|
Dec 2019
10:43am, 9 Dec 2019
9,706 posts
|
larkim
It goes back to Gove's "who needs experts" position. There's nothing necessarily wrong with basing policies on emotion - policies will have moral, financial, economic, emotional impacts, so why not put the priority of emotion about economics for example - but it does leave a gap that those on the left will be scratching their heads about to try to unpack "why"?
That's not to say that the left has (at all) any right to argue that it's economics is more intellectually credible than the right. Certainly in the middle ground of market capitalism, Keynesian economics etc, there are rights and wrongs on both sides which are well worth a proper intellectual debate.
|
|
Dec 2019
10:54am, 9 Dec 2019
29,778 posts
|
SPR
The thing is the SNP can't drag Scotland out of the UK unless Scotland want to leave the UK. Once the Conservatives are in with a majority they can do whatever they like.
|
|
Dec 2019
11:11am, 9 Dec 2019
31,593 posts
|
LindsD
DV - I'm sorry you feel that your opinions are 'dismissed' but in general I find that the opinions of others on this thread (and site in general) are not 'dismissed' but are questioned and debated. I'm sorry if that hasn't been the case for you.
|
|
Dec 2019
11:16am, 9 Dec 2019
5,920 posts
|
jda
Anyone who is more worried about the possibility of the SNP managing, as part of a coalition agreement, to arrange *and* *win* an indyref which could lead to a process of independence, than the probability of the tories "getting brexit done" (ie started) NEXT MONTH which as well as harming the entire UK will inevitably greatly strengthen support for Scottish independence, has a slightly unbalanced set of priorities. IMO.
There is nothing stopping anyone from voting for the SNP in the general election in order to stop the tories, but also voting against scottish independence in any future referendum on the subject. And anyone who wants to keep Scotland inside the UK will certainly have a much easier job of it if the entire UK is in the EU, than they would if it had left.
|
|
Dec 2019
11:22am, 9 Dec 2019
19 posts
|
Daft Vader
LindsD, not affected me per se, just a general observation.
|
|
Dec 2019
11:27am, 9 Dec 2019
20 posts
|
Daft Vader
I will ask one question though.
Just how can Labour justify their (150 billion?) spending plans.
They pretty much bankrupt the country last time they were in and to me it sounds like they intend to repeat that feat.
Somebody, somewhere is going to have to pay to buy back and renationalise all those industries and it sure as hell will not be the super rich. They just move their income abroad, leaving the main populace to pick up the bill.
|
|
Dec 2019
11:30am, 9 Dec 2019
2,393 posts
|
Fellrunning
As I've said in the past: if people don't want to be called stupid they shouldn't say stupid things. By that I don't mean stupid in my opinion, I mean demonstrably stupid. One of the problems with social media is that things like flat earth and anti vaxx arguments get equal billing and are presented as alternative facts. Both are easily proved to be wrong, so as opinions are not valid. Ergo people who continue to hold them are, in fact, stupid.
|
|
Dec 2019
11:32am, 9 Dec 2019
33,582 posts
|
Merry Christmas & Happy New G(rrr)
Those who support Scotland staying in the UK (and let's remember, that's a majority in Scotland!) are quite rightly wary of the idea of putting their cross next to SNP. For all the good reasons they have given - the SNP *will* represent their vote as a vote for Scottish independence, it will strengthen the SNP in Westminster and possibly momentum for Holyrood etc.
However, as other posters have said above, there is the ultimate safety mechanism, which is that SNP can *only* lead Scotland to Independence if they hold AND *win* a referendum. And there would have to be some massive, seismic shift to move from 45/55 loss to a 50% (or as I would suggest 60%) victory.
Quick Q for Bazo / Mrs s - is a second referendum annoying because it wastes time and money and energy? Or are you concerned that it might actually lead to independence? If it did, and it was because somehow there was a really big majority for independence, would you still feel it was wrong? Or would you reluctantly accept it?
Perhaps it depends on what truths or lies were told during any referendum campaign, of course. It's another one that is of course quite divisive. Esp if the country is still in this 50/50 territory.
Anyhoo, my Mum is planning on *not* voting Tory for first time in ages. Wonders will never cease. No way she'll vote SNP, so probably Lib Dem. Meaningless in her constituency where SNP had small majority over Labour. But I'm pleased!  G
|
|
Dec 2019
11:44am, 9 Dec 2019
23,128 posts
|
fetcheveryone
In defence of the thread, there was an example a month or so ago when a former user raised the issue of immigration as one of the reasons why he was in favour of Brexit. The validity of that claim was questioned by several (including me), with reference to ONS studies on levels of immigration from EU and non-EU countries; and reference to EU legislation on powers that the UK government has to control immigration. I don't see that as outright dismissal of an opinion, more as holding a belief up to scrutiny. If there are any examples where opinions have been dismissed for no good reason, I would like to hear about them.
|
|
Dec 2019
11:54am, 9 Dec 2019
1,476 posts
|
um
Ian - not too worried about discussion, analysis of facts/opinions etc - that's all fair game. But I do find a pervasive abuse in this thread of anything and anyone right of centre that (in my opinion) shouldn't and wouldn't be acceptable across any other segment of our community.
|
