|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 8, 2021 13:10:31 GMT
So, to summarise, little englanders wish to leave a union where they get bossed about, wanting to take back control but little scotchmen are delusional to want the same thing? The point is that the little Scotchmen tell the little Englanders that they are racist for wanting to take back control. And then they behave as racists (their words) by wishing to take back control themselves. They only want to take back control for a short while though, they wish to hand back that control as soon as possible, to a different controller. They wish to do this because of a combination of a/ they are fearful of having control and b/ they have no racist thoughts towards mainland Europeans, because these people didn't soundly defeat them in a war centuries ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 8, 2021 13:23:37 GMT
So, to summarise, little englanders wish to leave a union where they get bossed about, wanting to take back control but little scotchmen are delusional to want the same thing? The point is that the little Scotchmen tell the little Englanders that they are racist for wanting to take back control. And then they behave as racists (their words) by wishing to take back control themselves. They only want to take back control for a short while though, they wish to hand back that control as soon as possible, to a different controller. They wish to do this because of a combination of a/ they are fearful of having control and b/ they have no racist thoughts towards mainland Europeans, because these people didn't soundly defeat them in a war centuries ago. Evidence for these racist statements? I know several North of the border, not heard any such comments from them. It seems you wish to determine their future, why can't they determine their own. Your beliefs and opinions don't come into it. It's not just Scots who find some of the reasons for Brexit xenophobic, other Englishmen feel so too and are ashamed of it. Remember how we were told that the whole populace of Eastern eu countries wanted to come here, in very shrill tones. There is a strong anti migrant tone on the right, despite the evidence that migrants as a whole contribute more to the economy than they cost. |
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 8, 2021 13:41:08 GMT
The point is that the little Scotchmen tell the little Englanders that they are racist for wanting to take back control. And then they behave as racists (their words) by wishing to take back control themselves. They only want to take back control for a short while though, they wish to hand back that control as soon as possible, to a different controller. They wish to do this because of a combination of a/ they are fearful of having control and b/ they have no racist thoughts towards mainland Europeans, because these people didn't soundly defeat them in a war centuries ago. Evidence for these racist statements? I know several North of the border, not heard any such comments from them. It seems you wish to determine their future, why can't they determine their own. Your beliefs and opinions don't come into it. It's not just Scots who find some of the reasons for Brexit xenophobic, other Englishmen feel so too and are ashamed of it. Remember how we were told that the whole populace of Eastern eu countries wanted to come here, in very shrill tones. There is a strong anti migrant tone on the right, despite the evidence that migrants as a whole contribute more to the economy than they cost. There were many accusations amongst remainers, including from north of the border, that it was racist to wish to leave the EU. Go back a decade or so it was even more commonplace. I suppose shouting 'racist' loses it's effect after a while, just like any other phrase that's over and incorrectly used. I agree that it's for the Scots to decide their future, and nothing to do with me. Personally I hope that they get their wish for a second referendum and the answer is 'leave'. I think our Union would be more harmonious without the Scottish. I just hope that when it happens (I think it's inevitable) that the remaining members of the Union fight very hard to ensure that the very favourable terms Scotland receive from Westminster are ended forthwith, that there's no question that the Union should continue any of this, in any form. Also, that they take their full share of the national debt with them in their new adventure. If that's the case I'll wish them well and hope for a new, harmonious relationship between the two countries. Something tells me that's unlikely though, and it won't be as a result of the behaviour of the British. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 8, 2021 14:08:20 GMT
migrants as a whole contribute more to the economy than they cost. I thought there were protests about slavery, yet you seem to think this cheap labour and working under appalling conditions is a good thing? If only you had a statue, Black Lives Matter folk would want to topple it! Migrants only having value if they contribute more than they cost.... disgusting. Now, let's say Scotland became 'independent' ... would the 'English' people living there have to apply for residence and work permits? Would 'English' pensioners in Scotland be entitled to Scottish health services and free bus passes? What would the Scottish peoples eat apart from thistles and haggis? ha, the usual reverse mirrored twisted thinking, as you readily agreed. One of the reasons for not allowing migrants is that they cost us. It isn't true. Its a positive thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 8, 2021 14:10:51 GMT
Evidence for these racist statements? I know several North of the border, not heard any such comments from them. It seems you wish to determine their future, why can't they determine their own. Your beliefs and opinions don't come into it. It's not just Scots who find some of the reasons for Brexit xenophobic, other Englishmen feel so too and are ashamed of it. Remember how we were told that the whole populace of Eastern eu countries wanted to come here, in very shrill tones. There is a strong anti migrant tone on the right, despite the evidence that migrants as a whole contribute more to the economy than they cost. There were many accusations amongst remainers, including from north of the border, that it was racist to wish to leave the EU. Go back a decade or so it was even more commonplace. I suppose shouting 'racist' loses it's effect after a while, just like any other phrase that's over and incorrectly used. I agree that it's for the Scots to decide their future, and nothing to do with me. Personally I hope that they get their wish for a second referendum and the answer is 'leave'. I think our Union would be more harmonious without the Scottish. I just hope that when it happens (I think it's inevitable) that the remaining members of the Union fight very hard to ensure that the very favourable terms Scotland receive from Westminster are ended forthwith, that there's no question that the Union should continue any of this, in any form. Also, that they take their full share of the national debt with them in their new adventure. If that's the case I'll wish them well and hope for a new, harmonious relationship between the two countries. Something tells me that's unlikely though, and it won't be as a result of the behaviour of the British. Same twisted thinking as naughtyfox, no, remainer's claim that some of the reasons Quitlings wished to quit for were racist. A subtle difference. |
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 8, 2021 15:48:11 GMT
There were many accusations amongst remainers, including from north of the border, that it was racist to wish to leave the EU. Go back a decade or so it was even more commonplace. I suppose shouting 'racist' loses it's effect after a while, just like any other phrase that's over and incorrectly used. I agree that it's for the Scots to decide their future, and nothing to do with me. Personally I hope that they get their wish for a second referendum and the answer is 'leave'. I think our Union would be more harmonious without the Scottish. I just hope that when it happens (I think it's inevitable) that the remaining members of the Union fight very hard to ensure that the very favourable terms Scotland receive from Westminster are ended forthwith, that there's no question that the Union should continue any of this, in any form. Also, that they take their full share of the national debt with them in their new adventure. If that's the case I'll wish them well and hope for a new, harmonious relationship between the two countries. Something tells me that's unlikely though, and it won't be as a result of the behaviour of the British. Same twisted thinking as naughtyfox , no, remainer's claim that some of the reasons Quitlings wished to quit for were racist. A subtle difference. As for the claim that migrants contribute more than they cost (as if money is the only thing that matters): I've read the entire study and associated report that was conducted by Oxford financial boffins. The report is disingenuous; clearly written with the prior intention of giving the results that they did. Yes, if a migrant earns a high salary they will indeed contribute more than the cost of them being here. £30K p.a. is the generally accepted figure. Given that a large percentage of migrants from the newer EU states earn less than this i.e., the minimum wage, it's difficult to understand how this was concluded. Given that the government spends an average of £11K p.a. on every man, woman and child in Britain it's a struggle to comprehend how someone earning the minimum wage, £16.5K and paying only £2K in tax and national insurance might provide a 'profit' for the exchequer. Even more so when a high proportion of workers on said wage are entitled to benefits, sometimes substantial ones. An example we might state by applying the report from Oxford: British person earning £25K: loss to the exchequer Polish person earning £16.5K: profit to the exchequer Doesn't seem right does it? There's nothing wrong with the report on the face of things. However if you look a bit deeper you'll see a series of assumptions are made. Allocating the costs of society isn't simple, it's not a precise science, there's certain openness to opinion. There are many grey areas. A decision was made as regards each of these areas and reasoning given. A different decision could have been made and the reasoning for this would have been plausible, as was the reasoning Oxford used. If you care to read the report and examine all the grey areas you'll see that each and every decision made (there are many) favours the outcome for migrants. The cumulative effect of all these things gives a slewed result that bears little resemblance to what might seem reasonable reality. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 8, 2021 16:27:52 GMT
Same twisted thinking as naughtyfox , no, remainer's claim that some of the reasons Quitlings wished to quit for were racist. A subtle difference. As for the claim that migrants contribute more than they cost (as if money is the only thing that matters): I've read the entire study and associated report that was conducted by Oxford financial boffins. The report is disingenuous; clearly written with the prior intention of giving the results that they did. Yes, if a migrant earns a high salary they will indeed contribute more than the cost of them being here. £30K p.a. is the generally accepted figure. Given that a large percentage of migrants from the newer EU states earn less than this i.e., the minimum wage, it's difficult to understand how this was concluded. Given that the government spends an average of £11K p.a. on every man, woman and child in Britain it's a struggle to comprehend how someone earning the minimum wage, £16.5K and paying only £2K in tax and national insurance might provide a 'profit' for the exchequer. Even more so when a high proportion of workers on said wage are entitled to benefits, sometimes substantial ones. An example we might state by applying the report from Oxford: British person earning £25K: loss to the exchequer Polish person earning £16.5K: profit to the exchequer Doesn't seem right does it? There's nothing wrong with the report on the face of things. However if you look a bit deeper you'll see a series of assumptions are made. Allocating the costs of society isn't simple, it's not a precise science, there's certain openness to opinion. There are many grey areas. A decision was made as regards each of these areas and reasoning given. A different decision could have been made and the reasoning for this would have been plausible, as was the reasoning Oxford used. If you care to read the report and examine all the grey areas you'll see that each and every decision made (there are many) favours the outcome for migrants. The cumulative effect of all these things gives a slewed result that bears little resemblance to what might seem reasonable reality. It's your interpretation that leads you to say its biased, because it doesn't back up the outcome you might prefer. What proof do you have that it isn't objective. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Mar 8, 2021 16:36:32 GMT
most of it  No really, which bit is of the greatest irony as you see it? Most of world history since about 113AD with particular emphasis on Northwestern Europe
I started with a long post answering Jim ..... but 5 lines in, decided I realised that I just couldn't be arsed. Jim never takes any notice of logic, so the whole excercise would be pointless
I refer you to the post from Bedruthen .... quote "Yawn"
|
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Mar 8, 2021 16:42:12 GMT
As for the claim that migrants contribute more than they cost (as if money is the only thing that matters): I've read the entire study and associated report that was conducted by Oxford financial boffins. The report is disingenuous; clearly written with the prior intention of giving the results that they did. Yes, if a migrant earns a high salary they will indeed contribute more than the cost of them being here. £30K p.a. is the generally accepted figure. Given that a large percentage of migrants from the newer EU states earn less than this i.e., the minimum wage, it's difficult to understand how this was concluded. Given that the government spends an average of £11K p.a. on every man, woman and child in Britain it's a struggle to comprehend how someone earning the minimum wage, £16.5K and paying only £2K in tax and national insurance might provide a 'profit' for the exchequer. Even more so when a high proportion of workers on said wage are entitled to benefits, sometimes substantial ones. An example we might state by applying the report from Oxford: British person earning £25K: loss to the exchequer Polish person earning £16.5K: profit to the exchequer Doesn't seem right does it? There's nothing wrong with the report on the face of things. However if you look a bit deeper you'll see a series of assumptions are made. Allocating the costs of society isn't simple, it's not a precise science, there's certain openness to opinion. There are many grey areas. A decision was made as regards each of these areas and reasoning given. A different decision could have been made and the reasoning for this would have been plausible, as was the reasoning Oxford used. If you care to read the report and examine all the grey areas you'll see that each and every decision made (there are many) favours the outcome for migrants. The cumulative effect of all these things gives a slewed result that bears little resemblance to what might seem reasonable reality. It's your interpretation that leads you to say its biased, because it doesn't back up the outcome you might prefer. What proof do you have that it isn't objective. As |I said, I read the whole study. How do you appropriate the cost of for example, education or defense? There's more than one choice, and these different choices could all be explained in a way that appears reasonable. But when the 'reasonableness' is always applied in a certain way i.e. always lessening costs attributed to migrants, increasing those attributed to British people, you start to smell a rat. The rat was revealed in the example I gave earlier. It's quite obvious to any reasonable person that someone earning £25K is better for Britain's finances than someone on minimum wage but this is the opposite of what the boffins at Oxford claim. This, and doubtless other similar disingenuous information given out to people probably led to the growing culture of 'doubt of experts'. And rightly so. |
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Mar 8, 2021 19:36:33 GMT
Well the Scots don't want to rule themselves. The question at their referendum was
"Should Scotland be an independent country?"
Which they voted no.
They also voted to remain in the E.U.
The majority voters don't want their own government in full controll.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 9, 2021 8:20:50 GMT
ha, the usual reverse mirrored twisted thinking, as you readily agreed. One of the reasons for not allowing migrants is that they cost us. It isn't true. Its a positive thing. "Jim Hands in Pockets Garden Gnome likes to take things slow. Instead of toiling all day at garden tasks Jim loves to stroll through the fields and forests stopping to smell the flowers and enjoy the scenery. As he appreciates the beauty of nature hands stuffed in his pockets this thoughtful gnome ponders the meaning of it all. Add Jim to your landscape where he'll remind you to take a break from your busy life. This Woodland Garden Gnome is made of UV-protected polyresin crafted from pulverized marble and polymers that will endure the elements year after year. The liquid material is hand-poured into a cast and then hand-painted with colorful life-like details. Your large gnome ships in a collectible gift box which tells the unique story of your gnome in seven languages." I'm afraid I'd resemble the garden gnome at Rawlinson End. I wonder who gets the reference without googling. |
|
