Brexit Schmexit

[Comfy Bean]

The vast majority of folk in Scotland voted to remain in the eu.

We are cool with free movement and I’m claiming that Salmond and Sturgeon have always looked to encourage immigration. They’ve spoke often on this and how our economy also needs it.

If you are saying England would have a problem with this then you carry on with your wall building chat. I’m against walls.

If England had voted to remain like Scotland did then we don’t need walls surely?

Do you hold the same wall building views on the Irish issue ?

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, Comfy Bean said:

You appear to be saying that rich folk in Scotland are Tories ?

 

Not at all, but taxing those at the upper end more will hit Tory voters more. I think those in the middle need taxing more, but that is politically more challenging.

1 hour ago, Comfy Bean said:

 

Can you quote me saying we need to protect inheritance.

The changes to the tax system are small but progressive in the right direction.

The SNP were among those criticism the "dementia tax" in the last election which in my view was also a progressive change in the right direction. Unfortunately a sensible option has become political suicide.

We both agree care is expensive, so why we wouldnt expect the wealthy to use their assets to fund it is beyond me.

[Comfy Bean]

3 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Not at all, but taxing those at the upper end more will hit Tory voters more. I think those in the middle need taxing more, but that is politically more challenging.

The SNP were among those criticism the "dementia tax" in the last election which in my view was also a progressive change in the right direction. Unfortunately a sensible option has become political suicide.

We both agree care is expensive, so why we wouldnt expect the wealthy to use their assets to fund it is beyond me.

Pt I’m out of the new Scottish tax system chat on the Brexit thread mate.

Ill end on saying that I agree That taxing the middle is more politically challenging as you say but......it’s happening.

If you don’t believe me take a look at some of the headlines in the right wing press around this.

[eFestivals]

19 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

The vast majority of folk in Scotland voted to remain in the eu.

less than 2 in 3. Less than one in ten diffenerce with whole UK. Bristol had a stronger remain vote than Scotland.

 

Quote

We are cool with free movement

as long as you don't actually get any free movement.

As proven by endless surveys of Scottish attitudes, which match English attitudes almost exactly.

 

Quote

and I’m claiming that Salmond and Sturgeon have always looked to encourage immigration. They’ve spoke often on this and how our economy also needs it.

as have even the tories.

 

Quote

If you are saying England would have a problem with this then you carry on with your wall building chat. I’m against walls.

but you're for Scotland having it's own, different immigration rules.

Given that even currently a sizable proportion head south as quickly as they can, how are you going to ensure that the Scottish immigration you want is actually Scottish immigration and not a backdoor to England?

Or are you saying that England has to suffer the bad consequences of poor Scottish thinking?

Cos i know someone who gets a lot upset and claims righteousness about that upset if there's the suggestion of the opposite happening.

 

Quote

If England had voted to remain like Scotland did then we don’t need walls surely?

if England had Scottish same levels of immigration then who knows how the votes might have differed?

For all you know, if immigration were equal then England might have had a stronger remain vote than Scotland.

But we know it's different levels, with about the same attitudes towards it.

There is nothing better in Scotland towards immigration, as the facts of countless surveys prove.

 

Quote

Do you hold the same wall building views on the Irish issue ?

I hold the same "it's idiotville to have different regimes on small islands" attitudes to both.

What about you?

Oh. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Edited December 17, 2017 by eFestivals

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, Comfy Bean said:

PT - I think this is quite clearly a sign to those in the middle ( as you put it above ) and top earners that there is only one direction their taxes are going in.

Last year the council tax levy went up but only on the middle and higher banded properties.

Next year their income tax will rise while the lower paid pay less.

.

The information Feral posted suggested the income tax of those in the middle wouldn't rise. Im no expert on Scottish politics, but which is correct?

I think the data is generally inconclusive. I don't discount the fact you may be correct, but my instinct is the SNP priority is very much the middle class.

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

If England had voted to remain like Scotland did then we don’t need walls surely?

if Scots like you weren't addicted to the idea of increasing differences and creating new discriminations where there's currently few, then there's be no talk of the walls of difference you are desperate to create. :rolleyes:

Edited December 17, 2017 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

Neil you always do the thing with these mysterious surveys.

There is no need.

We just had an actual vote on the free movement thing. We can trust the 62% figure but you carry on claiming they are the ones wanting walls.

I accept people will come here then maybe fancy a move to England. Perfectly understandable.

Peolpe leaving Scotland for England is nothing new. I know loads of folk who have done it. I know a few who have done it the other way round. What’s your problem?

Your the only one banging on about building walls here. I’m against it as I’ve said.

[eFestivals]

For numpty comfy...

The *only* part of England with a lower immigration rate than Scotland is the North East.
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-an-overview/

Population of England is rising rapidly, while it's not in Scotland.https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/ukpopulationbycountryofbirthandnationality/2016

The reason why there's different attitudes to the impact of immigration is because there's different levels of immigration.

Meanwhile, attitudes towards "immigration is good" and "immigration is bad" are almost identical for England and Scotland.
http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/38108/immigration-bsa31.pdf

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

We just had an actual vote on the free movement thing. We can trust the 62% figure but you carry on claiming they are the ones wanting walls.

There was a vote on the free movement thing.
The free movement effect isn't the same for all parts of the UK.

Which might just explain why the vote isn't the same for all parts of the UK....?

Sorry if that's a bit too joined up to suit your bigotry, where you're just loving your claim of that "the English are more racist than Scots" - by which you prove your OWN Scottish racism.

 

Quote

I accept people will come here then maybe fancy a move to England. Perfectly understandable.

Yep. Scotland is not attractive to immigrants which is why Scotland doesn't have a problem with immigrants, because there's (comparatively) fuck all of them.

 

Quote

Peolpe leaving Scotland for England is nothing new. I know loads of folk who have done it. I know a few who have done it the other way round. What’s your problem?

You want to stuff England with immigrants that England might not want you to?

And you, who reckons countries should be able to do their own thing, reckon it would be wrong of England to want to do it's own thing in stopping you doing that.

 

Quote

Your the only one banging on about building walls here. I’m against it as I’ve said.

It was you who mentioned walls.

I simply asked you how you'd stop the extra immigrants you say Scotland should have from heading south.

Cos otherwise you're not wanting extra immigrants for Scotland, you're wanting extra immigrants for England.

It's very simple. 

So tell me: why Scotland should have it's own immigration powers if it doesn't intend to use them to increase Scottish immigration?

Edited December 17, 2017 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

As I said, you’ll only end up denying the 62% thing ever happened.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Comfy Bean said:

As I said, you’ll only end up denying the 62% thing ever happened.

nope, I'm pointing out you're denying *why* it happened. :rolleyes:

 

[Comfy Bean]

Why did you put some made up drivel about ....my claim than English are more racist than Scots ...in quotes.

How bizarre. I don’t think that and have never said that.

Poor form but no surprises.

[Comfy Bean]

In fairness the sample size and questions in your conclusive proof survey did raise a wee chuckle.

As I said, best we stick to the actual vote. As you know, all 32 counts went with remain. Some rural some not but all in favour of remain. 

It would be foolish to not factor in local impact from immigration which is why nobody is doing that.

You still haven’t explained how you had no problem in the past with the huge numbers of folk who’ve crossed the border. The majority heading South as you’ve explained.

[feral chile]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

The problem is yours, just yours.

Every time you bring it up, I'll point out that you're calling Jez a liar for what Jez said.

There's the facts, and then there's you.

Did he ever actually say there was not  one empty seat? He's admitted he couldn't find 2 seats together. I suspect he'd really wanted to have his team sitting close enough together so they could go through stuff.

I can't find reference to it, apart from the video, stating 'this is what people go through...'

Did Eagle lie when she said her office had been attacked, when it was really the stairwell?

Did May condemn the press? Did Eagle? Did they condemn the random troublemakers who make up the angry mob?

The Guardian made an error, Branson definitely misrepresented what happened.

I've posted something back a bit that quotes people raising the same questions as I had - other people confirmed Corbyn's account, were sat on the floor, the staff had to upgrade a family to first class to make room - lots of behavioural responses to this that corroborate Corbyn's story, it's only you who insists that he said there were NO seats at all, and therefore only you that holds Corbyn to a lie that I can't find him (rather than the press, through an error) having made.

We should be far more nitpicking on Branson, who deliberately misrepresented this, and refused to hand over the genuine footage for months, well after the damage was done.

Damage Corbyn, damage Labour.

Protect the status quo. Vested interests.

there's a big picture here.

Whose side are you on?

 

Edited December 17, 2017 by feral chile

[LJS]

12 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 At the expense of the money robbed from councils, where they'll be fewer services or higher payments.

Leaving an average of...? Almost no change on the ground. 

Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not changing the average of the house Peter and Paul live in.

You have conveniently ignored my previous post which explained that the likelihood id that Scottish Councils will, in fact, receive a "real terms" increase in funding. This is because the SNP are a minority government so will need to find someone to support their budget. It certainly won't bey Ruth's gang and its hard to imagine Scottish Labour doing anything other than continuing tp oppose pretty much everything he SNP do. So, like last year, it's likely to be the Greens. They extracted an extra £160m last year as part of their price for supporting the budget, this year they have made it clear that a "real terms" increase in funding is what they are looking for - they have costed that at £150m.

So the chances are that if councils decide to increase council tax it will because they decide its a good thing to do, not because the Scottish Government is stealing money from them. 

11 hours ago, eFestivals said:

For numpty comfy...

The *only* part of England with a lower immigration rate than Scotland is the North East.
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-an-overview/

For numpty Neil, have a look at your link again - it shows no such thing. 

The table that shows Scotland only above the North east gives a breakdown of the  percentage of total migrants who settle in each area of the UK. It does not factor in Population. If the North east has a lower population than Scotland  (which it does)  - the gap will be closer. Equally the North west of England has a higher population than Scotland so that gap will close too. The simple truth is that once you remove England & the South east from the equation, there is not a massive difference in immigration levels throughout the UK.

Quote

Population of England is rising rapidly, while it's not in Scotland.https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/ukpopulationbycountryofbirthandnationality/2016

Not entirely sure that link shows what you are trying to show - to does interestingly enough show that both Glasgow and Edinburgh have higher proportions of immigrants than Bristol!  

I did manage to find some figures for population growth.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates

and it is certainly true that the population is growing faster in England than Scotland - about 7.5% compared to 4.5% over the past ten years.  However London is far and away the fastest growing area and if you take it out, the population growth of Scotland is not significantly different to that of most English regions

Quote

The reason why there's different attitudes to the impact of immigration is because there's different levels of immigration.

That is an opinion. You are entitled to hold that opinion but you are not entitled to state it as if it is a fact.

Quote

Meanwhile, attitudes towards "immigration is good" and "immigration is bad" are almost identical for England and Scotland.
http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/38108/immigration-bsa31.pdf

9% more in England want immigration to be reduced compared with Scotland. A number of survey have shown a relatively small but significant difference in attitudes. The following confirms this & addresses your claim that the difference in attitude can be explained by lower immigration levels.

Quote

In comparison with the rest of Britain, Scotland does look less opposed to additional immigration as many have claimed (McCollum et al. 2013). In England and Wales, 75% favour reduced immigration. Of course, immigration levels and population density are higher in England, which might contribute to the different responses to this question. Reducing levels of immigration to Britain involves change from a very different status quo than reductions to levels of immigration to Scotland. On the other hand, prior work has shown that the relationship between immigration levels and attitudes is not a simple one (see our commentary The variations enigma and briefing UK Public Opinion toward Migration: Determinants of Attitudes), not clearly connected to size of immigration flows either over time or across locations. Differences between Scotland and England here are not easily explained away as the result of differently sized immigration flows.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/reports/scottish-public-opinion/

 

[eFestivals]

20 hours ago, Comfy Bean said:

Why did you put some made up drivel about ....my claim than English are more racist than Scots ...in quotes.

How bizarre. I don’t think that and have never said that.

Poor form but no surprises.

and yet you managed to say it anyway, like the different vote in Scotland was because of different levels of racism.

[eFestivals]

20 hours ago, Comfy Bean said:

As I said, best we stick to the actual vote. As you know, all 32 counts went with remain. Some rural some not but all in favour of remain. 

no one is disputing the vote.

You're trying to suggest it's because Scots are less racist, which is your own racism.

I'm pointing out all indicatators say they're no less racist and the difference is with immigration that's happened and not the acceptability of immigration.

You know, facts not fantasies about the reasons why.

20 hours ago, Comfy Bean said:

It would be foolish to not factor in local impact from immigration which is why nobody is doing that.

Says the man who willy-waved his own racism with "our vote was better than yours because we're less racist". :rolleyes:

 

20 hours ago, Comfy Bean said:

You still haven’t explained how you had no problem in the past with the huge numbers of folk who’ve crossed the border. The majority heading South as you’ve explained.

The amount of immigration to the UK is currently controlled by the UK.

You suggested that Scotland to dictate the amount of immigration to the UK.

What are you too dumb to understand about your own words?

[eFestivals]

9 hours ago, LJS said:

You have conveniently ignored my previous post which explained that the likelihood id that Scottish Councils will, in fact, receive a "real terms" increase in funding. This is because the SNP are a minority government so will need to find someone to support their budget.

I'm pointing out that the SNP want to rob the councils and cause a 'benefit' to the poorest paid that's very different to the moron's propaganda poster that appearred in this thread.

If they get forced to find the money from elsewhere we can discuss the merits of what they rob instead.

In the meantime, the party you voted for have been exposed as telling porkies - yet again - and you've been proven as trying to divert away from that being exposed.

 

Quote

It certainly won't bey Ruth's gang and its hard to imagine Scottish Labour doing anything other than continuing tp oppose pretty much everything he SNP do. So, like last year, it's likely to be the Greens. They extracted an extra £160m last year as part of their price for supporting the budget, this year they have made it clear that a "real terms" increase in funding is what they are looking for - they have costed that at £150m.

who are they looking to pay it? Oh, we're talking Scotland, so not the Scots.

Cos they only like to claim they like to pay more tax, they don't actually want to pay more tax.

 

Quote

The simple truth is that once you remove England & the South east from the equation, there is not a massive difference in immigration levels throughout the UK.

Utter bullshit.

That only applies to scotland when Scotland counts people from rUK as immigrants.

That's how parochial you are.

 

Quote

Not entirely sure that link shows what you are trying to show - to does interestingly enough show that both Glasgow and Edinburgh have higher proportions of immigrants than Bristol!  

but without any of the same immigration pressures as proven by the population growth figures, both for the last ten years (about 50% of the UK rate) and for the last decades (about 5% of the UK rate).

 

Quote

I did manage to find some figures for population growth.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates

and it is certainly true that the population is growing faster in England than Scotland - about 7.5% compared to 4.5% over the past ten years.  However London is far and away the fastest growing area and if you take it out, the population growth of Scotland is not significantly different to that of most English regions

Want to dig out some relevant facts? Facts i know you know, because we've talked about it before?

percentage of English in Scotland?
Percentage of Scots in rUK?

As ever, you have the maths of a 2 year old.

 

Quote

That is an opinion. You are entitled to hold that opinion but you are not entitled to state it as if it is a fact.

It's a fact.

Roughly, the percentage of "immigrants" in Scotland is broadly the same as England, but only when Scotland counts English as immigrants - where those English are about 10% of the population.

 

Quote

9% more in England want immigration to be reduced compared with Scotland.

because immigration is over double the rate, and has been significantly higher over decades.

 

Quote

A number of survey have shown a relatively small but significant difference in attitudes.

nope, they've shown the same attitudes but a difference in importance.

When a issue is bigger - say more-than double the rate - it become a more important issue.

 

Quote

The following confirms this & addresses your claim that the difference in attitude can be explained by lower immigration levels.

it also confirmed just how much you've been lying with your other words in the same post.

"Differences between Scotland and England here are not easily explained away as the result of differently sized immigration flows."

... but they are easily explained by Scots spouting "English racists" as comfy did and you backed him up .... to prove your own racism.

Edited December 18, 2017 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

22 hours ago, eFestivals said:

"the English are more racist than Scots" - by which you prove your OWN Scottish racism.

you want to stuff England with immigrants that England might not want you to?

So tell me: why Scotland should have it's own immigration powers if it doesn't intend to use them to increase Scottish immigration?

Neil I had already asked you to stop puting your own words in quotes and attempting to pass them off as my words. It`s bad form and however tedious I think it`s worth asking again due to the lack of a mod to flag it up / put a stop to it.

My actual words are the complete opposite of what you are failing to infer but of course you know that. I do not think the English are more racist that Scots. We have previously discussed on the indy thread my views on how Scotland has more than it`s fair share of bigots, especially round my way on the west coast. You are now claiming I was willy waving about how this isn`t the case which is again made up and poor form. Generally, people start with name calling and misrepresenting what someone is saying for a reason 

Your second point above is straight out the Daily Mail I assume. Can you point out where I said I wanted to " stuff England with immigrants " ...........I wouldn`t waste too much time on that one. I try to avoid this type of tabloid bluster rather than say it but each to their own. " Stuff " 

Your third point starts off ok..... Why should Scotland have immigration powers ? You then let yourself down with what you see as a clever sting in the tail......if it doesn`t intend to use them. 

That last bit you just made up but try and legitimise it by burying it within an almost fair question.

I`m going to ignore the bit you made up and try again, like I did yesterday before you resorted to the name calling, to answer the first bit which I think is a decent question.

" Why should Scotland have it`s own immigration powers "

Unusually, the leaders of all the major parties in Scotland campaigned for remain. The cornerstones of what became like a joint remain campaign were to stay in the single market and keep the free movement of people.

Scotland needs people to move here. Our Country / economy is struggling for growth around revenue and more people paying tax amongst an ageing population is recognised as a massive issues across the political parties.

We need folk to come here and work and pay tax.

That was the political message from all parties. The people living in Scotland of whatever political persuasion then voted in all 32 Local Authorities to Remain. Holyrood plus the punters made a pretty clear statement in my opinion.

We had previously though voted to also remain in the UK albeit by a smaller % margin. Our First Minister said she respected the result of the UK vote but wanted a seat at the table as she thinks Brexit will be very bad and didn`t trust the Tories to negotiate a good deal. The Labour leader packed it and went to a jungle and the Tory leader altered her lifetime held views on the EU ( in my opinion ) and went off to bake cakes I gather.

Scotland politically and democratically wants to keep free movement. They must accept Brexit is happening but in my view they are right to negotiate for an arrangement that allows people from wherever to come here and contribute.

So...if every political party in Scotland wants to keep free movement and 62% voted for it then I don`t think it is beyond us to develop a system where Scotland can have it`s own immigration policy. I think we can watch and learn from what happens in Ireland on this.

 

 

[Comfy Bean]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

... but they are easily explained by Scots spouting "English racists" as comfy did and you backed him up .... to prove your own racism.

Mmmmm. I suspect I`ve just wasted my time. I do like your use of " spouting " though  

 

quote

kwəʊt/

verb

3rd person present: quotes

1. 1.

   repeat or copy out (words from a text or speech written or spoken by another person).

   "I realized she was quoting passages from Shakespeare"

   synonyms:

   recite, repeat, say again, reproduce, restate, retell, echo, iterate, parrot;

 

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, Comfy Bean said:

Neil I had already asked you to stop puting your own words in quotes and attempting to pass them off as my words. It`s bad form and however tedious I think it`s worth asking again due to the lack of a mod to flag it up / put a stop to it.

Your words are drivel. I've sumnarised what you're saying.

If you're not saying that the English are more racist, why are you flagging up the difference in the EU ref vote between Scotland and England and mentioning racism?

Quote

I do not think the English are more racist that Scots.

then why did you flag up the different voting percentage in regard to immigration?

 

Quote

Can you point out where I said I wanted to " stuff England with  with immigrants "

 

when you asked why England might want to build a wall to stop 'special powers' immigrants to Scotland becoming nothing to Scotland.

It's very simple: either Scotland stops them heading south, or Scotland has no right to powers which will stuff England with immigrants

 

Quote

 

Your third point starts off ok..... Why should Scotland have immigration powers ? You then let yourself down with what you see as a clever sting in the tail......if it doesn`t intend to use them. 

No. I pointed out that the immigration to Scotland you suggested wouldn't be immigration to Scotland.

Because as you've admitted yourself already, England is far more attractive to those immigrants than Scotland and they'll head south.

 

Quote

" Why should Scotland have it`s own immigration powers "

Scotland is welcome to have them, if Scotland can guarantee it's Scottish immigration.

As you've already admitted: it wouldn't be.

 

Quote

Unusually, the leaders of all the major parties in Scotland campaigned for remain.

Unusually, the leaders of all the major parties in England campaigned for remain.

Oh, so not anything unusual at all.

 

Quote

The cornerstones of what became like a joint remain campaign were to stay in the single market and keep the free movement of people.

Same for England.

 

Quote

Scotland needs people to move here.

I asked you how Scotland could get them to move there.

You told me it couldn't and they'd head to more-attractive England.

 

Quote

We need folk to come here and work and pay tax.

Correct for the UK, not correct for Scotland.

 

Quote

We had previously though voted to also remain in the UK albeit by a smaller % margin.

You had previously though voted to also remain in the UK and abide with UK decisions albeit by a smaller % margin.

Quote

Our First Minister said she respected the result of the UK vote but wanted a seat at the table as she thinks Brexit will be very bad and didn`t trust the Tories to negotiate a good deal.

after she'd firstly demanded a veto over the UK decision, rejecting the wish of Scotland to take part in whole UK decisions.

And it turns out that the tories want a better deal than Sturgeon does that she so very kindly detailed. That's a bit inconvenient.
 

Quote

Scotland politically and democratically wants to keep free movement.

but (for you, at least) doesn't wish to be responsible for what it wants, and wants to call England racist for not wanting Scotland to dictate English immigration.

 

Quote

They must accept Brexit is happening but in my view they are right to negotiate for an arrangement that allows people from wherever to come here and contribute.

no one is is saying that no one can come here (apart from w*nker remainers who like to scare immigrants by more than any racists).

And you don't want to take responsibility for what you say you'd like to arrange.

 

Quote

So...if every political party in Scotland wants to keep free movement and 62% voted for it then I don`t think it is beyond us to develop a system where Scotland can have it`s own immigration policy. 

then build a wall to keep them in.

Because otherwise it won't be Scottish immigration. 

[eFestivals]

On 12/17/2017 at 10:03 AM, Comfy Bean said:

As I said, you’ll only end up denying the 62% thing ever happened.

No, I just don't invent the same meaning for it as you have.

It wasn't a vote on immigration.

But if it was a vote on immigration, it wasn't a vote on the same circumstances of immigration.

So why are you trying to claim it was a vote on immigration?

And that *ONLY* the difference in the England/Scotland vote is the only difference towards immigration? 

The Scottish attitudes towards immigration have been proven countless times to be just about identical to English attitudes.

Just as there's loads of proof of the different impacts.

[Comfy Bean]

30 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

If you're not saying that the English are more racist, why are you flagging up the difference in the EU ref vote between Scotland and England and mentioning racism?

" and mentioning racism "

Where ?

Where am I mentioning racism ?

You asked me " why should Scotland have it`s own immigration powers ".

The only other point of order is that when I said that unusually the major party leaders worked together, I clearly meant unusually for the major party leaders up here...the thing we were talking about. I don`t know whether you genuinely misunderstood so hope this clarifies.

I take it that our Parliament and the 62% wanting to keep the free movement is not something you think the First Minister should be trying to negotiate for ?

Do you accept that Scotland needs to encourage immigration / population growth and that Brexit will work against that ?

If you agree with the last bit then what exactly do you think Sturgeon should be doing when she has cross party support from our Parliament plus 62% of the vote ?

Other Leaders hide and say nothing. Sturgeon is not one for that.

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

" and mentioning racism "

Where ?

Where am I mentioning racism ?

You asked me " why should Scotland have it`s own immigration powers ".

and you waved 62% at me, and mentioned how that differed with England. 

if Scotland wants something for Scotland it's got fuck all to do with anyone but the UK, where there was no 62% vote because there was no Scottish vote.

 

10 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

The only other point of order is that when I said that unusually the major party leaders worked together, I clearly meant unusually for the major party leaders up here...the thing we were talking about. I don`t know whether you genuinely misunderstood so hope this clarifies.

but as it's no different to what happened for the whole UK it doesn't justify any different policy to the whole UK.

 

10 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

I take it that our Parliament and the 62% wanting to keep the free movement is not something you think the First Minister should be trying to negotiate for ?

There was no vote on free movement. :rolleyes:

But if there had been your First Minister abandoned it in her doc a year ago. How come you didn't notice? 

 

10 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

Do you accept that Scotland needs to encourage immigration / population growth and that Brexit will work against that ?

No differently to how the whole UK does, which means that Scotland - specifically Scotland - does not.

 

10 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

If you agree with the last bit then what exactly do you think Sturgeon should be doing when she has cross party support from our Parliament plus 62% of the vote ?

She has cross party support for free movement but not anything else? Really?

She has a 62% vote in favour of free movement? Really? :lol:

 

10 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

Other Leaders hide and say nothing. Sturgeon is not one for that.

Sometimes it's better to keep your gob shut than open it and reveal yourself a fool.

I'm still waiting to hear from you how Scotland will manage it's extra powers so that it's not Scotland forcing extra immigration onto the rest of the UK.

Give me substance, not vacuous bullshit.

[Comfy Bean]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

and you waved 62% at me, and mentioned how that differed with England. 

if Scotland wants something for Scotland it's got fuck all to do with anyone but the UK, where there was no 62% vote because there was no Scottish vote.

OK 

So I didn`t mention racism and you have now moved, slower than expected, to saying the 62% vote isn`t a thing.

Can I clarify...do you think Sturgeon should be trying to get some immigration powers devolved for the reasons I`ve suggested. In summary, she has the support of the Parliament and the voters plus the population growth issues and economic benefits ( shrinking number of working age folk ).

Once we have established where we stand here we could have a bash at how this could be done. I`ve already flagged up some similarities with Ireland and the fact that I am not in favour of wall building.

Goes without saying that Sturgeon will have to negotiate with rUK on any impacts on rUK. No-one has ever denied that on here. Quite the opposite as you have pointed out.

If you think Sturgeon should not be looking to get some say on immigration then fair enough. we can agree to disagree but she is First Minister of Scotland and she does recognise holyrood plus the 62% thing....not unexpectedly.