parliament on 14 November 2013 and received Royal Assent on 17 December 2013. Under section 36 of the Act, it came into force the day after Royal Assent."

Simple matter of record.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 09:36 AM

The point is that Westminster simply realised it had no option other than transfer the authority to the Scottish gvt.As the other post re the EU also states the idea of parliamentary sovereignty is not accepted as fact in the Scottish Courts anyway where the Scottish tradition of the sovereignty of the Scottish people comes in to the debate. Only a minority of Scots are against ever having another referendum (though they are very vocal) and should a Scottish gvt be in a position where it is holding one then the UK gvt, following the existing precedent, would have no real option other than to agree to it again. Despite Cameron's ramblings Ruth Davidson conceded last night, even though she rallies against the thought of having one, that the Conservatives would not attempt to block another referendum. That is democracy!

Let's face it there are legalities and there are realities! The legality is that the UK gvt could wind up the Scottish parliament tomorrow and make Nicola Sturgeon's post along with all the other MSPs redundant thus making sure there was no parliamentary route to independence. The reality is that they could never actually force that legality. It simply wouldn't be politically acceptable and neither would blocking a referendum in a part of the UK where there is a clear political mandate to hold it. The precedents were set with the acceptance first that Northern Ireland can leave whenever it wants and then that Scotland was free to choose too. What don't you like about your own countrymen having a democratic choice?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 10:11 AM

Allan C myself and my fellow countrymen did exercise their democratic right on the 18th of September last year - they voted for Scotland to remain as part of the United Kingdom - question is why don't you and the Scottish Nationalist party accept that as your erstwhile leader loudly proclaimed that he would do?

"Westminster simply realised it had no option other than transfer the authority to the Scottish gvt" - NO

Following what existing precedent? The granting of temporary powers? I take it that you do know what the word temporary means?

The Scottish Parliament can hold a non binding referendum on anything they want to for that referendum to affect the make up of the United Kingdom, the country that we presently all live in then the referendum must be sanctioned by the Queen and her Parliament in Westminster.

"The precedents were set with the acceptance first that Northern Ireland can leave whenever it wants" - Complete and utter twaddle Allan C and you know it. The arrangement with Northern Ireland would be a call for a referendum that would then have to be agreed to with Westminster. There would then be consultations between Stormont, Westminster and Dublin and the options on the referendum paper would be agreed (Likely options would be - 1: Remain as part of the UK; 2: Unite with the Republic of Ireland; 2: Full independence). Should the vote go for unification with the Republic of Ireland then a referendum has to take place in the Republic of Ireland to establish that it is the will of the people there for the union to take place - it is not just up to the electorate or the Assembly in Northern Ireland as you seem to imagine, not by a long shot.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 10:58 AM

Terribulus doesn't understand reality though Allan.

Try not to make the mistake of answering his infernal questions either. He responds with claiming you didn't (on other threads normally) and then he cherry picks what you say to make himself look clever. Snag is, most think he looks like a one legged bloke at an arse kicking contest.

You are right. The agreement for the terms of the referendum set a precedent that could use the Supreme Court to uphold a mandated Scottish government and their right to referendum.

That's why I was concerned that it could lead to neverendum territory.

The historical crap Terribulus is stating is irrelevant and forms no viable precedent should Westminster and Edinburgh have conflicting mandates.

That said. Scotland rejected independence and barring fundamental changes to The UK such as Tory suicidal EU exit, am argument could be made to The Supreme Court that nothing has altered since the last one. SNP look like forming the next Scottish Parish Pump Committee and as we and all their supporters know, they are committed to The EU.

Hey Ho.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 11:10 AM

Teribus it is absurd to suggest that because a vote was made once then there can never be another vote again. That isn't how it works. If it did work like that then we wouldn't even have a devolved parliament as the first devolution referendum was lost. The point is that the people of Scotland will decide whether there should be another vote or not. I tend to agree with Musket that for there to be another one, at least in the short/medium term, then there would need to be some real upheaval going on. So one scenario might be if a Tory/UKIP backed gvt seemed to be heading for the European exit door. I suspect that Scotland would then ask itself what it should do.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 02:58 PM

"it is absurd to suggest that because a vote was made once then there can never be another vote again"

And could you point out Allan C where on earth I have EVER said that?

"The point is that the people of Scotland will decide whether there should be another vote or not."

The "people" of Scotland will decide no such thing just as in the recent Independence referendum the "people" of Scotland decided nothing. It was and will be the electorate of Scotland that can decide if they want a referendum, but that should itself be decided by referendum that could be organised by the Scottish Parliament (Simple question: Do you want a referendum on Independence YES or NO) - not simply because it appears in one political party manifesto which 21% of the electorate sign up to and agree with. Should the electorate of Scotland decide that they want a referendum on independence then the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament will agree the terms under which the referendum will be conducted - just as they did the last time.

Musktwat may witter on about the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court does not trump Parliamentary Sovereignty ("The legislative body has absolute sovereignty, and is supreme over all other government institutions, including executive or judicial bodies").

The rest is pure waffle, partly convincing waffle but waffle nonetheless. Fact remains if you want to hold a binding referendum in the UK on any subject then that referendum has to be agreed to and sanctioned by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and that sits in Westminster.

Remind me again Musktwat/Allan Conn how many times has Westminster pulled the rug on the Northern Ireland Assembly?

"one scenario might be if a Tory/UKIP backed gvt seemed to be heading for the European exit door."

If memory serves me correctly, for the UK to leave the EU there has to be a referendum on it. So all any political party in power can do is put it to the electorate of the United Kingdom, so while a British Government may want to leave UK - they won't decide it. Should the electorate of the UK decide that the UK should leave the EU then that would happen within two years of a Government representative giving notice of our intention to quit, in which time the electorate of Scotland can press for whatever they like, but in that case they would be irrespective of what the SNP might tell the Scottish voters:
1. Outside the EU
2. Forced to create their own currency

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 02:58 PM

On a slightly less serious note, but still relevant on an old fogeys forum like this, has politics got far nastier in the last few years or am I looking through rose tinted beer goggles? I am sure I don't remember the amount of name calling, dirty tricks and outright lying that goes on now back in the 70's. When did it start? Or has it always been there?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 06:15 PM

Well , I'm voting SNP as I believe in Scottish Independence, but I am firmly against SNP policy on the EU,(to remain a member).

The slogan "prosperity through equality" looks pretty meaningless in the present circumstances. I think many of these soundbites and half baked policies are simply to placate a slavering media...at least I hope so.
I simply do not see the point of leaving one dysfunctional Union to join another. I do not think we can ever be truly Independent when we are unable to control our own borders and make our own laws and regulations.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 07:07 PM

This is getting silly. We should have a referendum to decide if we want a referendum!!! I'm not sure that is right so why not have a referendum to decide whether we should have a referendum to see if we want a referendum?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,.gable
Date: 09 Apr 15 - 11:06 PM

It appears GB has become a puppet.

"GOOD FIGHT LAD" had many brillant videos.

Can anyone give a reference link?

(Less than 12 hours and an upper thread on MUSIC deregulation was closed ... mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=156919&messages=10)

By the pricking of my thumbs...something wicked this way comes.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 03:05 AM

So Akenaton is voting for a party with no policies or ideals he likes. Typical.

Terribulus. The Supreme Court cannot strike down primary legislation. However, the subject matter here is their right to strike down process and interpretation. We don't live in the right wing dictatorship of your dreams and the judiciary judge whether the will of Parliament is being followed through due process.

To make it otherwise would require fresh primary legislation that identifies what it repeals or clarifies.

Anyway. Three mind before I can pre order my Apple Watch. Bye

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 03:24 AM

GUEST,Allan Conn - 09 Apr 15 - 07:07 PM

This is getting silly. We should have a referendum to decide if we want a referendum!!!

Silly?? Not at all Allan C. The recent referendum and the run up to it did immense harm to both Scotland and to the UK in general. What drove the referendum was the manifesto promise of the SNP, first in 2007 and again in 2011. The electorate of Scotland number some 4.3 million people the population of Scotland over 5 million. Only 69 people in Scotland forced that harmful referendum on the country and those 69 people only had the support of less than 21% of the electorate of Scotland.

At the next Scottish Parliamentary Election every single ballot paper should have a question added to it - "Do you wish for a Referendum on Scottish Independence to be held during the term of the next Parliament - YES or NO"

That way Allan Conn everyone who votes will be canvassed and the country will clearly be able to demonstrate the wishes of the electorate - too democratic for you?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 04:24 AM

In the opinion polls in the run up to the referendum a sizeable majority of Scots (whether they were Yes or No supporters is irrelevant) supported that there should be a referendum. There is no evidence that it was only wanted by a small minority. It may not have been top priority for many Scots but there was not a majority against the principle of having it.

The SNP made it clear in their manifesto for the last Holyrood election that they were standing on the platform of holding said referendum and they received (in a 4 major party system) a massive 45.4% of the constituency vote and 44% of the regional list vote - so in a parliament with a voting system designed to help avoid majorities they for the first time in the parliament's history actually got a majority. Yes it is disappointing when turnouts are low but just as in the UK elections many people choose to disenfranchise themselves voluntarily. There was a clear mandate and it is only sore losers who'd suggest otherwise. People who don't vote don't vote. That is our democracy!!

As to whether there is another referendum then again the polls still show that most Scots want one at some point. One example being the Daily Record poll in Feb where 80% of Scots think there should be another vote at some point and 59% believe it should be within the next 10 years. There is a strong vocal minority (about 20% sometimes around 25%) opposed to it on principle but there you go we don't always get what we want! That is life.

The facts are that the way Scottish and the wider British electoral system works is that you vote for parties based on their manifestos and if they obtain a majority then they are then in the position to take said manifestos forward. We do not also litter general election ballot papers with individual issues.

And just to let the non-Scots know what this is about. Sturgeon hasn't even said that there will be the promise of another referendum in their 2016 manifesto - despite what some of the London based papers claim. During the leader's debate in Scotland the issue of independence came up and Sturgeon pointed out that while she supports independence this election is not about independence but about issues in general and that the issue of independence will not be in the election manifesto. The other leaders then tried to get her to make a guarantee that there would be no referendum promised in the next election for the Scottish parliament. Something which they of course knew full well she wouldn't and couldn't do. Future SNP manifestos will be written by the SNP party hierarchy and not by Jim Murphy and Ruth Davidson on live TV. She then said that there could be a referendum promise in the 2016 Holyrood manifesto if there was some major change like Scotland being withdrawn from the EU against its wishes. All hypothetical - all nothing to do with this forthcoming vote - and something that they would need to gain acceptance for from the Scottish electorate at said time anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 05:43 AM

"In the opinion polls in the run up to the referendum a sizeable majority of Scots (whether they were Yes or No supporters is irrelevant) supported that there should be a referendum."

"In the run up"?? Here is how it stood at the time that the UK Government offered to legislate to provide the Scottish Parliament with the powers to hold a referendum, providing it was "fair, legal and decisive":

"What Scotland Thinks Poll" - 15th January 2012
Question: Do you support or oppose holding a referendum on Scottish Independence?

Refused to answer = 0%
Don't know = 18%
I support holding a referendum on independence = 35%
I oppose holding such a referendum = 47%

There is the evidence that it was only wanted by a minority.

"What Scotland thinks Poll" - 18th December 2014
Question: When, if ever, do you think there should be another referendum on Scottish independence?

Don't know = 6%
Immediately = 13%
After 2024 = 14%
Between 20019 & 2024 = 18%
Before 2019 = 22%
Never = 26%

There is the evidence that another referendum on independence immediately, or in the term of the next Scottish Parliament is only wanted by a minority - and guess what? That minority polled in December 2014 would appear to be exactly the same percentage (35%) of those polled as wanted a referendum in the first place in January 2012.

There was a clear mandate and it is only sore losers who'd suggest otherwise. People who don't vote don't vote. That is our democracy!!

And the resultant vote in the referendum for for Scottish Independence was? Out of 3,619,915 valid votes cast 2,001,926 voted NO and 1,617,989 voted YES - sore losers? That is our democracy, yet neither the SNP or the YES campaign supporters seem to accept the declared will of the electorate of Scotland. So if there is "a strong vocal minority (about 26%) opposed to it on principle" who have to accept it because that is life, then the same must be true of the other strong vocal minority (about 35%) who are demanding that a referendum be held with the term of the next Scottish Parliament - TRUE?

"the way Scottish and the wider British electoral system works is that" minority interests and issues can be forced through and imposed on the majority without their approval.

" We do not also litter general election ballot papers with individual issues."

Oh I think that it has been done before and in cases as important as this I think that it should be standard operating procedure. Then everybody knows where we stand and we do not waste valuable time, money and resources by imposing unnecessary, bitter, divisive and damaging referenda on the country.

Your next bit is contradictory. What is that Sturgeon has actually said? One minute you say that she says that there will be no promise of another referendum in their 2016 manifesto - then she says there will be?

She cleverly talks about the next election which of course are UK National General Elections where of course there will be no mention of Scottish Independence, she and the entire SNP would be complete and utter idiots mentioning another referendum in the manifesto for that election - "Come on vote for us we intend to break up the United Kingdom" - it advertises a recipe for disaster after the country (Scotland) has rejected the notion.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 06:59 AM

Says it far better than I can.

Milliband has had sex!

What was I saying about dirty tricks? This is getting beyond ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 07:13 AM

If we must be fucked by politicians then at least make sure they know how to fuck you...

What makes me concerned about ironic articles is that as we see on this thread, some people would take them at face value. The sources of Terribulus's cut & pastes rely on the fact...

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 07:42 AM

:-D

I just noticed the line In all good conscience, I cannot vote for a man who has ever been capable of maintaining an erection.

Who is going to do the non-pc Chinese joke then?

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 08:00 AM

Ah yes Musktwat but I check my facts and I do not only rely on single sources - It's called paying attention to detail, which is to you a foreign land.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Musket
Date: 10 Apr 15 - 11:32 AM

Daily Ma*l, Daily Torygraph, UKIP website, Sky News, Fox News UK desk....

Most of us use a single source though, intelligent opinion reached by us for us, having assessed sufficient information.

The hint here is how Terribulus and Keith A Hole of Hertford insist you provide a link to the source of your opinion.

Through my ear hole I presume....

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 05:59 AM

Something I would definitely pay to see.

Subject: RE: BS: voting? (UK)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Apr 15 - 11:48 AM

You do not need to source your opinions Musket, only things you state as fact.

You state and assert things as fact when you have just made them up, then object when asked to verify because you can't.