Seil Chat

NickB wrote:

Maggie wrote: Yesterday's disgrace in Edinburgh was a sad day for Nationalist politics.

I stand by my opinion.

He was left stranded in the middle of Edinburgh’s Royal Mile, surrounded by around 50 nationalists and socialists calling him a racist, demanding that he: “Go home to England”.

The Ukip leader subsequently spoke to BBC Radio Four's Today programme, repeating his view that the "hate mob" who intimidated him were "fascist scum" and "filled with total and utter hatred of the English".

He linked their views to the Scottish National Party led by Alex Salmond, the First Minister, and challenged him to "condemn this sort of behaviour".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... h-pub.html

If you seek to applaud that sort of thugish and undemocratic behaviour by a mob of " 50 nationalists and socialists " that's your prerogative but at least explain the presence of the Yes Scotland banner clearly visible on the news reports, being carried by the thugs.

Nick

revolting 'politics'

What are UKIP's revolting 'politics'?

Pentlandpirate wrote: What are UKIP's revolting 'politics'?

I think you can find their policies on their website - but I thought you were a fan and knew what UKIP stood for already.

They are anaethema in Scotland. In the 2012 Scottish council elections UKIP secured 0.28 per cent of first preference votes.

UKIP was only formed in 1993. It's influence is spreading from the south and is now only just reaching Scotland. It is growing faster than any other mainstream party in the UK. They are on the rise, and they are taking voters from every other party.

So what is revolting about UKIP politics??? Are we talking same sex marriage here?

Pentlandpirate wrote:UKIP was only formed in 1993. It's influence is spreading from the south and is now only just reaching Scotland. It is growing faster than any other mainstream party in the UK. They are on the rise, and they are taking voters from every other party.

It must be clear from my first post that I support UKIP, in particular because UKIP believe that decisions about Britain are best made by the people who live here.

Well there's a lot of slanging going on here.
In the interests of coming to the defence of the EU - which nobody seems to have taken on board - here is a historical perspective.
Since man stopped living in caves he has indulged in genocide in furtherance of Tribe, religion, or territory - and it continues to this day - details available on request.
In the past these activities - particularly relating to territory have been under the heading of Empires - Roman, Ottoman, Austro Hungarian, British, to name just but a few.
All empires were ruled by oppressors who enforced order by force, and all disintegrated because of rebellion from within, or an inability to continue enforcement. It is a sad state of affairs that in many cases of getting independance the breakaway state has deteriorated - Uganda, Rwanda, Congo, Somalia, just to mention a few.
After Adolf Hitler's most recent attempt to build a new empire by force, failed (along with the Japanese attempt to do the same thing in the Orient it is clear that force is not the way to go about things.
As opposed to this method of consolidation, and working on the principle that "United we stand - Divided we Fall" we have the US example where after an early civil war they have states subservient to Washington and have even accepted outsiders -Hawaii and Puerto Rico into the fold.
Coming now to the EU - we have a new attempt at Empire building not by force but by common interest and democratic negotiation. This attempt, which makes a radical change from the use of force is worthy of a bit of support as tribe, religion and territory will not resuly in genocide or war within it's ranks.
And it is also worth noting that this new Empire has candidates queueing up to join without any coercion, and in the case of malcontents like some of these posters, one can resign without having to resort to military action.
There will always be discontented people who feel that the grass is greener in the other field but this can be illusory as the inhabitants of Zimbabwe have found to their cost.
If mankind is to survive without annihilating itself then the EU is a step in the right direction.

Maggie wrote:
It must be clear from my first post that I support UKIP, in particular because UKIP believe that decisions about Britain are best made by the people who live here.

Aye, and decisions about Scotland are best made by people who live in Scotland.

Aye, and decisions about Scotland are best made by people who live in Scotland

Well, you better vote to be out of the EU too if that's the way you feel.

Much of Westminster rule is in fact EU rule. Except the UK Union on its own is less oppressive than the European Union. Indeed, go right back to the beginning of this thread and see what Maggie said. And no one, so far, has said she is wrong.

Tony the Toad wrote:

Maggie wrote:
It must be clear from my first post that I support UKIP, in particular because UKIP believe that decisions about Britain are best made by the people who live here.

Aye, and decisions about Scotland are best made by people who live in Scotland.

I'm sure you believe that. Salmond certainly does and I do to.

So why the overwhelming desire of the SNP to be in the European Union and be in a situation whereby decisions about Scotland are made by people who live in Brussels, Strasbourg and most particularly in Berlin ?

Scotland has/will have six seats in the 754 seat European Parliament......a much, much lower representation than we have in Westminster.

No-one here has given one good reason why we should be in the EU, neither has Salmond.

mags
x

jimcee wrote:Well there's a lot of slanging going on here.
In the interests of coming to the defence of the EU - which nobody seems to have taken on board - here is a historical perspective.
Since man stopped living in caves he has indulged in genocide in furtherance of Tribe, religion, or territory - and it continues to this day - details available on request.
In the past these activities - particularly relating to territory have been under the heading of Empires - Roman, Ottoman, Austro Hungarian, British, to name just but a few.
All empires were ruled by oppressors who enforced order by force, and all disintegrated because of rebellion from within, or an inability to continue enforcement. It is a sad state of affairs that in many cases of getting independance the breakaway state has deteriorated - Uganda, Rwanda, Congo, Somalia, just to mention a few.
After Adolf Hitler's most recent attempt to build a new empire by force, failed (along with the Japanese attempt to do the same thing in the Orient it is clear that force is not the way to go about things.
As opposed to this method of consolidation, and working on the principle that "United we stand - Divided we Fall" we have the US example where after an early civil war they have states subservient to Washington and have even accepted outsiders -Hawaii and Puerto Rico into the fold.
Coming now to the EU - we have a new attempt at Empire building not by force but by common interest and democratic negotiation. This attempt, which makes a radical change from the use of force is worthy of a bit of support as tribe, religion and territory will not resuly in genocide or war within it's ranks.
And it is also worth noting that this new Empire has candidates queueing up to join without any coercion, and in the case of malcontents like some of these posters, one can resign without having to resort to military action.
There will always be discontented people who feel that the grass is greener in the other field but this can be illusory as the inhabitants of Zimbabwe have found to their cost.
If mankind is to survive without annihilating itself then the EU is a step in the right direction.

At last !

Someone attempts to present a positive case for being in the European Union......no European wars since its inception. Yes. I agree.

You've also, maybe inadvertently, made a case for being in the United Kingdom too.

Prior to The Act of Union wars were very common in Britain between England and Scotland. Since the Act of Union there has not been one. So; like the EU the UK has brought peace to previously warring countries. Now, that sounds like a reason for staying in the UK.

mags
x

Quite right - that is my current opinion.
The human condition is never perfect.
Everyone has niggles about the current regime.
And almost everyone feels that they could do better if they were in charge.
We are currently under the thumb of Argyll & Bute.
They have to toe the line with the dictats of the Scottish Parliament.
They in turn have to follow the Westminster line on a lot of things.
And even they have to bow to the pronouncements of Brussels.
All these intermediate beaurocrats making a living out of our taxes, and telling us what to do, and living handsomely on the proceeds.
I, personally would cut out both Holyrood and Westminster from the equation, and leave our representatives in Kilmory and Brussels to sort out things on our behalf.
Although both these institutions are open to corruption, but I think that politics will never be a completely honest as a profession.
But at least we still have a vote.

And of course it's worth pointing out that the country that the Yes Campaigners state that Scotland has more in common with than any other, Norway, IS NOT a member of the EU.

The Yes Campaigners thinking sounds extremely muddled on almost every aspect of independence you look at. They really haven't thought this through.

Pentlandpirate wrote:The Yes Campaigners thinking sounds extremely muddled on almost every aspect of independence you look at. They really haven't thought this through.

Strange . . . it all makes perfect sense to me.

It is the NO camp who are all over the place. I particularly like Labour setting up its own separate branch of 'Better Together' - how ironic is that?

What do Maggie, Pentland Pirate and Nigel Farage have in Common?

All three are mis-reading the political landscape of Scotland.

Tony the Toad wrote: Maggie....... mis-reading the political landscape of Scotland.

So educate me TtT; here's your chance to swing me from a "maybe not" to a "possibly yes".

All you have to do is make a positive case for the European Union and thus justify the Yes campaign's very strong desire for an independent Scotland to be in the EU.

According to the polls it is Alex Salmond and the Yes Campaign who are misjudging the political landscape in Scotland.

.
The Panelbase poll published today of 1004 people for the Sunday Times and Real Radio Scotland recorded support for independence at 36% when it asked "should Scotland be an independent country?". Meanwhile, 44% answered no, and a further 20% said they did not know.

More interestingly, when asked "how would you be likely to vote in next year's Scottish independence referendum if the UK was looking likely to vote to withdraw from the EU?", 44% said they would be likely to vote yes, matched by 44% likely to vote no, while 12% said they did not know.

So it looks as though it is PP and Maggie who have misjudged Scottish feelings over the EU - it might be the critical issue that secures a YES vote.

Quite right,
Personally I would prefer an Independant Scotland in the EU, to a United Kingdom out.
But first choice is UK still in.
So this raises a dilemma for others of the same ilk, as the Independance vote comes first.
However with still nearly 500 days to go before make up mind time, a lot can still happen, and the way it is going here, this thread will still be running then, although viewing numbers seem to have dropped off.

The EU has one very good thing going for it. It is not the USA. Any move to withdraw from the EU would probably mean a movement towards the US, and every time the UK has adopted American strategies, the outcomes tend to be disastrous (e.g. when the US leaned on the UK to harden its attitudes to illegal drugs in early 1970s).

This EU versus USA business.
I find it hard to see the difficulty of UK following US views on hard drugs in 1970s.
Far more damaging was T.Blair being a lapdog to G W. Bush a lot more recently.
But leaving the transatlantic alliance aside, which by the way helped us to thwart A.Hitler's empire building aspirations - something we could never have managed on our own.
The USA is a model of how humanity might just survive the population explosion, which will make terretorial claims more subject to war and genocide.
Here we have a reasonably stable population of independant states all subservient to overall control from Washington, and who have accepted new members applying to join their numbers.
Admittedly in the early days of their amalgamation, they did have a civil war over the subject of slavery, but once that was sorted out, and they accepted the abolition, it is inconceivable that any of the constituent states would opt out of the union.
All is not perfect with the US - gung-ho Presidents, archaic gun laws, a belligerent atitude to international affairs, but it does prove that constituent states can live together harmoniously.
The EU is not perfect either - it is obsessed with trying to harmonise everything, has built a larger beaurocracy, but the fact that other states/nations wish to be part of it (without coercion) would suggest that it is an attractive option.
This is a defence of both the EU and the UK. and it would be interesting to hear of (historically) any country/state which has opted out of an alliance and prospered, more than the former allaince, as a result.