zurich_allan Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 (edited) Oh, and why I don't have enough hours in the day to explain - I simply can't discuss in a couple of posts on a thread, what between ordinary and advanced EU lessons takes me a block of 24 three hour classes to teach. Edited January 22, 2014 by zurich_allan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 zurich allan - that's Norway to speak to oaksoft! Apologise. Now! My EU field of expertise is in making shite gags on a forum. Might not be much, but I keep practicing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 I'm sorry but that is scoring a 10 on the Oaksoft Pomposity Scale. Hilarious stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 (edited) That's fine Oaksoft, you can call it pompous if you like, nonsense like that doesn't bother me. Let me put it this way. I don't comment on every single aspect of the independence debate unlike many people who seem to think that they know everything about every area (now THAT'S pompous and unrealistic). I comment on the ones that I have direct knowledge or experience of, and especially with the EU issue, comment based on facts that I have learned and researched over the 7 years I have been lecturing in EU law and advanced EU law, as well as a number of other linked areas. For several months of the year I am actively involved in this subject area 2-3 days of the week. Likewise, I have no agenda - I foster independent, critical thought in young adults every day of term. Look back at my EU related posts over the past couple of pages where I don't paint a picture heavily one way or the other. I don't know precisely what area of science it is that you are involved in, but I bet if somebody who knows a limited amount about the area, say from reading a few books, maybe a few websites etc. begins to engage you in a debate about issues in your field in which you are educated and experienced, and you know they are dead wrong, you would either correct them, or at the least, roll your eyes once they have left. Armchair experts are so common these days, however I will continue to correct inaccuracies related to MY areas of expertise because it is the right thing to do to enable people to make a correct and balanced choice related to those areas. Deary me. Interesting question about science though. The area of scientific research I work in is irrelevant to this discussion but as an example, as you are probably well aware, everyone thinks they are a climate scientist and feel free to talk about global warming as through they actually know what they are talking about. Most of them are thick as mince. Doesn't stop them having their say though. And neither it should. Experts are prone to being so far up their own arses that they completely miss the bigger picture. A classic example would probably be the fact that most scientists are unwilling to absolutely categorically take a position on something like the root cause of global warming for example until irrefutable evidence emerges - a smoking gun as we refer to it. That is very commendable. HOWEVER, if they happen to be correct that it's man made warming then relying on their opinion to wait for that smoking gun is probably a bad idea because it may then be too late to fix the problem. Hence we invest NOW in renewable energy, carbon capture etc because as non-experts we FEEL it's the right way to do things. That is a classic example of political reality and pragmatism overtaking the views of subject experts. Of course many scientists now will happily talk about man made being the root but that wasn't always the case. Building the new Forth Road Bridge before we knew if it was actually starting to fail structurally was another great example. Turns out the current bridge is fine but the original decision making process was sound because if it HAD turned out to be a defective bridge, there may not have been time to fix it. Again non-expert politicians jumped in and made a decision without waiting on absolute expert confirmation. IMO that is very much how I see the EU debate. You talk about the benefits or otherwise from a position of knowledge BUT you fail to address the reasonable political points about fishing rights being lost to the Spaniards, the throwing out of a founding member and a range of other practical issues which have nothing to do with law. IMO you are disappearing down a pit on the legal side and missing the bigger picture which will be resolved by politicians not lawyers. As an aside, another practical reality is that UK voters will make a decision in 2017 or whenever which will be based on little more than feck all knowledge. From my perspective, this disagreement between us boils down to the difference between the hard and fast legal position of the EU picture (which I'm not in a position to debate) and the likely pragmatic political solution which will follow independence should it occur (which I very much am in a position to have a say over). BTW I take issue with equating expertise in law and expertise in science - no way are they both as important to society as each other - but then I would say that. Edited January 22, 2014 by oaksoft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 What a strange post. You accuse me of lying, but don't give any examples. You then acknowledge that the no campaign had lied in the examples that I gave but you will still vote for them. Strange indeed. Zurich allan, I think you may have found those voters you were posting about. calm down, it's a bit tongue in cheek, as there is no way either side can tell what will happen with the pound and european membership - it's all political posturing by people who only wish to promote themselves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 (edited) calm down, it's a bit tongue in cheek, as there is no way either side can tell what will happen with the pound and european membership - it's all political posturing by people who only wish to promote themselves Zurich Allan will have your balls on a plate for saying that. Edited January 22, 2014 by oaksoft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluto Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 zurich allan - that's Norway to speak to oaksoft! Apologise. Now! My EU field of expertise is in making shite gags on a forum. Might not be much, but I keep practiSing. We all contribute in our humble ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 We all contribute in our humble ways. Respect, my forum friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluto Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 Respect, my forum friend. Have I been whooshed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 Have I been whooshed? No, just respect for cracking crap jokes too. Or puns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bart Simpson Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Having watched only part of the Question Time debate this evening I may have missed this topic being discussed, but having followed this topic on and off for a while now I have a question to ask: Why is it put forward by the BT campaign and the media that leaving a larger union in this modern world of integration is a valid argument when a significant proportion of that very same campaign will argue the polar opposite with regards to EU membership in a few years time? Have I missed something? Is it a case of horses for courses or simply treating people with contempt to suit individual short term goals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Interview with chairman of bae systems in today's sun. He confirms it's business as usual post independence for Govan and Scotstoun. So was it blatant lies, scaremongering or just contempt for the people that they represent that had Iain Davidson, Alistair Carmichael etc telling us that the yards would close and it would be illega to givework to Scotland. Oh dear, another myth debunked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurich_allan Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Interview with chairman of bae systems in today's sun. He confirms it's business as usual post independence for Govan and Scotstoun. So was it blatant lies, scaremongering or just contempt for the people that they represent that had Iain Davidson, Alistair Carmichael etc telling us that the yards would close and it would be illega to givework to Scotland. Oh dear, another myth debunked. Did someone really say that it would be illegal to give MOD work to Scotland post-independence? If they did, they haven't said the whole story. The reality is a little more complex. To explain - The UK government is entitled to classify MOD work as being public sector, and if it did that, it could legally restrict employment in that area to UK nationals only. The key here though is COULD. They also have complete freedom to allow anyone of any nationality to carry out such work. Under the circumstances, I can't see any way that they would be able to stop current contracts or make such a vast number of employees redundant. Any shift of such consequence would have to take place over 10+ years minimum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 The BT people tried to spread that message to makev people think that a Yes vote meant Clyde shipyard closures. It was debunked fairly quickly but strangely the debunking didn't get quite the same headlines. MoD work is already abroad is the debunking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 (edited) Did someone really say that it would be illegal to give MOD work to Scotland post-independence? If they did, they haven't said the whole story. The reality is a little more complex. To explain - The UK government is entitled to classify MOD work as being public sector, and if it did that, it could legally restrict employment in that area to UK nationals only. The key here though is COULD. They also have complete freedom to allow anyone of any nationality to carry out such work. Under the circumstances, I can't see any way that they would be able to stop current contracts or make such a vast number of employees redundant. Any shift of such consequence would have to take place over 10+ years minimum. Yes, John Robertson labour Mp, tweeted it and the other two I mentioned were amongst others saying that legally it couldn't be done. Davidson, who represents Glasgow also wanted a clause in the contract so that work could be moved to England in the event of a yes vote. Edited January 24, 2014 by TPAFKATS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 The BT people tried to spread that message to makev people think that a Yes vote meant Clyde shipyard closures. It was debunked fairly quickly but strangely the debunking didn't get quite the same headlines. MoD work is already abroad is the debunking. I thought south Korea was next to Dorset? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 http://politicoid.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/scottish-independence-for-the-common-man/ ^^^^^^This^^^^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluto Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) http://politicoid.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/scottish-independence-for-the-common-man/^^^^^^This^^^^^It's a bit nutty, with unnecessary sweary words. Disappointing cos I was looking for debate and balance.Like this thread, it's full of Yes posters, as you might expect. It's not all that interesting to anyone else... apart from the Dixons of this world. (I've done you a favour, salmonbuddie. Now more folk'll click the link. ) Edited January 25, 2014 by bluto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) Nutty? And "the common man" in the title implies you'll get some sweary bits. Notwithstanding, it's the argument I've been making for long enough now - the culture here is different to that espoused by Westminster. I know that there are many parts of England with similar views but we in Scotland have the means to do something about it, they don't. Edited for autocorrect. Edited January 25, 2014 by salmonbuddie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) Sorry, double post trying to fix the autocorrect. Edited January 25, 2014 by salmonbuddie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluto Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) Sorry, double post trying to fix the autocorrect. Hah! Double-post,my arse. You'd initially provided a balance with reasons to vote "Naw", so you deleted them. Edited January 25, 2014 by bluto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 http://politicoid.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/scottish-independence-for-the-common-man/ ^^^^^^This^^^^^ poor language and a strangely one sided commentary from a self proclaimed "undecided" voter, ads for yes campaign included ? = it's a yes campaigner telling lies about being undecided Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickMcD Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 It's a bit nutty, with unnecessary sweary words. Disappointing cos I was looking for debate and balance. Like this thread, it's full of Yes posters, as you might expect. It's not all that interesting to anyone else... apart from the Dixons of this world. (I've done you a favour, salmonbuddie. Now more folk'll click the link. ) I'm one that clicked the link only after I saw your input, Bluto. I don't really need to read any more of Salmonbuddie's posts to get his drift! Reading the Politicoid article the bit that leapt out at me was 'We (Scots?) aren't stuck in a mindset that allows only greed as the driving force of economic improvement'. Total cant. (I typed that carefully) I added the Scots? because I'm not sure who he means. Having said he'd had a complete turnaround in his views, I hope he is honest enough that many Scots may not have that greed mindset, but it certainly doesn't apply to the Yes camp. It's ALL Scotland's oil, we'll carve up the North Sea and bugger the rest of the UK despite the fact that the Union has served us all reasonably well for over 300 years. It's greed and selfishness to an astonishing degree. I still think that when push comes to shove the 'No' campaign will win but who knows? One advantage the Yes lot have is the significant number of Scots driven by hatred of the English who are prepared to vote yes even it did mean Scotland was to be worse off. Sad people. Most of them claim to be socialists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluto Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 poor language and a strangely one sided commentary from a self proclaimed "undecided" voter, ads for yes campaign included ? = it's a yes campaigner telling lies about being undecided He WAS undecided, he claims, but has NOW come round to the AYEness. That's not unreasonable justification for flooding it with AYE propaganda, surely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted January 25, 2014 Report Share Posted January 25, 2014 I don't personally know a single Yes voter "driven by hatred of the English" Rick, and I'm sure you don't , either. I know of a few sad twats online, but I don't think the number is significant. Or any more significant than the number of No voters who'll move to Wales if there's a Yes vote (you have seen that video, haven't you?). You really need to be careful labelling people like that, you might find yourself being labelled too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.