Jump to content

JGHR

Members
  • Posts

    222
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by JGHR

  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?
  15. No, i'm not being ridiculous, I'm asking you some very simple questions which you are avoiding answering. Here's another one, given that you don't want crofters to be worse of, do you acknowledge that the EU subsidy assistance they have long enjoyed has been a good thing and do you think it is a bad thing that they will be losing it? I don't know if the subsidy is going to be replaced by anything that is right, that is why I am worried about the outcomes for Shetland crofters who depend on it to remain viable. I don't take the view that they are all 'subsidy junkies' or 'not much of a businessperson', and the implied assertion that they therefore deserve what is coming to them, as some other posters do. For many crofters I suspect the EU subsidy is a vital part of their revenue stream. No I am not happy about that and I think those communities matter very much. Another two questions for you. What are the rules which are going to apply to the British fishing industry next year? How are those rules going to improve the circumstances in the fishing communities you are quite rightfully so concerned about? I'm afraid the questions just keep coming, What is it, specifically, that makes you feel sure that UK farmers and crofters will perhaps be better off once they lose the EU subsidy and have tariffs for access to EU markets imposed on them? The EU have been making available a handsome subsidy to assist your friend with his sheep farming activity in Europe. Do you think he is going to be better or worse off with the loss of that subsidy, and in addition to that do you think paying up to 60% tariff to send his product to the European market will be something that helps or hinders the viability of his farming business .
  16. Are you glad Shetland crofters are going to lose the EU subsidy - given that you think that it is 'guff', given that EU subsidies irritate you and given that you have no idea if it is going to be replaced with anything or not? Do you think there is a future for sheep crofting in Shetland without the EU subsidy if it is not replaced with anything? What do you think Shetland crofters should do if their businesses become non viable after the EU subsidy ends ?
  17. How much is the subsidy going to be once the one from the EU stops? Do you think EU subsidies to better of places like Shetland have done sheep farmers here any favours?
  18. That is because the 800 odd wool producers all rely on EU subsidy to remain viable. Once that is lost in a year or so from now there will be very few, if any, left. Good luck with your 'revival'.
  19. JGHR

    SNP

    You need a mandate. Until such time as you have some policies which can be taken seriously and some credible candidates to implement them you won't get it. Until then it's a pipe dream. Yes, of course you need a believably workable blueprint, folk capable of implementing it, and a mandate to do so. I was just pointing out that 'the powers to do it' is far from 'all we need'. A mandate can only be awarded at the ballot box, not from within the council chamber. Shetlanders have been voting for more of the same for the past three generations, you'll need some convincing arguments to make them change. The previous 'Wir shetland' debacle has set you, and Stuart Hill's cause back by perhaps another generation. But, nonetheless good luck to you, I'll be the first to offer congratulations if you can pull it off.
  20. JGHR

    SNP

    You need a mandate. Until such time as you have some policies which can be taken seriously and some credible candidates to implement them you won't get it. Until then it's a pipe dream.
  21. Well I can't talk for Roachmill and I can't be arsed to read back through more than a of a couple of pages of this thread but lets take a look at some of your input from there First of all on page 17 we find this faulty analogy: And then on page 18 this philosophical masterpiece really made me stop and think: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/01/bbc-tells-staff-not-wear-black-lives-matters-badges-on-air/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr “hijacking” George Floyd’s death for political reasons." - Waal........no sh*t Sherlock. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/01/controversial-blm-leader-remains-defiant-support-ebbs-away/ .....and even the ass wipe tat sources give 'hijack' a weak nod https://news.sky.com/story/premier-league-support-for-black-lives-matter-is-not-political-12018544 here you are on the same page believing those spaghetti westerns you were hooked on in the 1970's are true and finally here you are declaring from that bastion of pluralism and multicultural diversity, Da Ness, that there is no evidence at all of racial disadvantage in the UK
  22. In the article at your link it says it is because they are working class.
  23. This is a very good question and one which gets right to the crux of the matter, but I'm afraid you needn't expect even a semi sensible answer to it. I challenge anyone who is arguing in favour of Brexit to name one thing that will be improved, not may be, not might be not could be, one thing that will be improved after leaving. What will we hear in reply? One of two things - silence or a list of rambling prejudices that are not improvements at all.
  24. No need to be puzzled, its quite simple. Theresa May's Tory government negotiated a deal to leave the EU with the EU representatives. The EU did not 'give us' anything, they negotiated in good faith, with the British government of the time, terms under which Britain would leave the EU. The EU representatives were quite clear that some aspects of the deal they reached with Mrs May, namely the question of the Irish border were non negotiable for them. Boris cannot get another deal that is correct, but not because negotiations are closed, they are not, but because he has no intention or desire to get another deal. So far the extent of his efforts to reach a new deal amount to, firstly, claiming that the changes of not reaching another deal were 'a million to one'. Secondly, bustling off to Brussels, so far as I recall on a single occasion, and telling the EU representatives to scrap the back stop which of course they rejected, as every single person in the country with an ounce of wit knew they were going to. Thirdly, returning to the UK and claiming that parliament had undermined his non existent negotiation. Boris and his deluded bunch of public school boy cabinet chums are the only ones claiming that they can 'get another deal' and it strikes me that it's you doing most of the moaning. It was Boris and his merry band of Brexiteers who voted down Mrs May's deal, were it not for them Britain would already be out of the EU and 'Getting on with it' 'no ifs no buts', 'come what may', 'do or die'. Now that it seems more and more likely that Britain will remain in the EU, never forget who's fault that outcome will be. It will not be due to the 'remoaners' it will be the fault of Boris and the Tory party MPs who voted down the deal Mrs May reached. Parliament will never allow Britain to leave without some kind of deal, because MP's are not permitted to do that under their code of conduct which says 'Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special duty to their constituents.' The majority of MP's understand that allowing the UK to leave the EU without a deal would not be 'acting in the interests of the nation as a whole' therefore they are prohibited from facilitating that outcome. Boris will never reach a deal with the EU ever, unless he suddenly changes tack, and Britain will never leave with no deal. If you want Britain to leave the EU the only hope you have, ironically enough, is if Prime Minister Corbyn goes to Brussels and negotiates the exit. Keep that in mind when marking your card at the upcoming election.
×
×
  • Create New...