Jump to content

John Allan

Social Media Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Wiki? Not sure. Both Strasbourg and the European commission do http://en.strasbourg-europe.eu/member-states,44987,en.html here you will see the map of the "Member states", entitled "Member States of the European Union and the Council of Europe", and all official EU commission directives sent to members are directed to and at "Member States". Just do a search on Member States on the EU website, you will see what I mean. But call them anything you like Its a pretty mute point to me.
  2. In the 1960/70s? Absolutely. Most economists on both side of the Brexit debate agree that becoming a member state strengthened the UK economy and avoided progressive economic decline, the reason we were given the title of the "sick man of Europe" in the 60s and 70s. But as noted, time will tell on how are economy will look after 2019. I'm pretty optimistic that the UK economy is strong enough 40 years later, but I suppose we will see over the next few years.
  3. >>You personally might well vote in representatives to make decisions which they feel will benefit >>people and nation, I tend to vote for candidates on what they put in their or their party's >>manifesto. Good. I'm pretty certain everyone does. My post answered a point, (in the third and not first person) on the democratic process. Though MP's make hundreds of decisions for you each year that are outside of a given parties manifesto, well over 300 a year and this doesn't include those in Holyrood. You can see them all here for the coming year https://services.parliament.uk/bills/ >>There's no such thing as "the European states", no matter how much the numpties ... I never said there was, so a bit irrelevant to my post, so I presume this is aimed at someone else. >>The MPs had plenty of time to vote at various stages regarding BREXIT ... I never said there wasn't, so again irrelevant to my post. You personally might well vote in representatives to make decisions which they feel will benefit people and nation, I tend to vote for candidates on what they put in their or their party's manifesto. There's no such thing as "the European states", no matter how much the numpties would like you to believe that; there are countries which are members of the EU. The MPs had plenty of time to vote at various stages regarding BREXIT prior to the actual referendum and to try to go for a second referendum is insulting, as is May's current fudge. I voted to leave, I didn't vote to do the hokey pokey with one leg in and one leg out.
  4. Difficult to answer? How democratic, just like Westminster. Vote SNP. Do you mean diplomatic? Not sure a static comment can be democratic. While I wouldn't vote SNP, I agree with you. If you feel another party could change what you want, then vote for that representative.
  5. What should a politician do if they believe the referendumn decision was not in the best interest of the country, and/or the public were given false information upon which to make their descision? That is difficult to answer as no one knows at this point whether or not it is in the best interest of the country. Clearly remain voters do not, and leave voters do, both depending on their respective agendas. Politicians should have predicted and then stopped the concept of a referendum before it was promised if they felt it was in the best interest, and then it would not have become an issue.
  6. Democracy is a principle of equality upheld my elected representatives. This means we vote representatives to make decisions which they feel will benefit us as a people and a nation, and we should vote against them as representatives if we feel those principles are not met or upheld. Democracy does not mean that every decision is put through an electoral process. That would be absolute mayhem. We did have a referendum in 1975 on whether to join the common market (EU) and agreed to the Treaty of Rome based on that. The result was almost a flip-side of what we had with Brexit. Scotland and N.I. averaged 45%-65% for yes, with England and Wales averaging well over 65% and more for yes. Shetland and the Hebrides well below 45% for yes. The UK at this time had few other options, trade within the commonwealth was falling rapidly and the UK was losing world influence, so a free trade agreement with the European states was a pretty logical thing to do. I guess time will tell whether UK trade has now recovered enough to be independent of the EU!!! With all that said, I would not trust the current level of competence of a politician at Holyrood, Westminster or Brussels at the moment.
  7. I loved bonfire night when I was young, but then I got old and I stopped liking it as much, though I did enjoy taking my own bairns to firework displays before they grew up. Traditionally it was an effigy of the pope that was burnt and not old Guido. Mind you, there is some irony that a mainly English celebration remembers the saving of a Scottish King
  8. Depends where you want to live. If you're happy on the outer Islands (Yell/Unst/Fetlar/Whalsay) you would get a place very quickly. Though jobs on the Islands are thin on the ground. In Lerwick, you could be waiting a few months. Alternatively, you move out of town but on the bus route, North or South of Lerwick. Private rental prices can be high. Not as high as they were in the boom years of the Oil. But all the same, some folk are still charging some ridiculous prices for flats. A bed(sit) in Lerwick will be anything from £450-£500 a month, yet outside of Town, you can get a house from £500 a month. Depends how convenient you want things. There is always minimum wage going on Shetland and more professional jobs; Tesco, Co-op, fish processing, cleaning work, labouring jobs. If you're not proud and don't mind getting your hands dirty you can always earn a crust. Shetland Times on Fridays for the jobs pages and myjobscotland and SIC are good places to look. I would say that you need a job on Shetland. Not just for the money, but it is also a way of keeping in touch with people, especially if you're living out of town. Shetland is a grand place to live, but you will be told quite accurately, that "you know you like Shetland" if you can stay through a couple of winters. This is when the white noise from wind can be incessant, the rain falls upwards into your face and you get a delivery estimate from Amazon that only shows the year
  9. I guess if they came across an unknown element then they will report on it. Unlikely though for the reasons already given. The thermometer? It seems it was invented in 1714 and used Mercury. I wiki'd that though When they break it all down into "known chemical natural elements", what do they do with the unknown ones? What did they use to make thermometres before they discovered Gallium?
  10. You're not wrong. I think it had something to do with the area being close to a supernova which was high in phosphorus. Meteorites carried this to nearby planets. Earth was lucky to be in that area. Cardiff University wrote something about it. https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/view/1143956-absent-phosphorus-questions-possible-life-on-other-planetsbut I've not read the whole article.
  11. Well scientists and astronomers use spectroscopy on any light source from the Universe, planet, star or another galaxy and they then break this light source down into known chemical natural elements. They can tell all sorts of things from this, but what they are looking at next in the newer generation of this (they need more powerful equipment), is for "unnatural" chemicals, those which must have been created by a third party (i.e. a life form). There is some pretty amazing science going on at the moment. Earth punches well above it's weight. It's just a shame it is in such an inaccessible and quiet part of the universe. Or maybe that's it's advantage, who knows! Yes, the solar system is small. It's not just small, it's less than miniscule in comparison to the rest of the universe that we live in. It contains all the known elements that will possibly be found elsewhere, but I have to use the word, "possibly" as I havn't yet seen, heard or become aware of any proof regarding that. If there is any relevant proof then Joe Public hasn't yet been told.
  12. There have been an estimated five billion species on the planet since the first mix of elements first came together to create life on Earth!!! In the rest of the Solar System, there has not been one single example and there probably won't be. This planet, and all the life forms on it, are frankly amazing. While the Solar system is small, it contains all the known elements that will be found elsewhere in the Universe, yet it is the parameters of this planet which has created this wonderful world. I have no reasonable response to the concept of "It's life Jim, but not as we know it", but I hope we all "Live long and Prosper" if nothing else
  13. Yes I agree, there are many synthetic elements that might be discovered, like 115. But they are synthetic and would not exist without a scientist involved. You are probably correct, W&F. Planet Earth probably does have some of every known element that exists within our universe. I would suggest however that they are only the known elements. That can possibly be said at present but it is likely that we have not yet identified all elements on earth. Ununpentium, atomic number 115, was discovered by some Swedish scientists in 2013. Haven't yet found out yet if Ununpentium exists anywhere else, other than on Earth. However, we are still discovering this, that and the next thing. This means that we are still not sure that we know every single element on Planet Earth and it has to be said that at present our universe only has in it the things that we know about and can therefore identify, therefore there is quite possibly a lot more to be found out there and a lot more to be learnt. There is no proof to suggest otherwise - at present. This suggests that there is possibly a lot more to discover. Will this mean aliens in the solar system, the universe - or somewhere that has yet to be discovered?
  14. The Earth has all the known elements that exist in the Universe. From these elements life has been created and developed. So any life in the Universe would also be made of the same elements and would have the same restrictions for existence, and would need similar environmental conditions. This is not to say that there would not be different looking lifeforms if these conditions did exist. But the limitation of the required elements is the reason we don't have flaming Venusian lifeforms running around the Universe, or green skinned maidens from mars crying out "show me more of this Earth thing you call kissing" etc etc.
  • Create New...