Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2017 21:40:51 GMT
This "you don't have the right to tell people the facts" gibberish tells me you have the the absolute perfect President for your world view - where there are no "facts" and opinions are all equally valid no matter how ill-informed and spurious. I think the term the Trump camp use is 'alternative facts' ...
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Mar 20, 2017 18:19:17 GMT
I gave it some thought, and it seems Charles got what I was goin for, but not so much for the rest. Here is the best example I can come up with. Just the facts 1. My company's trucks are idled out at 62 miles per hour, and the insurance rates are lower because none of their trucks can go faster than 64 mph. 2. My truck can run 66 mph on a flat stretch of road, consistently, all night long, climbing hills etc. 3. I can get my truck to a max speed of 70 mph for a short burst of passing speed, even while climbing a hill, because I know my truck. All 3 of these are facts. They do, to some extent, contradict at least the first one. Now, I know all of these facts, and some are hidden from my company, not intentionally, but because if they don't ask me about it, I'm not going to volunteer any information. This is a total of 8 mph, not much, to most people, just small potatoes, but when you are passing another truck, 8 mph is a whole lot, just ask everybody behind me... (and please flash you lights at me, telling me to go on, so I can drop that 8 mph and just cruise for 20 miles beside that truck, if you were in that big a hurry, you should have left earlier.) I have seen what doing the best thing for the majority leads to in this country, ive seen hundreds of brand new, huge, industrial plants just sitting empty in ghost towns all around this country. Every law passed effects different folks in different ways, some make life better for a few, some make life worse for a few, and the fact is, until it effects you negatively, it's very easy to be in the majority.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 18:55:10 GMT
Well, if that's the best example...I'm sorry, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny in any way, shape or form. If scenario 3 is correct and you can get the same truck as your insurer, without modifications, to 70mph, then scenario 1 isn't correct at all if they say it can't go above 64mph. Demonstrably it can as you've quantified it. So scenario 1 isn't a fact at all. It makes the insurer wrong. It makes their facts wrong. Having worked in underwriting for years, believe me, it happens. While I'm wearing my insurance hat - I wouldn't confess to material non-disclosure on an open forum if I were you. It's the customer's duty to disclose any change to the risk when under cover - so it's your job to tell them if you're able to go faster than thought. They're covering you based on mutual utmost good faith - I've had to void entire premiums for a lot less than that when customers haven't disclosed all material - here's that word again - facts. Regardless, we're veering wildly off-topic on a rather important issue. Safe driving!
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Mar 20, 2017 18:59:08 GMT
Well, if that's the best example...I'm sorry, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny in any way, shape or form. If scenario 3 is correct and you can get the same truck as your insurer, without modifications, to 70mph, then scenario 1 isn't correct at all if they say it can't go above 64mph. Demonstrably it can as you've quantified it. So scenario 1 isn't a fact at all. It makes the insurer wrong. It makes their facts wrong. Having worked in underwriting for years, believe me, it happens. While I'm wearing my insurance hat - I wouldn't confess to material non-disclosure on an open forum if I were you. It's the customer's duty to disclose any change to the risk when under cover - so it's your job to tell them if you're able to go faster than thought. They're covering you based on mutual utmost good faith - I've had to void entire premiums for a lot less than that when customers haven't disclosed all material - here's that word again - facts. Regardless, we're veering wildly off-topic on a rather important issue. Safe driving! AAGH! Well, at least you're not an estate agent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 19:04:40 GMT
Well, if that's the best example...I'm sorry, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny in any way, shape or form. If scenario 3 is correct and you can get the same truck as your insurer, without modifications, to 70mph, then scenario 1 isn't correct at all if they say it can't go above 64mph. Demonstrably it can as you've quantified it. So scenario 1 isn't a fact at all. It makes the insurer wrong. It makes their facts wrong. Having worked in underwriting for years, believe me, it happens. While I'm wearing my insurance hat - I wouldn't confess to material non-disclosure on an open forum if I were you. It's the customer's duty to disclose any change to the risk when under cover - so it's your job to tell them if you're able to go faster than thought. They're covering you based on mutual utmost good faith - I've had to void entire premiums for a lot less than that when customers haven't disclosed all material - here's that word again - facts. Regardless, we're veering wildly off-topic on a rather important issue. Safe driving! AAGH! Well, at least you're not an estate agent. Please note the pasttense - "worked". I managed to get out a couple of years ago But hey - no-one ever complimented us when we brought their premiums down, or gave them a new car after a write off - it does happen.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Mar 25, 2017 1:42:27 GMT
It's all gone quiet here
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2017 2:08:25 GMT
It's all gone quiet here Well, the vote in Holyrood was postponed on Wednesday after the Westminister attacks, so it's really as you were last weekend.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Mar 25, 2017 2:10:37 GMT
It's all gone quiet here Well, the vote in Holyrood was postponed on Wednesday after the Westminister attacks, so it's really as you were last weekend. Makes sense. It went a bit mental here to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Mar 25, 2017 2:11:02 GMT
By "here" I mean London.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2017 2:27:24 GMT
Well, the vote in Holyrood was postponed on Wednesday after the Westminister attacks, so it's really as you were last weekend. Makes sense. It went a bit mental here to be honest. Yeah, I think all were agreed it was the only thing to do - given we'd be up here arguing the merits and demerits of Westminister while that wickedness was going on there. So Monday and Tuesday were debates on the issue, covering most of the arguments we've heard and most that we've at least touched on in this thread then Wednesday was supposed to be the vote before events overtook the desire to keep politicking.
|
|
|
Post by anothermanicmondas on Mar 25, 2017 21:06:37 GMT
Please make allowances for me being English and thus not used to anyone governing well. I would like the whole UK to be governed well. If the SNP were wanting to bring good governmentot the whole UK I would cheer them on. In the run up to the last general election they were speaking well - however I could not support them by voting for them as they did not have any candidates standing in the East of England. I am left with the impression they are not about bringing about good governments but about stirring up arguments and bitterness - and that is what I don't like. Good Government should not be a Scotland only thing - it should be for everybody So if they were the same party but UK-wide you'd be all in favour...but because the Scottish National Party only run in Scotland, you go from "I would cheer them on" to "they're about stirring up arguments and bitterness"? I'm not sure that's a very well thought out position. "The Scottish National Party only run in Scotland so they must be bitter and want to cause arguments with England which is a shame because I'd vote for them if I could" - and I defy anyone to read the above post and not conclude that's your point - is the kind of thing you get in reactionary Daily Mail comments sections and not relevant to otherwise good debate about serious matters. While I echo your wish in your post to Charles for all the debate to be conducted in a civilised way, coming in with rather strong opinions based lack of knowledge and expecting not to be challenged on them is not how civilised debates tend to move along. All opinions are not equally valid if they're not informed by some degree of fact or reality. That was not remotely my position. I have no objection to the SNP running Scotland or broadening their horizons and running the whole UK. I am not in favour of the dissolution of the Union because I love you (not you individually, but Scottish people in general) and want you to stay. I accept it is not my decision. However it goes, the people of Scotland have my best wishes
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Mar 25, 2017 21:18:55 GMT
So if they were the same party but UK-wide you'd be all in favour...but because the Scottish National Party only run in Scotland, you go from "I would cheer them on" to "they're about stirring up arguments and bitterness"? I'm not sure that's a very well thought out position. "The Scottish National Party only run in Scotland so they must be bitter and want to cause arguments with England which is a shame because I'd vote for them if I could" - and I defy anyone to read the above post and not conclude that's your point - is the kind of thing you get in reactionary Daily Mail comments sections and not relevant to otherwise good debate about serious matters. While I echo your wish in your post to Charles for all the debate to be conducted in a civilised way, coming in with rather strong opinions based lack of knowledge and expecting not to be challenged on them is not how civilised debates tend to move along. All opinions are not equally valid if they're not informed by some degree of fact or reality. That was not remotely my position. I have no objection to the SNP running Scotland or broadening their horizons and running the whole UK. I am not in favour of the dissolution of the Union because I love you (not you individually, but Scottish people in general) and want you to stay. I accept it is not my decision. However it goes, the people of Scotland have my best wishes That's a lovely sentiment A problem I encounter with many (particularly non Scottish) Better Together proponents is that they don't understand that whatever happens it can't stay the way it currently is, if it could then why are we even having this conversation? And an actual examination of Scotland's political life, ignoring the yellow journalism on the blatant payroll of whoever, will tell you that it isn't just the SNP waving a sabre or a flag. Oh, the Union can limp along a bit longer as is but that isn't what I mean.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2017 21:22:12 GMT
So if they were the same party but UK-wide you'd be all in favour...but because the Scottish National Party only run in Scotland, you go from "I would cheer them on" to "they're about stirring up arguments and bitterness"? I'm not sure that's a very well thought out position. "The Scottish National Party only run in Scotland so they must be bitter and want to cause arguments with England which is a shame because I'd vote for them if I could" - and I defy anyone to read the above post and not conclude that's your point - is the kind of thing you get in reactionary Daily Mail comments sections and not relevant to otherwise good debate about serious matters. While I echo your wish in your post to Charles for all the debate to be conducted in a civilised way, coming in with rather strong opinions based lack of knowledge and expecting not to be challenged on them is not how civilised debates tend to move along. All opinions are not equally valid if they're not informed by some degree of fact or reality. That was not remotely my position. I have no objection to the SNP running Scotland or broadening their horizons and running the whole UK. I am not in favour of the dissolution of the Union because I love you (not you individually, but Scottish people in general) and want you to stay. I accept it is not my decision. However it goes, the people of Scotland have my best wishes Best wishes to you and your countrymen too, and I look forward to being trading partners after Independence
|
|
aztec
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,849
|
Post by aztec on Mar 26, 2017 14:17:42 GMT
It's odd, I'd always considered myself British rather than English and thought of the UK as one large country that happened to have four smaller units, it wasn't until the 2014 referendum that I realized that it's a union of four separate countries withe different needs and politics, I was (and still am...partly...) opposed to Independence in 2014 because I felt that Scotland was every bit a part of my country as it was for the people who lived there (despite the fact I had never visited) I loved the union of our four countries and felt like I'd be loosing a part of my identity if the union split, but I've gradually realized that my English centric viewpoint and media isn't all that representative of the political climate of the UK in recent decades, Scotland and England have been drifting apart politically for years, perhaps it would be for the best if we amicably split rather than limp on together...
I'm still not convinced by the economic arguments for Independence, but it would perhaps be a good thing for England forcing us to re-examine our identity as English rather than British.
I don't feel particularly English, and I don't think there is a national English culture or identity in the way that Ireland or Scotland seem to have-a fisherman from the Scilly Isles has a totally different outlook to a taxi driver from Hackney or a miner from the Midlands, perhaps the union dissolving would be a good thing for devolution in England, on the other hand as different as the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish sometimes seem to be from the English these differences aren't that much larger than the differences between many English people, the four countries of the union have centuries of shared culture history and successes, and for me it would be a heartbreaking shame to see these end merely because some of the English political elite have their heads in the sand still yearning back to glory days of decades long past.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Mar 26, 2017 22:26:31 GMT
It's odd, I'd always considered myself British rather than English and thought of the UK as one large country that happened to have four smaller units, it wasn't until the 2014 referendum that I realized that it's a union of four separate countries withe different needs and politics, I was (and still am...partly...) opposed to Independence in 2014 because I felt that Scotland was every bit a part of my country as it was for the people who lived there (despite the fact I had never visited) I loved the union of our four countries and felt like I'd be loosing a part of my identity if the union split, but I've gradually realized that my English centric viewpoint and media isn't all that representative of the political climate of the UK in recent decades, Scotland and England have been drifting apart politically for years, perhaps it would be for the best if we amicably split rather than limp on together... I'm still not convinced by the economic arguments for Independence, but it would perhaps be a good thing for England forcing us to re-examine our identity as English rather than British. I don't feel particularly English, and I don't think there is a national English culture or identity in the way that Ireland or Scotland seem to have-a fisherman from the Scilly Isles has a totally different outlook to a taxi driver from Hackney or a miner from the Midlands, perhaps the union dissolving would be a good thing for devolution in England, on the other hand as different as the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish sometimes seem to be from the English these differences aren't that much larger than the differences between many English people, the four countries of the union have centuries of shared culture history and successes, and for me it would be a heartbreaking shame to see these end merely because some of the English political elite have their heads in the sand still yearning back to glory days of decades long past. That's a relatively sane attitude to have Though there'll be plenty of people from Aberdeen who'll tell you that they have damn all in common with someone from Edinburgh! Or people from Rhyll saying the same about those from Cardiff! One of the things that does unite them is defining themselves as not English. Something the English can't do. And can't even do now against the Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish because of the old principle of not punching down. Part of England's history has been one of cultural domination, you can call it oppressing or colonising or whatever other trigger phrase you like but it's there. So for the other three to say "we are not English" is not necessarily to say "we are anti-English" (though that can happen) but to say "Our original selves remain intact and we celebrate that". England needs to find a path for itself (inside or outside any union) that allows it to do that without succumbing to the extremes of the EDL or BNP, or even UKIP. And you are correct to see that it is a certain class of political elite pushing certain ideas. The first victims of that political class is the England of those that don't belong to it, (the North/South divide is one bit of it, and the class division is another) and that causes a national psychosis, where you have a country tearing itself apart. I've wandered a bit here, and this is ad hoc musing which I'm willing to debate rather than 100 percent righteousness about it but I think it bears thinking about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2017 7:15:28 GMT
Theresa May will meet Nicola Sturgeon today as the PM visits the FM in Edinburgh. While I expect nothing but posturing from both sides afterwards, what I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall for their private meeting.
|
|
|
Post by Timelord007 on Mar 27, 2017 7:50:51 GMT
Theresa May will meet Nicola Sturgeon today as the PM visits the FM in Edinburgh. While I expect nothing but posturing from both sides afterwards, what I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall for their private meeting. You know they'll only talk about shoes right...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2017 17:22:57 GMT
Well, it's as we knew but nice to have it official - The vote on backing Nicola Sturgeon's motion for a Section 30 order, the legal mechanism used to transfer the powers to Holyrood for a referendum (preferably between autumn 2018 and spring 2019) passes 69 votes to 59. Scotland's government AND its elected parliament are now officially asking the Prime Minister for the order. The First Minister has given Theresa May till April after the Easter recess to answer the Parliament's call.
|
|
aztec
Chancellery Guard
Likes: 2,849
|
Post by aztec on Mar 28, 2017 18:09:39 GMT
Well, it's as we knew but nice to have it official - The vote on backing Nicola Sturgeon's motion for a Section 30 order, the legal mechanism used to transfer the powers to Holyrood for a referendum (preferably between autumn 2018 and spring 2019) passes 69 votes to 59. Scotland's government AND its elected parliament are now officially asking the Prime Minister for the order. The First Minister has given Theresa May till April after the Easter recess to answer the Parliament's call. Not sure what Sturgeon hopes to achieve with this, there's no way the UK Goverment would or could agree to a second referendum whilst Brexit is still ongoing, it just seems like the SNP doing whatever they can to drum up another grievance, most of the polls I've seen show little or no movement in favour of a second referendum for the foreseeable future, What happened to 'once in a generation?' Had Scotland voted Yes in 2014 they would have been out of the EU temporarily anyway (and possibly still trying to get back in). Neither Scotland nor the rest of Britain know what kind of Brexit deal we will get, and whilst the political reasons for Independence grow ever stronger, the economic case has got weaker and weaker i.m.o, whose to say what kind of shape the EU and UK will be in, in a decade? Is it it really worth trying to split a 310 year old union at such a volatile time on the off chance she wins a second referendum? (I think it will probably be a yes vote second time round anyway, Cameron's desisicon to note let EU nationals and 16 year olds to vote in the Brexit referendum was a fatal mistake i.m.o) I'm wondering what would have happened if Brexit went the other way, and Scotland was the only country in the union to vote Leave, would the SNP be pushing so hard for a second referendum if the electorate had rejected the safety net of the EU?
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Mar 28, 2017 18:30:53 GMT
Well, it's as we knew but nice to have it official - The vote on backing Nicola Sturgeon's motion for a Section 30 order, the legal mechanism used to transfer the powers to Holyrood for a referendum (preferably between autumn 2018 and spring 2019) passes 69 votes to 59. Scotland's government AND its elected parliament are now officially asking the Prime Minister for the order. The First Minister has given Theresa May till April after the Easter recess to answer the Parliament's call. Not sure what Sturgeon hopes to achieve with this, there's no way the UK Goverment would or could agree to a second referendum whilst Brexit is still ongoing, it just seems like the SNP doing whatever they can to drum up another grievance, most of the polls I've seen show little or no movement in favour of a second referendum for the foreseeable future, What happened to 'once in a generation?' Had Scotland voted Yes in 2014 they would have been out of the EU temporarily anyway (and possibly still trying to get back in). Neither Scotland nor the rest of Britain know what kind of Brexit deal we will get, and whilst the political reasons for Independence grow ever stronger, the economic case has got weaker and weaker i.m.o, whose to say what kind of shape the EU and UK will be in, in a decade? Is it it really worth trying to split a 310 year old union at such a volatile time on the off chance she wins a second referendum? (I think it will probably be a yes vote second time round anyway, Cameron's desisicon to note let EU nationals and 16 year olds to vote in the Brexit referendum was a fatal mistake i.m.o) I'm wondering what would have happened if Brexit went the other way, and Scotland was the only country in the union to vote Leave, would the SNP be pushing so hard for a second referendum if the electorate had rejected the safety net of the EU? On a very immediate level what Nicola Sturgeon is hoping is that the UK as a whole is aware that that the Tory government has others watching them and they shouldn't just hand over the keys of the car to the most anti-European "negotiators" they have, you know, the ones who have admitted they actually have no plan at all. I know all plans must evolve when confronted but you should at least have one. Which is what the failure of a Labour party should at the very least be doing. Just doing what they can to drum up another grievance? It's hardly ANOTHER grievance. It's the same one. What happened to "once in a generation"? That was Alex Salmond personally and not the SNP, and that's irrelevant considering the lies that were told by Cameron and co to aid the Better Together movement. The material change has happened. Is it really worth trying to....? If the majority of voters in Scotland think it is then yes. I think voting leave in Brexit was the stupidest thing the UK (as a whole) has done in a very long time, but we have to get on with it now and live with it, so if Scotland votes to leave then we have to get on with it and live with that too. Your last hypothetical I'm afraid veers into fantasy, that was never an option. And much as people keep mentioning it I can't think of a single country (I'm happy to be corrected) that claimed independence for the sort of economic reasons being cited.
|
|