Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  1. The Brexit referendum was absolutely undemocratic that is beyond question. The first past the post voting system can only be described as democratic because the population vote regularly. Claiming that a vote which forsakes almost half of the population in perpetuity is somehow aligned with democratic principles is absurd. Glad! Why are you glad? Do you understand the consequences for Shetland? Are you glad that Shetlands sheep farmers, fisherman and now mussel farmers have been sold down the river and many are going to find themselves in serious trouble. What do you think it will mean for Shetlands economy if sheep farming and mussel farming is no longer viable? What if the Salmon farming industry becomes non viable, Grieg is already bailing out of Shetland and Scotland because they can't make money here, what if the rest shut up shop, would you be glad about that too? Here's a Shetland specific advantage of an independent Scotland for you and its the only one you should need: The SNP have promised to rejoin the EU. Edit - reply to windwalker a couple of pages back, I somehow ballsed up the quote insertion. Admin edit - we fixed the quote for you (assuming you meant to quote the quote we quoted for you!)
  2. Boris will give the EU exactly what they tell him to give. He already said they can carry on fishing in British waters so long as they reduce the catch by 60%. The EU said no that wouldn't do, so Boris said they only had to reduce the catch by 35% and they could transition to that level over the next 5 years. EU said no that still wouldn't do so Boris reduced it to 30%. the EU still didn't blink but took pity on him and said they would consider reducing the EU catch by 25% with a 5 year transition on the basis that there is no further reduction thereafter and if there is they can impose export bans and renegotiate any other aspect of the trade deal. Oh and for the EU to make that concession on the fishing Boris first of all had to agree that they could decide what level of subsidy he is allowed to pay to British companies. He's already given it away I'm afraid as "we all knew he would when it came down to the wire". You were sold a pup son.
  3. You mean just like when you were gullibly taken in by this headline in The Spectator the other day?
  4. It was gibberish when you first wrote it and it remains so when you repeat it. However you seem to be alleging something or other about my beliefs or some practice that I find to be "100% ok" Either reference my post where I said I was "100% ok" with whatever it is you are on about, or if you have no reference, retract your baseless allegation and apologise. No, really, I couldn't give a toss about whatever might be in your link. I was simply pointing out that you posted an absolutely false statement in an attempt to misrepresent the effectiveness of masks on preventing the spread of covid. This is your claim, you know that one you keep deleting in your replies. It is utterly untrue, Heneghan published no such study, and the study which he disgracefully misrepresents in The Spectator, a misrepresentation which you eagerly repeated without bothering to read for yourself, was careful to note the following points Had you read the study you might have noticed that it didn't actually support the false point you were trying to make. Its not surprising you don't like the idea of having facts checked given your enthusiasm for presenting utter nonsense as reality and hoping nobody notices. More gibberish If it is not a reply to my post what is the point of posting it? Irrelevant videos and paragraph after paragraph of meaningless rambling text add nothing.
  5. What conclusion did the Danish study draw about non surgical masks? I realise you haven't read the study, but I suggest you do, if you want to continue the discussion in a way that doesn't make you look like, dare I say it, a 'triggered snowflake'. The point is that you posted an absolutely untrue statement to try and misrepresent the effectiveness of masks. There is nothing pedantic about me pointing that out. Reality is still important, for the most of us at least. Yes I have a problem with cherry picking. The rest of your sentence is gibberish. Erm, because that is what it is. Or do you find 'The Spectator' a bit too leftie for your liking perhaps? Only that isn't the whole of your original point. You've deleted the bit where you posted an absolutely false statement to try and make it look like masks had been proven ineffective. Oh you still didn't say if you'd even read the study or not, but don't worry about it, folk can draw their own conclusions.
  6. I did link to it you could have read it too most of that was a reply to your other comment about infection I see. So really when you presented this as fact: what you actually meant was something more along these lines: I'll rephrase my original question, had you read the study prior to your original post?
  7. Have you read the study? No need for any you tube videos a single word reply will do. That's the most long winded way of saying 'No' that I have ever seen
  8. How many of those 3500 would likely have died anyway had they gotten as little as the common cold They didn’t get a cold and they might not have. They got COVID and it killed them.
  9. Have you read the study? No need for any you tube videos a single word reply will do.
  10. The Shetland electorate are not getting what they democratically voted for. Neither is the broader Scottish one. If you are open minded enough to have given this discussion any rational thought perhaps you will now better appreciate at least part of the reason why Shetland voted how it did. They are getting what the electorate in England voted for. Whether or not that vote was democratic or not is another, more complex, discussion. If you watch the TED talk Roachmill posted above, again with an open mind, you will understand why many very valid questions are being asked about that. If one good thing can come out of this it is that, once the incumbent shower of imbeciles in Westminster are replaced with a responsible and fit for purpose government, there will almost certainly be a wide ranging modernisation of the laws which govern how decisions like BREXIT can be taken. In the meantime though, it remains a tragedy that short term populism fueled by hyper distortion of truth and outright lying was allowed to triumph over the long term national interest and that the next generation, or perhaps the next two generations, of Shetlanders have to live through the catastrophe it has caused to achieve that.
  11. In 1972 I was a small child, but, nonetheless, yes, I would have been able to think about what it might mean if someone had explained it to me. Thinking about, what they have actually voted for seems to be what the BREXIT proponents on this forum are finding uncomfortable. I'm not asking anyone to look 50 years in the future when many of us will be long dead, I'm asking you to think about next year, about 4 months from now. The questions i have been asking are along the lines of Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing that the EU have been providing sheep farmers with a subsidy to keep them in business?, and do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing that Shetlands crofters are going to lose that money and that it may not be replaced with anything, and that many of them will find it no longer viable to continue in business? These are not even slightly difficult questions, let alone impossible. You only need a simple sentence and a couple of words, good or bad. What is your answer? I don't even know where to begins with this. Most of it is utter pish that you have simply made up. It has no basis in truth whatsoever. The rest of it is irrelevant to the discussion. The EU has not been 'dumping' agricultural products in the UK. That is a lie. Anyone who cares to spend less than 20 seconds with google can confirm that themselves. For example EU exports of lamb into the British market is less than one twentieth of one percent. 0.04%. That is such a small amount that its difficult to imagine anything less. source https://www.gov.scot/publications/assessment-opportunities-retain-increase-sheep-lamb-processing-scotland/pages/4/ Scroll about halfway down the page and it saves you having to bother reading. The amount of lamb the EU 'dump' on the British market does not even make a mark on the nice easy to understand colourful pie chart they have provided for you. It isn't just Shetlands crofters, it is the entire sheep farming industry in the UK and throughout Europe. It cannot compete on a global scale with mega producers in New Zealand and Australia. If you want to have a sheep farming industry in Europe it has to be subsidised. That is why the EU do what they do, they subsidise their own farmers and make imports more expensive by placing tariffs on them and also by restricting the amount that can be imported, because they want to have a sheep farming industry in europe. Do you think that is a good or bad thing? Once the EU food processing and safety standards are abandoned British farmers will also be competing with farmers from other countries with less developed standards of production like Brazil and Chile. When that happens you might begin to understand what 'dumping' and 'undercutting' actually is. If, as you allege, British farmers find it difficult to compete with European farmers when they enjoy the same rules and benefits as their competitors, how do you think they are going to manage when they are not subsidised to the same extent and they have to compete on WTO terms with farmers from every nation on earth. That is the reality of the 'demand driven' free market you wish to impose on Shetlands crofters. I understand that the truth is terribly inconvenient for your argument but If you want to continue this discussion keep it short, keep it relevant and don't waste my time by posting made up crap to try and justify your prejudices.
  12. Yes it is sad, depressing too. It's also fascinating how people on a mass scale can be convinced to take actions which are so clearly against their better interests. It's exactly this trait that dictators, cult leaders, and religious extremists have exploited so well over the years. Now, unshackled from the rule of law the British conservative party are embracing the technique. They have long since abandoned any notion that honesty and truth are in anyway important and emboldened by getting around the regular British law during the BREXIT campaign they now think they can ignore all laws. Look at the bill going through parliament right now. "These people speaking out against us are terribly irritating, why can't we just get rid of them?" "Because that would be against the law prime minister" "The law! what does that matter?" Where does it stop? Anyone who points out concerns with what is happening is dismissed with terms such as 'woke' 'lefty' 're moaner' etc. The irony you point out is of course what makes it work. The disciples believe themselves too astute to be taken in by 'fake news' and the 'lamestream media' preferring to rely on organisations such as facebook and youtube. Organisations which are accountable to no one and have no incentive whatsoever to ensure accuracy or truth and so, ipso facto, they are inherently inaccurate and untruthful. And there we have it, a self perpetuating cycle that can only take us backwards. It is no small coincidence that the people who are happy to embrace such dishonesty also don't think it's a good idea to make higher education freely available to everyone.
  13. About a year ago on the Brexit thread I invited you, and anyone else who cared to, to identify one single thing that would be better after BREXIT. Back then I predicted that the answer would be silence, or some general unsubstantiated ranting and grumbling about the EU. I was right, a year ago none of the BREXIT champions of this forum could think up a single thing that was going to be better after BREXIT. Not a single thing. Now I have invited you to think about BREXIT and what it's reality might mean for Shetlands crofters and you remain silent on that too. I have invited you to explain how British fishermen will be better off next year, more silence. The truth is you have no idea whatsoever if one single aspect of life will be in any way improved for anyone in Shetland, and yet you are perfectly comfortable gambling with the livelihoods of Shetlands crofters - without even the vaguest understanding of the odds. Obliviously happy to see them driven to the wall, to satisfy, what on the face of it, is nothing more than a fanatical and utterly irrational hatred of the EU. Next year, and the year after that, and then the next one, and the next, I hope you can still feel proud of what you voted for, because you are responsible for this. We all have to live with what you did, many of us for the rest of our lives.
  14. No I am saying that the EU subsidy is an essential part of the revenue stream for many crofters in Shetland and without it many, if not most, will no longer find sheep crofting to be a viable enterprise. Do you think it's loss to Shetland's crofters is a good thing or a bad thing? I can mind a time when wool was dumped over the banks or 'not gathered at all', it's not too difficult to imagine a similar situation occurring again. Who do you think is going to prohibit the UK government from abandoning Shetland's crofters?
  • Create New...