Jump to content

Davie P

Members
  • Posts

    731
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    63

Posts posted by Davie P

  1. This is a fairly comprehensive list of evidence re: Russian interference / influence on Brexit > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_Brexit_referendum 

    "....the report leaves open the possibility that Moscow-based information operations, especially through social media and Russian state-funded broadcasters like Sputnik and RT—and backed up by targeted support to influential voices within UK politics—may well have been a significant factor. Crucially, the UK Government is accused of making a deliberate effort not to find out how Russian influence may have affected the June 2016 vote." https://www.csis.org/blogs/brexit-bits-bobs-and-blogs/did-russia-influence-brexit

    "the government had reason to suspect a violation of our democratic processes and ignored it. An admission of such a breach would have caused embarrassment" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/21/russian-meddling-brexit-referendum-tories-russia-report-government

     

  2. I feel the same @Wheelsup. In my case it's an instinctive reaction, and having reflected on it, it's because this individual doesn't seem to have an understanding or interest in the nuances of UHA of someone who had grown up in the "Lerwick Up Helly Aa Community" (to quote @Muckle Oxters). UHA is more than an event to many men and women - it's a lifestyle, and a strong part of their identity. By attacking UHA from various 'legal' angles, and trying to play down folks wishes and concerns as sexist, misogynistic and backward, he is likely to do more harm than good to his crusade and is unlikely to win the 'hearts and minds' of the Lerwick Up Helly Aa Community.

    This individual seems to be trying to portray people who do not agree with him as xenophobic or anti-incomer, when most people I know who don't agree with him don't care where he came from - it's his lack of understanding and empathy they resent.

    I only know what he has written in letters, but there also seems to be an element of virtue signalling and wishing to be a knight in shining armour.

    I'm quietly in favour of women's involvement in squads, but it's not my decision, and I agree that the avenues he is pursuing is likely to result in heels being dug in and divisions being strengthened.

  3. Another minor difference: one 'side' is a partnership of independent sovereign democracies who voluntarily cooperate for mutually beneficial economic, social and defence reasons, and the other 'side' isn't.

    And I'd question Ghostrider's assertion that "the end result is little different." The end result for whom, and comparing what?

  4. 4 minutes ago, Ghostrider said:

    Russia has the same paranoid fear of the west as parts of the Continent have of Russia, both with good historic reason. *If* the west had had the good sense to leave the former Soviet satellite nations well alone after the break up, Russia and the West might just have managed to ignore each other as those nations provided a 'no mans land' buffer 'fighting zone' for both sides.

    All Putin is doing right now is taking control of one of them and attempting to create his own 'no mans land' buffer 'fighting zone' to prevent the west via the EU/NATO from making that same nation their own 'no mans land' buffer 'fighting zone' by stealth, right on his own border.

    So the Ukraine, and any other border nation, should just be left as a "'no mans land' buffer 'fighting zone'"?

  5. 10 hours ago, Ghostrider said:

    It wouldn't have happened in the first place had the EU/NATO not been empire building, but there you go.......

    I take it you have very little knowledge of the recent history of the Ukraine, the voting record of Ukrainians on issues such as EU and NATO membership, or even the processes and requirements for joining the EU or NATO. But there you go......

     

    10 hours ago, Ghostrider said:

    The News sources will do what they do best, sensationalise and scaremonger trying to get as many people as possible wound up tighter than a cheap watch. The re-named flu that was Covid had given them two good years but has been wrung for more than its worth until it is all but run dry. How fortuitous for them that the wee mannie Putin should entirely coincidentally kick of with throwing his toys out of his pram now, otherwise viewing/reader figures surely would have slumped disastrously.

    And there we have it. It's all just a big conspiracy designed to distract people from Covid. FFS.

    To say that a sovereign country being invaded, a million+ displaced refugees, and unknown numbers of civilian casualties is Putin "throwing his toys out of his pram" is poor form

  6. Indeed. I've been involved in some online discussions that are basically people Googling whatever the subject is and posting links back and forth to each other without actually reading or digesting the information.

    When I were a lad.... books and articles were read, experienced people were listened to, thoughts were pondered and some clarity was reached before mouths were opened. Now folk seem happy to find the first article they feel backs their point up and post that saying "see..." whilst believing that to be research.

    I wonder if, in the age of information, we are losing our abilities to process the information in a meaningful way?

  7. Where's the line between questioning the consensus and creating a world of paranoid mistrust?

    The promotion of conspiracy theories and spread of misinformation is an inevitable consequence of the internet (I naively believed the internet would be a force for consensus and collective knowledge, but them human nature got in the way...), and I'm wondering if we're heading toward a future where information and evidence are of no particular value to many people, and they're just looking for a narrative that suits their world view, then creating and spreading misinformation to back their views up?

    Political and media spin have been with us since the dawn of politics and the media but personally I don't know why 'the person on the street' would just casually make stuff up and circulate it on the internet. I'm sure they have their motives. 

    What do you folks think? Have we come out the other side of the age of reason and science, and into the age of perpetual misinformation?

  8. 3 hours ago, JohanofNess said:

    We've become a nation of halfwits with the attention span of a mayfly. Everything that is happening to us now is because we have become easily manipulated. Nobody bothers to look into sod all anymore.

    I agree, and there's several factors at play, some of which vex me greatly:

    • A debasement of the media - the 4th estate of democracy - people no longer expect to pay for news, investigative journalism is on its knees, and news has been replaced by opinion-ised 'infotainment'
    • Statistics show that attention spans are going down across the board, particularly amongst younger people (the endless scroll of social media.....)
    • Participation in consensus politics and local democracy has been replaced by online echo-chambers and keyboard warrior-ism - everyone has the ability to share ill-informed opinions without consequence, and there seems to be more of a desire to prove everyone else wrong that to actually put our collective heads together to solve problems and build a better future

    Brexit was the apex of the above

     

  9. Are we going over this once more George? 

    How were the "Common Market, the E.E.C, the E.C, the E.U." "inflicted" upon us, and which parts of the British democratic system do you think are undemocratic?

    Of all the many times you've posted the same thing over the years, I can't recall you ever backing it up.

  10. On 21/09/2021 at 09:59, Roachmill said:

    I'm in a real quandary here reconciling the idea both sides fibbed equally over Brexit. Running with that notion - those lying about there being massive problems after Brexit are now being proven correct are they not?

    The fundamental challenge the Remain side was that their only option was to try to point out the benefits of the status quo whilst preaching caution - never the 'sexy' option - whilst the Leave had the benefit of being able to paint pictures of a multiple different futures in which everyone's lives would be better.

    Remain meant more of the same, whilst Leave was a hotchpotch of scenarios and promises with little detail to back any of up - Leave just had to persuade people that at least one of these competing scenarios would benefit them (from my estimation, there was at least 6 or 7 fundamentally different scenarios that came under the umbrella of 'Brexit')

  11. Here's the full Retail Impact Assessment - good luck at making sense of it! https://pa.shetland.gov.uk/online-applications/files/953C3248ADDB20F61F783AA1F872D6A7/pdf/2021_106_PPF-RETAIL_IMPACT_ASSESSMENT_AND_ECONOMIC_STATEMENT-387700.pdf

    After a quick read, it seems that there's a subtle but very important differentiation between having no impact and having no impact on viability - the latter essentially means that the Retail Impact Assessment tries to make the case that whilst there will be an impact, the shops can still survive and remain viable.

    There's also some interesting statistics in there that makes a case that Shetland shops trade at higher than UK average profit (they use much more complex language, but that's the thrust), so it'll just be the local shops' profit margins that'll be impacted.

    Obviously, the Retail Impact Assessment has been written from a specific perspective with one aim in mind, so make of it what you will!

    8 hours ago, Colin said:

    https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2021/08/09/new-supermarkets-would-have-no-impact-on-smaller-shops-developer-insists/

    I'm not for or against either development but, I think that the first paragraph of this article is so plainly 'wrong' and misleading that it beggars belief.

    I think that's down to the reporting of the report, rather than the content of the report :-)

  12. As George alludes to, it's akin to gambling so it depends on your 'risk appetite'. There's winners and losers, but you tend to hear more about the winners.

    On the whole, the trend has been for the value of BitCoin to be on an upward trajectory, but it's a currency so isn't underpinned by anything 'tangible' (such as the value of a company or a commodity) so the value is based on perception.

    The bigger financial institutions are now trading in crypto currencies, and it's coming under increasing regulation, so I expect the heady days of early adopters getting-rich-quick are gone. It is, however, still quite volatile so can swing up and down in value dramatically, so there's still significant returns (and losses) to be made.

    From my understanding, you need to be either be lucky or invest a lot of time and effort into following the markets if you want to make a return on your investment.

    There's loads of misinformation, hype and 'info-mercials' re: cryptocurrencies on the internet, so it's best to proceed with an element of suspicion and cynicism!

  13. This is an interesting article on the royal's carbon footprint(s) https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/royal-family-carbon-footprint#link-who-has-the-biggest-carbon-footprint

    It seems Charles is the worst offender.

    His mam and her business interests managed to use their privileges to avoid carbon cutting legislation too https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption

  14.  

    17 hours ago, Ghostrider said:

    The only 'victims' here are the SIC and the BBC, both of whom are big enough, ugly enough and omnipresent enough to take care of themselves. yet the outpouring of outrage and criticism over this far exceeds that for a similar incident at the War Memorial next door not all that long ago. That two of the main supporting pillars of 'the establishment' can elicit an outpouring from the public that the dead, whose lives were taken in exceptional circumstances, for the good of future generations, cannot, is what I find most concerning.

    The 'victims' are people who don't like seeing the town vandalised.

    And The War Memorial was a single location, whereas the last incident was several locations. There are arguments to be had regarding the relative symbolism and validity of the 'targets' but the scale is different.

    From my perspective, the "outpouring of outrage and criticism" doesn't "far exceed" the War Memorial incident (which made it to the national news), but then I don't know where you're sourcing your outrage and criticism from.

  15.  

    2 hours ago, George. said:

    ^Regarding the U.K, you pay V.A.T. on tobacco and alcohol. Perhaps the deaths caused by the two of them don't matter as much, after all you've paid the tax so Westminster is happy for you to pay the price.

    A bit of a lazy attempt at Westminster bashing there, when actually...

    Quote

    With VAT assignment a further 15% of Scotland's budget will be based on VAT revenues raised in Scotland – although the power to set VAT rates will remain reserved to the UK Government.

    The Scotland Act 2016 legislated to assign half of the VAT receipts raised in Scotland (the first 10p of the standard rate and the first 2.5p of the reduced rate) to the Scottish Government's budget.

    https://www.gov.scot/policies/taxes/vat/

     

×
×
  • Create New...