I/O

Frankly, I don’t know what will happen. I can see likely problems if Scotland stay stuck with a now-xenophobic and wealthy-clique-controlled UK. (How weird that the same clique hide their wealth abroad and ‘live’ abroad, etc. People fail to see how odd that is.) But I can also see likely problems if Scotland becomes independent and ‘joins’ the EU.

So, overall, the Putins of this world – inc their helpers in the right wing press – get what they want. Divide and rule whilst getting the ‘little people’ to blame the weakest amongst them.

It seems to me though, that the rest of the UK has gone from being a society I was happy and proud to feel a part of to one which seems to be becoming too nasty and wealthy-dominated to accept. I have the feeling that many Scots may feel the same.

I voted ‘no’ in the last independence vote because I wanted to stay with the UK and EU and work with them from within. My wife voted ‘no’ because she worried that we’d be abandoning people ‘down south’ to perpetual Tory/Wealthy rule (regardless of the party carrying out the plans dictated via the Daily Hate or Scum) by removing a far more socially-minded Scotland weight from the mix.

It will depend on how the next few years ago, and if/when we get a chance to vote again. But as things stand I feel we – and many others here – may be more minded to vote for our own ‘leave’.

To me, ‘democracy’ requires the pre-requisit conditional to make it ‘well informed democracy’ to be able to work as required. That means an electorate who are not lied to, manipulated, and kept in ignorance of the reality. The basic point of a ‘representational’ democracy is to temper the effects of ignorance or manipulation.

Alas, the UK Westminster setup now spectacularly fails this requirement. In the absence of the prerequisites a ‘referendum’ all too easily becomes ‘mob rule’ controlled by a few wealthy individuals who can preach via the Daily Hate and hide behind saying the result is ‘democractic’. Politicians bought up and paid large sums to write articles that stoke up the misinformation and deceit.

Frankly, it is no longer a United Kindom. It is a kleptocracy based on divide and rule.

I’m in the perhaps unusual position of having spend half my life in London, and half in Scotland. I’ve therefore had real chances to get accustomed to both, although my background in London is now from past decades.

So if the balance between the apparent risks of ‘in/out’ in a future Scots Independence vote aren’t clearly dominating, I’d now vote for Scotland to get away from a ‘UK’ that isn’t now behaving like the place where I grew up and seems to have become far nastier than is to my taste.

Fortunately, for similar reasons, the common reaction of the little englanders is to be totally ignorant of Scotland and to abuse it as being a drain on the UK that is best dumped. Which suits the SNP I guess. :-)

As I’ve said, none of this is the outcome I wanted. But unless people in the UK wake up and realise they’ve been the victims of a con-trick on a grand scale, we’ll all be paying the price one way or another.

@ Jim – with your recent posts, you should be a politician! Hyperbole at best. I can’t find one fact in any of your comments.
It’s clear you have a strong and emotional view point.

As regards the movement of companies out of the UK, some may move – largely if they were looking to move anyway.
As regards anything to do with banking, the banks will stay in the UK.
When the EU tried to move the banks out of the UK last time, the result was a court ruling that essentially said that the EU was too incompetent to handle banking.

There is a lot of bad feeling coming out, from around the EU and inside the UK. But this isn’t helpful.
For example if the France-UK border checks stop, the answer will be to enforce strict checks.
This will mean that effectively Calais-Dover will no-longer be the main trade route to Europe.

If France wants to close the Calais port and the tunnel, fair enough – there are plenty of other ports.
Holland would be quite happy about this.

The economic repercussions for Scotland leaving the UK, would at worst be mild for the rest of the UK.
Can’t say the same about the impact on Scotland, but it’s been simmering for so long now.
Whilst I would be sad to see Scotland leave the UK, I think it’s about time it did.
Perhaps an independent Scotland could rejoin the UK so we can have a proper United Kingdom.
The “common” reaction of little Scots is also complete ignorance and to abuse England.
How this is dealt with is another matter, no currency, no banks, no army, no navy, no trade.
Complex to say the least, but sadly I can’t see any other way – it’s been broken for decades.
All really sad.

The economic repercussions for Scotland leaving the UK, would at worst be mild for the rest of the UK. Can’t say the same about the impact on Scotland, but it’s been simmering for so long now.

You may be correct. But it probably won’t be decided, now, on such basic economics. The reality is that England and Scotland are increasingly different countries with different preferences about how a society should run. Note, for example, our not implimenting the changes that Westminster wants to push onto junior doctors using bogus arguments. We’ve already seen a rise in applications from doctors wanting to move up here. But the real point is that the political center of gravity is very different here.

Whilst I would be sad to see Scotland leave the UK, I think it’s about time it did. Perhaps an independent Scotland could rejoin the UK so we can have a proper United Kingdom. The “common” reaction of little Scots is also complete ignorance and to abuse England.

Yes, there are also ‘little scotlanders’. It may be unwise to judge a country by its football hooligan elements, though. :-)

The reality is that we get far more of the media from down south than the people down south get of ours. Look at the BBC as a clear example. Most of what people in England see and hear, we also get. But many Scots BBC programs don’t get on air in England. So it is much easier for us to see what’s happening in England than for those in England to see of what is different here. The differences can be seen more easily from this side of the line.

People can, of course, find out by making an effort. But how many do?

Do you have a personal experience like mine of spending decades in both places? The difficulty is that without something like that the social differences can be hard to see. I certainly knew very little about Scotland until I came here to live.

Like yourself, I don’t really want us to split with England. It will give me no pleasure. But to many here it feels like England has decided to go its own way and disregard our different preferences. So in a real sense, England has left me. And TBH I dispise the xenophobia that was peddled and exploited by some of the nastier members of the brexit clique.

Of course, when reality pokes though people might change their minds. But that may be too late. We’ll see.

If France wants to close the Calais port and the tunnel, fair enough – there are plenty of other ports. Holland would be quite happy about this.

Why closing? Perhaps apply more strict controls, since UK will not be in Europe any more. The same way, Netherlands will apply more strict controls, as any European country does when dealing with a non European one. Nothing shocking here.

The annoying point for UK is that France don’t have any more to manage migrants who want to go to UK. We can close the refugee camps and let you manage migrants the other side of the channel. Of course, it won’t happens, as we’ll probably find new agreements. But we could. Not because we want too, but because we don’t have the right to make your job. UK migrants are now UK problem.

I find the Scottish policies for education, and for other matters, much more attractive than the English. But I also enjoy the more southerly latitudes of Sussex. Why cannot I declare my house and garden to be a part of Scotland? The buying and selling of goods has become almost independent of geography. Why should not states be position-independent too?

Holland is a trading port and has less of an issue (at the moment) with “camps”, so my point being is trading could quite easily be moved to another port or ports.
The migrants are in France, so I’d agree UK migrants are the UK’s problem – the one’s in France are the French’s.
That’s the same policy that the EU forced on Italy and Greece in the case of Syria.

@ Jim – with your recent posts, you should be a politician! Hyperbole at best. I can’t find one fact in any of your comments.

coughs for attention, Jim said:

That means an electorate who are not lied to, manipulated, and kept in ignorance of the reality.

So, which of the lies during the Brexit campaign would you like to start with?
Perhaps the Leave campaign one about the NHS funding, which they admitted was untrue before the final votes were counted?

The Leave camp accused the Remain camp of scaremongering and exaggeration, which will take some time to ascertain the truth since it’s all about what will happen in years to come.
The Remain accused Leave of lies, which we already have evidence of being true.

Perhaps both sides were right, but which is worse – an outright lie or a scare?

The annoying point for UK is that France don’t have any more to manage migrants who want to go to UK.

France never did have to do that. According to various international agreements the migrants are supposed to be processed for possible citizenship at the first safe haven on their route. For most that would be Turkey/Greece. Under said agreements shipping them back to that point was permissible.

Also, under all the agreements in place the French could have been processing them so they have EU citizenship at which point they pick a ferry or train and buy a ticket for the UK or indeed anywhere in the EU.
Of course they would need to get a job here to be able to remain, but that’s pretty much the case anywhere.
Damn sight safer than hanging on the underside or a lorry or side of a train.

The thing being that mostly their customers are here so throwing the teddy and moving would somewhat dent their business.

It’s an international world now. If I had a company making things that was based in the UK, whether I stay or look to move into Europe would be based upon one simple question: Where does my majority (and future predicted majority) turnover come from? If most of my business is within the UK, then leaving would make no sense at all. If most of my business was with the EU (and I’m talking the entire EU versus the UK), then it would make sense to leave. There are additional concerns – a weak pound (now down to 1.175 against the Euro and still falling) meaning raw imported materials costing more etc. However I don’t think it can be so easily categorised as throwing a teddy.

gave a damn sight more leverage in that discussion than being good old UK

Haha, yeah. What? The French are after Google for well over a billion. Stupid British government settled for a mere £130M settlement for all the back taxes owed. Of course the Google rep is smiling, that’s probably a minute or two’s worth of advert revenue.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/29/googles-tax-deal-with-the-uk-key-questions-answered-chancellor-taxes

In the EU, Britain was a force to be laughed at in such discussions. Out of the EU, Britain (or what remains of it) won’t be a force at all.

It seems to me though, that the rest of the UK has gone from being a society I was happy and proud to feel a part of to one which seems to be becoming too nasty and wealthy-dominated to accept. I have the feeling that many Scots may feel the same.

This Scot has amended the sentence. I’m not worried about the wealthy. Across the world there are rich people following a whole different set of rules to all of us. What it does seem though is that Britain is increasingly becoming an unpleasant place. And it is fairly obvious that it is easier to manipulate the stupid into targeting their aggression at “immigrants” rather than looking at the leadership of the country. Like that woman on the televised debate complaining that Romanians walk in and get council houses and benefits. Maybe that does happen. I don’t know. What I do know is there is no EU directive allowing people to move to another country simply to sponge off the social system. But hey, don’t let anything like The Facts get in the way of stupid people ranting. The problem comes from within, and pitting half of the common people against the other half – and whipping them up into a frenzy not that far removed from a type of radicalisation (replace the name of God with the name of the country; replace “infidel” with “Polish”, you’ll see it’s the same sort of thing). I can’t see this ending particularly well until the country withdraws from everything, kicks everybody foreign looking out, and then realises “oh crap”.

My wife voted ‘no’ because she worried that we’d be abandoning people ‘down south’ to perpetual Tory/Wealthy rule

Please tell your wife that if there was a vote to ditch Scotland held “down South”, there are plenty of people who seem to think that Scotland is a drain on English resources and money, they’d vote in a heartbeat to cut you lose.
Besides – ya skirt wearing porridge eater – yer furrin, naff orf!

:-) Seriously, while the referendum in 2014 was taking place, there were a number of calls for England to hold a referendum to ditch Scotland.

But as things stand I feel we – and many others here – may be more minded to vote for our own ‘leave’.

I think it will still be close, because:

• While people are going more to wanting to leave – the gaping holes in Mr. Salmond’s logic have yet to be filled. For instance, what currency? If the pound, the Scottish one or the Sterling one? If the Scottish, what will it be pegged to? If the GBP, you could see your economy tank due to the GBP falling through the floor faster than a melting down reactor core.
• What d’you plan to do about an army?
• Ditto a billion and one resources that are shared with England. I don’t suppose you have Scottish Telecom, for instance?
• I know that Ireland is extremely keen to retain the open border agreement regardless (anything else would have BIG consequences for the peace process). It wasn’t a big deal with Scotland and England separating, but now if it happens we have a xenophobic country that doesn’t want immigration alongside a more open minded country that would wish to remain a part of the EU and all that entails. As such – will there be border controls? If so, how? Will Scotland be an exemption like Ireland is likely to be, or would a Londoner need a visa to enter Scotland? Hehe? How about ’er Maj? ;-)
• What would your economy be based upon if North Sea Oil ran out next year? Does Scotland trade sufficient amounts of Baxters soup to not need to worry too much about that, or would the end of oil be a major crisis?

Perhaps if sensible and realistic answers can be found, the people of Scotland would be more inclined to vote for independence.

But, most of all, I think the people of Scotland wanted to separate in their own time and on amicable terms. Not this. Not like this.

That means an electorate who are not lied to, manipulated, and kept in ignorance of the reality.

Isn’t that the very definition of democracy? You see, there are two types of democracy, just like there are two types of communism. There’s the one defined in the dictionaries and knowledge books. And there’s the one that happens in reality. Oddly enough, both communism and democracy seem to arrive at a situation where the poor pay for the elite and the elite take turns in dumping (in the excretory sense of the world) on the populace. Sometimes I wonder if we aren’t still stuck in the mindset of lords and kings ruling supreme, only the words have changed and a few other things to give us all the illusion of freedom. But while we’re no longer a noble man’s serf, we’re not exactly “free” either.

Politicians bought up and paid large sums to write articles that stoke up the misinformation and deceit.

Yup. I caught something on the news about the deportation of EU citizens from the UK. Not only is such a thing going to break dozens of treaties and conventions (both EU and global), it is dangerous to even raise the idea. But somebody, somewhere, would like the idea out “in public”. Because, quite obviously, there isn’t enough hatred and stupidity going around.
Meanwhile the Tory infighting goes on, because they are desperate to find a PM that is crazy enough to go through with this instead of backing away (staying in the EU) and doing the logical thing which is lobbying hard for change within the EU itself. I cannot see how quitting like this won’t ultimately be damaging to the country.

Frankly, it is no longer a United Kingdom.

I don’t think it has been for a while. This has just brought it to a head.

As regards anything to do with banking, the banks will stay in the UK.

Banks go where they can get light oversight and make lots of money. One of the European finance centres just needs to pledge a hands-off approach to banking and London will be sunk.
Banks like profit. If moving equals profit, they’ll be gone.

When the EU tried to move the banks out of the UK last time, the result was a court ruling that essentially said that the EU was too incompetent to handle banking.

Really? How would you like to explain the upcoming merger between the German stock exchange and the LSE? How would you like to explain the growing number of voices that do not feel that it is appropriate for one of Europe’s largest stock platforms to be operating outside of “Europe” (in other words, it may well move to Frankfurt post-Brexit).

BTW, this court thing you’re talking about – I trust you aren’t referring to the ECJ’s ruling in favour of the UK against the ECB in March 2015.

There is a lot of bad feeling coming out, from around the EU and inside the UK. But this isn’t helpful.

Indeed. Given that this referendum was only advisory, technically nothing has changed with the UK’s relationship with the EU. So the UK should not be uninvited from EU discussions, and Juncker should shut the **** up already. While it is hard to say, the EU needs to carry on as normal (including with the UK) and let the country gets itself back together.
The EU, essentially “ganging up” on the UK is mind-hurtingly unhelpful. The countries should be allowed informal discussion with the UK, because it might take some time for one of them to point out what the UK stands to lose if they go ahead with this. And in a way, this attitude is more likely to push the UK away and into signing Article 50.
I think too many people in the rest of Europe (as is EU tradition) seem to think that a public referendum is the last word. In this case, it very much isn’t. And Europe needs to realise that and try to talk some sense into whatever is left of Britain’s leadership.

Whilst I would be sad to see Scotland leave the UK, I think it’s about time it did.

And what, may I ask, do you base this statement upon? Especially when you follow with:

The “common” reaction of little Scots is also complete ignorance and to abuse England.

The people of both countries remain, to a degree, ignorant of each other’s differences. I think Scottish people are more aware of English activities and tradition than vice versa. As Jim says, Scotland gets BBC One. There are some national opt-outs but largely the programming is the same. Who the hell down south ever watched BBC Alba? I think the closest a lot of English got to Scottish culture was Jools Holland’s annual Hootenanny. And that wasn’t even exactly Scottish in much other than name. Do you remember the programme about the fishermen? Do you remember it was subtitled? Jee, how I’ve spent a lot of my life down South so I haven’t been surrounded by the various Scots accents, but I could understand them. Why not, in the spirit of fairness, do we subtitle everybody that doesn’t speak with a recognisable London accent? God knows I can’t understand thick Scouse, and as for Black Country – that isn’t even a language…

People can, of course, find out by making an effort. But how many do?

Post Brexit, I can point to 17,410,742 people that didn’t.

Of course, when reality pokes though people might change their minds. But that may be too late. We’ll see.

Oh wow. Now I know you’re an optimist. I think we have come too far with too much stoking of the wrong sort of emotions (“sore losers” and “crybabies” trying to use legal action to block Brexit) that the English look like they’re hell bent on diving headfirst off the precipice. Of course, it isn’t exactly as if the country has anything that even remotely resembles leadership (where’s Cameron? it’s like he’s just thrown in the towel) nor is there a functioning opposition. Both parties have imploded. The people need to be told what to think, and the ones doing the telling right now are the Daily Fail and the like.
I would say “God help you” but I don’t believe in God, and if I did, I’d believe that even (s)he has walked away in disgust.

The migrants are in France, so I’d agree UK migrants are the UK’s problem – the one’s in France are the French’s.

I believe the issue arises from the situation being that the French are patrolling and maintaining the migrant camps to keep the people out of the UK. If the treaties are rescinded, the French won’t stop maintaining the camp. They will instead say “England is that way” and effectively cease patrolling and let you lot sort it out for yourselves. Given that you are a non-Schengen ISLAND with a woeful record of immigration tracking…really, you don’t want to mess up this agreement.

On the subject of EU foreigners, two quotes from Wikipedia:

Research conducted by the Migration Policy Institute for the Equality and Human Rights Commission suggests that, between May 2004 and September 2009, 1.5 million workers migrated from the new EU member states to the UK, but that many have returned home, with the result that the number of nationals of the new member states in the UK increased by some 700,000 over the same period.⁴⁰⁴¹ Migration from Poland in particular has become temporary and circular in nature.⁴² In 2009, for the first time since the enlargement, more nationals of the eight Central and Eastern European states that joined the EU in 2004 left the UK than arrived.⁴³ Research commissioned by the Regeneration and Economic Development Analysis Expert Panel suggested migrant workers leaving the UK due to the recession are likely to return in the future and cited evidence of “strong links between initial temporary migration and intended permanent migration”.⁴⁴

and:

Research published by University College London in July 2009 found that, on average, A8 migrants were younger and better educated than the native population, and that if they had the same demographic characteristics of natives, would be 13 per cent less likely to claim benefits and 28 per cent less likely to live in social housing.⁴⁹⁵⁰

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom#European_Union]

I’ve followed this thread with much interest. If I’ve hardly posted, it’s for lack of time. Anyway, the sort of thing I wanted to say has been said – much better – by others.

FWIW my belief is that the more experienced and thinking politicians are just as seriously worried as we are (I suspect in total panic over climate change, but that’s another story). They don’t admit such weakness, of course, and wrap it all up in a lot of meaningless non-statements. It’s the classic dilemma: having dug themselves into a hole, they don’t know how to get out of it. Cameron, Johnson and Farage have all pulled the red handle, something that won’t be forgotten (Chilcot II, anyone? Nah, no point if it takes 10+ years).

The ones who are left are either: opportunists looking for their personal route to power and fame; or those with some guts and less culpability for this mess, who know that the best policy at this time is to do nothing. In spite of the Brexiteers and some business people screaming for action now, playing for time is the only strategy which makes any sense. Let things cool. Let people see what the consequences of Brexit are going to be, in a way that no amount of promises or lies can deny or hide. I don’t think it will take very long (I see according to one poll that Wales has already changed sides). The hype cannot be maintained, especially once the fever of leadership elections subsides.

Which politician is going to drink first from the poisoned chalice? Do you really think they’re as brave or stupid or pigheaded as they appear? And if they are, the chances that wiser heads will restrain them seems quite likely to me. They’ll be persuaded – that first we need to conduct some really long research and consultation into the mechanics of leaving the EU. Jeez, I’ve seen things promised very effectively stonewalled and fudged over the decades. This isn’t so very different (cue Air on the G String).

The migrants are in France, so I’d agree UK migrants are the UK’s problem – the one’s in France are the French’s. That’s the same policy that the EU forced on Italy and Greece in the case of Syria.

But they want to go to UK, not to stay in France. They are in transit. EU decided they should be filtered in France. But now that UK is not EU any more, we can simply let them leave EU… and France… for UK, or wherever they want to go.

So it’ll be UK that will manage the camps, the same way it’s Italy, Greece, etc. that have camps from Syria refugees, not Syria.

France never did have to do that. According to various international agreements the migrants are supposed to be processed for possible citizenship at the first safe haven on their route.

Yep, and some other agreements permits UK to filter migrants in France, and not in UK. A lot of UK policemen were in Calais. Normally, a migrant must be filtered in the destination country by the destination country. We don’t filter EU migrants in Syria (OK, we do it in Turkey now).

Also, under all the agreements in place the French could have been processing them so they have EU citizenship at which point they pick a ferry or train and buy a ticket for the UK or indeed anywhere in the EU.

You’re joking? UK is not in Schengen space. Even I I was not free to go in UK.

I believe the issue arises from the situation being that the French are patrolling and maintaining the migrant camps to keep the people out of the UK.

Yep, and we don’t do that for any other EU country. Just UK, because of specific agreements. That’s OK for me. But will these agreements be maintained (I bet they will)?

If the treaties are rescinded, the French won’t stop maintaining the camp.

No, but we could. And let the others do their job. We can filter people who want to stay, but we don’t have to filter people who want to leave. Today migrants are in Calais because French and UK police stop them here. We could simply let them go across the channel and let the UK police stop them on the other side. Then I doubt the camps will still be in Calais.

UK view: camps will stay in France, say French government.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36683234

French view: situation will change, say French government.
http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2016/03/03/calais-immigration-mise-garde-macron-brexit-sommet-france-grande-bretagne_n_9371752.html

Make your choice.

If the treaties are rescinded, the French won’t stop maintaining the camp.

No, but we could. And let the others do their job.

Read what I said carefully. You won’t stop maintaining the camp. It is a humanitarian issue.
Policing the immigrants. That’s an entirely different thing. That, Britain can expect to stop if the agreements are rescinded. Instead les flics will just point and say “it’s that way”. Stopping the immigrants? Wouldn’t be France’s problem any more, would it?

I hope the idea of biding time is right. This is a crazy game with stakes way to high for most of us to stomach.

PS: Avez vous un lien pour l’opinion des français écrit en française? C’est peut être mieux pour regarder directement de la bouche de le cheval. And if you don’t have that expression in French, it’ll no doubt come across as nonsense, comme le plupart de mon écriture, non? ;-)

You’re joking? UK is not in Schengen space. Even I I was not free to go in UK

Really? You mean you don’t have a French issue EU passport?
Just like the ones that the migrants could get if they were listed as EU citizens?

You don’t need a passport. An EU country national identity card should suffice. It worked for a Spanish friend of my mother.

Interesting predictions (in French) of things that’ll be gone by 2025:

http://www.ouest-france.fr/leditiondusoir/data/782/reader/reader.html?t=1467735954500#!preferred/1/package/782/pub/783/page/6/phone/

Bananas and chocolate. Woe is me. :-(

You don’t need a passport. An EU country national identity card should suffice. It worked for a Spanish friend of my mother.

On a day trip a few years ago (to Belgium, the beer is better) a friend discovered his lack of passport or any real ID on arrival in Belgium. It was just fine, he had his bus pass :)

Bit trickier coming back, but the bus pass seemed OK again. Obvious foreign nationals do need proper ID at UK borders (no schengen)

Really? You mean you don’t have a French issue EU passport?

There is no border between countries of the Schengen space. But try to take the train from Paris to London, and you’ll see it’s very different. While I do not need a Visa, there are strict controls.

Nota: there were discussions and specific agreements to limit the possibility to EU people to work in UK.

Anyway, migrants are not EU people. Once in Greece or Italy they can travel freely (but illegally) inside the Schengen space (no controls), but they can’t go to UK.

The problem is not the borders, the problem is where they are. Is it normal for UK to have its border in France? Is Calais Britannic? That’s a good question, even if – to be honest – I simply don’t care. Refuse migrants or accept them if you want. Put camps in Paris if you want (already done). Put the UK border in Strasbourg if you want. Dissolve the whole Europe or accept all countries inside it. No problem for me :)

The problem is not the borders, the problem is where they are. Is it normal for UK to have its border in France? Is Calais Britannic?

Recently? no.
In history

BTW the counterpart to Great Britain is Brittany, more than just a similar name.

We’re tied closer than you think.

It’s an international world now. If I had a company making things that was based in the UK, whether I stay or look to move into Europe would be based upon one simple question: Where does my majority (and future predicted majority) turnover come from? If most of my business is within the UK, then leaving would make no sense at all.

Actually, it can make good sense to manufacture abroad and sell back into the UK. I know someone who is currently doing this. His reasons are simply that it costs less to manufacture abroad, despite any added costs of transport and import. It can make sense to have an ‘importing’ company in the UK. But then suck out any profit as being a ‘cost’ of ‘buying in the things to sell’, ‘repayment of loans taken from the parent company’, etc.

No, I’m not advocating or recommending any of the above. Just pointing out that if someone simply wants to make money, they may well choose these options to their individual financial benefit.

This Scot has amended the sentence. I’m not worried about the wealthy. Across the world there are rich people following a whole different set of rules to all of us. What it does seem though is that Britain is increasingly becoming an unpleasant place.

Yes, I’d agree that not all wealthy people are the same. However there is ‘in’ (sic) the UK a clique where a few ultra-wealthy people deploy undue political influence and control via mechanisms of their ownership of large sections of the media. And/or put politicians on their payrolls. Nearly all of them live outside the UK and essentially pay no tax here. They get the governments they want to do what they want to help them maintain their ability to exploit the rest of us. And their do this by manpulating us. Ask yourself “Where is Levison two?” for example.

Rick: I take your points against the “Salmon” view of independence. They are the kinds of arguments that have influenced me and others. But in the end if things must change then Scotland may decide it wants different changes to England. We are now faced with changes we don’t want and being tied to something we may decide is too nasty to remain with.

BTW Virtually no-one in Scotland watches BBC Alba. :-) If anything it is a source of amusement and irritation as its creation showed just how little clue the BBC ‘down south’ have about what Scotland is actually like. They were bamboozled into creating it by a tiny political faction for fear of being seen as ‘anti Scots’. Scottish is not a synonim for ‘Gael’. Id guess far more people here speak Urdu than Gaelic. Probably more speak Polish! :-)

BTW the counterpart to Great Britain is Brittany, more than just a similar name.

I thought you played the pipes. :-)

One of the examples of how the “immigration” issue was misrepresented was a failure to point out that for some time now the UK and France shifted their ‘border controls’ to each being on the ‘input’ side of the channel link. That helped the UK to cut down unwanted ‘asylum seekers’ who should have applied at their first safe port of entry. Yet this was ignored in the rush to blame “immigrants” without differentiation as an excuse to ‘leave’.

Is it normal for UK to have its border in France?

They have in the Netherlands as well. For a practical reason: travellers without a proper ID can’t take the ferry or a plane. The Dutch (Belgians, French) have to deal with them then.

where a few ultra-wealthy people deploy undue political influence and control via mechanisms of their ownership of large sections of the media. And/or put politicians on their payrolls.

To be fair, you’ve just described most of western civilisation.

To be fair, you’ve just described most of western civilisation.

Yes, I guess that is so. The variations are a matter of degree and direction of travel. My hope is to get people travelling in the correct direction.

BTW I commend the new issue of ‘Private Eye’ to those who can get a copy. It provides information which people may find useful to ‘calibrate’ the current doings of the politicians and their chums of the press.

The ‘evesdropped’ Baker-Rifkin conversion may also be darkly amusing. Left me wondering if it was “accidental on purpose”. 8-]

We’re tied closer than you think.

I have no opinion on this :)

BTW the counterpart to Great Britain is Brittany, more than just a similar name.

I believe that the Normans invented the distinction between Grande and Petite Bretagne.