Rabbie

[quote user="ebaynut"]I personally believe that the Scottish people should not be allowed to vote in the EU referendum. Ms Sturgeon has already stated that if the UK as a whole votes to leave, then the Scottish parliament will seek to negotiate a way to stay in. Well, if they are not going to abide by the result of the UK referendum, then they should not be allowed to participate. Perhaps if this did happen and Scotland stayed in and England left, maybe we could send all the people who arrive in the UK, (who are not British subjects with HIV and expect the British taxpayer to treat them), over the wall for the Scots to sort out as they seem so pleased for the English to pay.[/quote]Your  apparent xenophobic attitude to the Scots has obviously blinded you to what the SNP have said about the referendum. They have stated that before the UK leaves the EU each part should have voted to leave. They have also said that if the UK as whole votes to leave but Scotland votes to stay then they would seek a new independence referendum if the SNP wins a majority of seats in the 2016 Scottish parliament elections - by no means a certainty given the proportional election system used in those elections.  

[quote user="Quillan"] [quote user="powerdesal"]The loss of voting rights after 15 years as an expat has been the situation for many years, the possible EU referendum is no different.[/quote] Exactly but don't let that get in te way of a good story. Nobody has explained how they know you have been away 15 years? [/quote]Why should it be difficult. You are only allowed to register as an overseas voter if you were on the register as a resident voter within the last 15 years. I am sure councils keep records so it shouldn't be too difficult to check on your elegibility. Besides I am sure that no member of this forum would contemplate doing anything illegal such as making a false declaration about how long they have been living abroad.

[quote user="Quillan"][quote user="Rabbie"] The longer the referendum is delayed the more damage the uncertainty about the eventual result will do to the British economy. [/quote] Whilst I disagree with the rest I have to totally agree with that comment. We need to get it over and done with and move forward within the EU. [/quote]And I completely agree with this comment of yours. Peace?

[quote user="Quillan"] I read in one of the papers today that Labour has removed its objection to a referendum on the EU. This is not standing by their principles it is pandering to the minority of people in the hope of gaining a vote or two. [/quote]Or it could be interpreted as respecting the wishes of the electorate - a majority of whom voted for parties wanting a referendum. The longer the referendum is delayed the more damage the uncertainty about the eventual result will do to the British economy. Once Cameron has completed his renegotiations then the sooner we end the uncertainty the better. I am not a labour supporter, I would rather there was not a referendum but there will be so lets have it once the new terms are known.

[quote user="Quillan"][quote user="Rabbie"][quote user="Quillan"] [quote user="richard51"]Quillan Although, as you know, I don't particularly like wiki, if you care to look at Ed Ball's profile there I would suggest that he is by no means a dumbo in terms of economics. The result of last election was determined by the fear factor of veering too far to the left because of the SNP. The conservatives played on this and got the vote of the centre. Unfortunately, the only people to benefit from this government will be the mega-rich and those with very little social conscience.[/quote] Getting a degree in anything does not necessarily equate to being intelligent. The man is a slimy little toad, he joined the Labour, Liberal and Conservative clubs at Oxford university because he wanted to cover all bases when he moved into politics.[/quote] I very much doubt that anybody  getting entry to Oxford, Cambridge or any of our major universities could reasonably be described as being unintelligent. Indeed I would be surprised they were not all well above average intelligence. It is a long standing tradition at Oxford and Cambridge for undergraduates to be members of many political clubs. They feel it is best to learn about the different parties direct from the source. Many conservative MPs will have done the same thing. [quote user="Quillan"]People voted for the Tories because they trusted them running the economy and they were frightened of Labour going on yet another spending spree. The Tories had also reduced the number of unemployed from 4.09M in Feb 2010 to 2.6M in Feb 2015 (that’s from the BBC by the way). [/quote]In many cases the reduction was a result of people moving onto zero hours contracts where they continued to receive benefits so the reduction is not as dramatic as you make it appear. But perhaps this did not reach the south of France[:)][/quote] One reason for staying on at sixth form in public schools is to teach you how to 'get into' a top (or any) university and to supply you with the required qualifications. Of course you do need some intelligence to absorb what you’re taught but it does not have to be any greater than the average person. You just have to remember what you’re taught. Being able to remember is not necessarily a sign of ‘super’ intelligence. Your last sentence shows your arrogance but that’s to be expected. Zero hour contacts have been around for years. Indeed the first time the ONS started to collect data about them was in 2006 although they said (as reported by the Resolution Foundation) that they had been around many years previously but they did not know the quantity of people on them and that their figure in 2006 was probably double in reality because many people didn't like to admit they were on them. During a debate about zero hour contracts during the election run up even the presenter was amazed at how many people said they benefited from them because it is a two way contract leaving people to work when they want. They are very popular amongst students in secondary education apparently for exactly that reason. One could argue that seeing as zero hour contracts first came to light in any serious quantity in 2006 Labour had four years in which to pass any form of legislation they wanted on them, indeed they could have banned them completely had they wanted to. [/quote] I think you will find that the selection procedures at Oxford and Cambridge are not just based on the ability to repeat memorised information but that candidates have to demonstrate the ability to think for themselves and in fact demonstrate intelligence It is rather arrogant of you to accuse me of being arrogant just because I disagree with you.  I actually thought you were better than that and did not sink to personal abuse. It does seem a bit out of character for you. I appreciate there is a place for zero hours contracts but they are not a miracle cure for unemployment.  IMO the reason Cameron won was because he appeared to be more credible as Prime Minister than Miliband. He also fought a much better campaign tactically than his opponents.

[quote user="nomoss"]Now that most or all of the monuments etc. have been removed, isn't it time to think about renaming Savile Row? [/quote]Why?? Savile Row has nothing to do with Jimmy Savile. It was named long before Jimmy was even born.

[quote user="Quillan"] [quote user="richard51"]Quillan Although, as you know, I don't particularly like wiki, if you care to look at Ed Ball's profile there I would suggest that he is by no means a dumbo in terms of economics. The result of last election was determined by the fear factor of veering too far to the left because of the SNP. The conservatives played on this and got the vote of the centre. Unfortunately, the only people to benefit from this government will be the mega-rich and those with very little social conscience.[/quote] Getting a degree in anything does not necessarily equate to being intelligent. The man is a slimy little toad, he joined the Labour, Liberal and Conservative clubs at Oxford university because he wanted to cover all bases when he moved into politics.[/quote] I very much doubt that anybody  getting entry to Oxford, Cambridge or any of our major universities could reasonably be described as being unintelligent. Indeed I would be surprised they were not all well above average intelligence. It is a long standing tradition at Oxford and Cambridge for undergraduates to be members of many political clubs. They feel it is best to learn about the different parties direct from the source. Many conservative MPs will have done the same thing. [quote user="Quillan"]People voted for the Tories because they trusted them running the economy and they were frightened of Labour going on yet another spending spree. The Tories had also reduced the number of unemployed from 4.09M in Feb 2010 to 2.6M in Feb 2015 (that’s from the BBC by the way). [/quote]In many cases the reduction was a result of people moving onto zero hours contracts where they continued to receive benefits so the reduction is not as dramatic as you make it appear. But perhaps this did not reach the south of France[:)]

Nicola Sturgeon has spelled out that among the factors that could trigger a second Scottish referendum would be a SNP majority after the next Scottish parliament elections due in 2016 - by no means a foregone conclusion as they use a proportional system, a UK decision to leave the EU if  Scotland votes to stay in in that referendum or if the UK parliament repeals the Human Rights Act. I suspect that the EU might be more sympathetic to a Scottish application if the UK was leaving but time will tell.

UKIP got 12% of the vote in the General Election and even if all the conservative voters voted to leave then there would still be less than 50% wanting to leave. Of course there are split opinions in all the parties. Even George Osbourne is said to in favour of staying in the EU. With some of the popular press making a lot of noise about leaving it is easy to exaggerate the strength of support for leaving. Once people realise the risks to their jobs in leaving then this may rally support for staying in. What concerns me is the effect that uncertainty will have on business and investment until we know the result. IMO the sooner we have the referendum the better.

[quote user="Clark Kent II"]When we were furnishing our French house, my wife went into the bedding department of a large store and told a salesman that she wanted a matelot.[/quote]Perhaps that was a freudian slip[:D]

The Tory manifesto promised a referendum by the end of 2017. This does not preclude it being held in 2016. This is being resisted by those in favour of  a Brexit as it has been suggested an early vote is more likely to result in a win for staying in.

Now that it seems extremely likely we are going to have a referendum on whether the UK leaves the EU what will happen to UKIP once that result is known. If the vote is to leave the EU then UKIP will have achieved its purpose and so there is no need for it. If the vote is remain in the UK will UKIP accept the result and fade into insignificance. Either way it seems UKIP will be irrelevant by the time of the next election,

[quote user="NickP"]Rabbie wrote " In my experience there is much less anti-English feeling in Scotland than there is anti-immigrant feeling in Southern England - much of it based on misconceptions about the actual numbers involved." Wrong in two ways Rabbie,  your experience doesn't stand up; due to the fact that the population of England is huge compared to Scotland; so pro-rata there's bound to be more instance of anti feeling. Secondly try being English and working as I did in Scotland many times, and seeing printed notices in phone boxes and on walls saying F*****g English B*****ds coming up here and taking our jobs, and  constantly hearing the same verbally in pubs, etc. Having said that I loved Scotland and the normal people I met and worked with; who were extremely hospitable and may I say protective, because they realised that if we weren't there; then the temporary jobs we brought with us wouldn't have been available, but that didn't work for the knuckle draggers, who left me with the feeling that I met more racism, if there is such a word? than I experienced in any other country that I worked in, and I worked in plenty.[:(] [/quote]NickP,  unfortunately everywhere has its share of morons but I am cheered up by the fact that you did have a good experience with ordinary people. As you can imagine I do not associate with the knuckle draggers but with the vast majority of ordinary people so have not come across the racial abuse you suffered from..  

[quote user="DerekJ"][quote user="Rabbie"] [quote user="DerekJ"]Just my view of course but..... I get the impression that the vast majority of Scottish voters wanted to vote for separation at the referendum but in the end a large number chickened out of actually taking the plunge and standing on their own. Now, at this General Election, they can vote with their hearts and go the SNP route with no danger of having to expose themselves to the possible dangers of independence and going it alone. [/quote]A nice theory but not borne out by the facts. Total Yes votes in the referendum 1,617,989 Total SNP votes in this election     1,454,454 So I don't see any evidence for any No voters voting for the SNP this time around.     [/quote] I understand your point and I concede that my view is primarily based on TV interviews conducted with Scottish voters at the time of the referendum. Just about everyone that I saw interviewed either wanted nothing to do with England or said that they thought they would be better off/less exposed financially by staying in the Union. Just about none of those I saw interviewed expressed any real personal bond with those of us south of the border.  Not a scientific analysis I know but enough to influence my view. Now, as far as numbers go... another way to look at them is... Referendum Yes Vote - 44.7% of those that voted. General Election SNP share of those that voted - 50% To me that says that the SNP did increase their share of the vote. [/quote]Derek, I quite agree that the SNP increased their share of the vote but as the turnout was down compared to the referendum it suggests to me that more Yes voters bothered to turnout in the general election than No voters and not that there was a swing from No voters to vote for the SNP but to be honest none of us really knows. Hoddy's suggestion that the No vote was split 3 ways is the most likely explanation of the SNP surge. Fortunately with the proportional system in place for the Scottish Parliament this result is unlikely to be repeated next spring. In my experience there is much less anti-English feeling in Scotland than there is anti-immigrant feeling in Southern England - much of it based on misconceptions about the actual numbers involved. You must remember that the people you hear quoted on TV are not necessarily representative of  the country as a whole and may have been selected by someone with their own political agenda. We all know that most voters vote according to what will be best for them and it would be unrealistic to expect people to vote entirely on altruistic grounds.   

[quote user="DerekJ"]Just my view of course but..... I get the impression that the vast majority of Scottish voters wanted to vote for separation at the referendum but in the end a large number chickened out of actually taking the plunge and standing on their own. Now, at this General Election, they can vote with their hearts and go the SNP route with no danger of having to expose themselves to the possible dangers of independence and going it alone. [/quote]A nice theory but not borne out by the facts. Total Yes votes in the referendum 1,617,989 Total SNP votes in this election     1,454,454 So I don't see any evidence for any No voters voting for the SNP this time around.    

[quote user="Benjamin"][quote user="Rabbie"] If  Scottish independence were to follow on from a British exit from the EU there might well be a strong desire from France and Germany to keep Scotland in the EU.   [/quote] Do you have any source for this statement and on what basis do you assume an exit vote by the British electorate? According to the ONS (mid 2013) the population of Scotland is estimated at just over 5 million and the total for the UK as a whole is just over 64 million. The reason that there are so many MPs in Scotland reflects the fact that the population is so sparsely spread outside of the main conurbations. PR is traditionally brought up by minor parties who have elected MPs but then realise they have no voice in government. [/quote]Benjamin, I was merely putting forward a possible scenario for the remarks Idun quoted from French TV. I did not assume an exit vote by the UK but it might well happen. Certainly some members of this forum seem to support it. Of course PR is brought up by the smaller parties. The larger parties have nothing to gain so change won't happen.

[quote user="PaulT"]To add to Pickles post: SNP has 56 seats with 1,454,436 votes LD has 8 seats with 2,415,888 votes UKIP has 1 seat with 3,881,129 Plaid Cymru has 3 seats with 181,694 votes - yes one hundred and eighty one thousand and six hundred and ninety four votes gives them 3 seats.[/quote]This just illustrates the downside of the "First past the post" system. The upside of the system is that we have a Conservative government that is not dependent on UKIP support. The present system effectively disenfranchises the large number of voters who live in safe seats. An attempt to change the system was rejected by a large majority of the electorate  so those of us who would like a changed system must respect the wishes of the majority on this.  

[quote user="grumpyaudeman"]Hi Can you post a picture please Why is the commune responsible[/quote]becausethe commune owns them

[quote user="grumpyaudeman"]Hi Can you post a picture please Why is the commune responsible[/quote]becausethe commune owns them

We also had a dog that suffered from epilepsy for many years. They only occurred relatively rarely and did not last very long. The dog seemed OK when she recovered from each fit. On veterinary advice we did not treat her as they said that could make the fits more frequent and it was better to keep the treatment in reserve. The dog lived to over 16 so the fits do not seem to shorten life very much. Of course it all depends on the severity and frequency of the attacks. Anyway, I hope everything works out well for you and your dog

[quote user="Pickles"][quote user="Rabbie"][quote user="Pickles"][quote user="Rabbie"]So did the voters in Scotland. Are you really saying that voters in Scotland are worth less than voters in other parts of the UK.[/quote] Nope, but opposition party MPs per se have less influence on what policies are enacted than MPs who are in government. Those voters that ended up represented by opposition party MPs, wherever in the UK thay are, are being represented by MPs who have less influence. [quote user="Rabbie"]Surely all MPs should have some influence or what is the point of electing and paying them regardless of where they represent.[/quote] I gained the impression from the outpourings of various SNP politicians and supporters that they were bargaining on getting what I would consider to be an undue and excessive influence as part of a coalition. Compared with that situation, the SNP at Westminster is now just another opposition party with little influence. Much like Labour. [/quote]It rather makes a nonsense of  democracy that the representatives of approx 36% of the voters should have more influence than the representatives of the remaining 64%. It is also a nonsense that UKIP with 12% only have one MP while the SNP get 56 MPs with only 5% of the votes.  And no I am not a UKIP or SNP supporter but it does highlight the need for a fairer electoral system but of course the larger parties are always going to block meaningful reform.[/quote] I agree with you absolutely, but when the public WAS given the opportunity to change the system not very long ago, they voted overwhelmingly to stay with what is misleadingly called First Past The Post. I felt that the case for some form of PR was appallingly badly presented, whereas the incumbent FPTP system was presented via a very slick but utterly content-less campaign. According to the Electoral Reform Society, under PR the results would have been: CON 244 LAB 201 UKIP 83 LD 52 SNP 31 Greens 25 DUP 3 PC 3 SF 3 UUP 2 SDLP 2 Alliance 1   [/quote]Looking at those suggested results then the most likely outcome would be a Con/UKIP coalition which would have had a very small majority. Of course if there had been a PR system in place the smaller parties might well have picked up more support since people would not need to vote tactically. I did vote for a change in the voting system in the referendum but  both labour and the conservatives put their support behind keeping the present system which they both benefit from.

[quote user="idun"]DUN Wrote: On french news tonight, this was said. That IF the britanniques vote to pull out of the EU after a referendum, then they supposed that Scotland would want a further referendum to see if they still wanted to be part of the United Kingdom and if not, would become independent and remain in the EU. What a statement ................ Unquote Idun, I am surprised by your surprise. The SNP has always been pro the EU, and IF les britanniques were to vote as a whole to withdraw, I think that might well create the catalyst for a demand for a new referendum in Scotland. Based on current support for the SNP I could well imagine that a repeat referendum could have a very different result in those circumstances. What will be interesting over the next few years is to see how the Scots react to having a single party state --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My surprise was that the french were discussing it, on the main news, the day after the election. Did the french people need advanced notice of what 'might' happen en Angleterre?  I had thought that IF Scotland had voted for independence, then it was not at all sure that they would have had automatic access to the EU anyway. As I said, interesting times ahead really. [/quote]The main opposition to automatic Scottish EU membership came from Spain who have issues with both the Basque region and Catalonia having fairly strong independence movements. If  Scottish independence were to follow on from a British exit from the EU there might well be a strong desire from France and Germany to keep Scotland in the EU.  

[quote user="Hoddy"]I really think that we are giong to have to look at the electoral system. I don't blame the SNP for flexing it's muscles, but if you remember that there are fewer people in Scotland than there are in Yorkshire it does seem rather unfair. Hoddy[/quote]A quick search on Google suggests the populations are approximately the same size. Of course the actual numbers are changing all the time as people move in, move out, are born or die. A possible solution to the "West Lothian Question" would be to give the regions of England their own devolved parliaments with similar powers to those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This would mean the UK parliament would only need to decide such issues as defence and foreign policy and could be reduced in size.  

[quote user="Pickles"][quote user="Rabbie"]So did the voters in Scotland. Are you really saying that voters in Scotland are worth less than voters in other parts of the UK.[/quote] Nope, but opposition party MPs per se have less influence on what policies are enacted than MPs who are in government. Those voters that ended up represented by opposition party MPs, wherever in the UK thay are, are being represented by MPs who have less influence. [quote user="Rabbie"]Surely all MPs should have some influence or what is the point of electing and paying them regardless of where they represent.[/quote] I gained the impression from the outpourings of various SNP politicians and supporters that they were bargaining on getting what I would consider to be an undue and excessive influence as part of a coalition. Compared with that situation, the SNP at Westminster is now just another opposition party with little influence. Much like Labour. [/quote]It rather makes a nonsense of  democracy that the representatives of approx 36% of the voters should have more influence than the representatives of the remaining 64%. It is also a nonsense that UKIP with 12% only have one MP while the SNP get 56 MPs with only 5% of the votes.  And no I am not a UKIP or SNP supporter but it does highlight the need for a fairer electoral system but of course the larger parties are always going to block meaningful reform.

Pault, I am sure you are right about some of the SNP, but even at this election only half of those voting supported them so don't condemn all Scots. I have friends from Southern England who have moved to Scotland and really enjoy living there (apart from the weather). They say it is like living in England 30 years ago. I still believe that we are better together.