https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-50916544.
kent refugee action network's bridget chapman, (idiot!
) who works directly with asylum seekers arriving by boat, said the home office's response was "disgraceful".
She said the government's "very tough talk" did not "take account of international law," - the UK government should take into consideration UK law only, nothing else.
She added: "There is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker." - she's clearly talking out of her aris.
Soppy mare.
has this guy lost it?
who thinks like that?.
*sigh*
De Niro used to be an excellent actor. I like him in Taxi Driver (1976) and The Deer Hunter (1978).
He is obviously allowed his political opinion but it's high time he recognised that his opinion is no more important than Joe Blow's.
He should concentrate on his acting. When was the last decent film he appeared in?
the craziness of first-past-the-post elections .... we'll no doubt have to now live through the scotts demanding another referendum, because we may take their lands, but we will never take their freedom!
and so they want to be free of the uk, where they have a disproportionate influence in parliament, and be a little dot that's part of the eu.
yup, freedom.. but anyway, as it stands right now they have 48 seats after getting 1.2m votes.
1. The UK election doesn’t include EU nationals or 16/17 year olds as the referendum did - quite rightly, I might add. Sixteen year olds have little-to-no life experience, they are typically still at school, they typically are still living at their parents' house, rent-free. And of course EU nationals who aren't UK citizens should be excluded. TBH, 16/17 year olds and EU nationals should have been excluded from the 2016 referendum.
2. Greens and some others from other parties also support [Scottish] independence - do you want to put that against support (either votes or seats) for parties who think the 2014 IndyRef should be respected, at least for the time being?
3. The latest opinion poll is 49% for independence - bwahahaha! You know that 49% is a minority, right?
4. We started the last campaign at 30% and finished at 45% - yep, this is a minority, too. Less than 1.3 million Scots voted for the SNP last week.
^^^ The above points to which I've responded are saturated with David Lammy-style logic and Diane Abbott-style mathematics.
independence looks pretty likely now - not immediately 'right now' ... as I've suggested, in about 10 or 15 years time, it would be reasonable to hold IndyRef 2.
the craziness of first-past-the-post elections .... we'll no doubt have to now live through the scotts demanding another referendum, because we may take their lands, but we will never take their freedom!
and so they want to be free of the uk, where they have a disproportionate influence in parliament, and be a little dot that's part of the eu.
yup, freedom.. but anyway, as it stands right now they have 48 seats after getting 1.2m votes.
I back Proportional representation of some sort for the whole of the U.K, if that came first, Independence as an issue may fade. I will not hold my breath, the Evil Tory Racist Government just elected by a broken system, would not stand a chance with P.R of getting a majority, so will resist it to the last - but proportional representation would also hit the SNP very hard ... no IndyRef Mk 2 in that case.
the craziness of first-past-the-post elections .... we'll no doubt have to now live through the scotts demanding another referendum, because we may take their lands, but we will never take their freedom!
and so they want to be free of the uk, where they have a disproportionate influence in parliament, and be a little dot that's part of the eu.
yup, freedom.. but anyway, as it stands right now they have 48 seats after getting 1.2m votes.
Many promises were made during the 2014 campaign that were not kept, such as a secure place in the EU - a secure place in the EU wasn't a promise, or if any politician did promise it, the Scottish electorate shouldn't have fallen for it. Please stop treating the Scottish electorate like a group of special needs children - they are adults who know what they're doing and should take responsibility for their choices in life. The Scots knew that they were being asked to vote in 2014 on UK membership and that a UK-wide referendum on EU membership would happen soon after, a massive voting exercise that could go either way. All the party leaders and most mainstream politicians thought that Remain in the EU would win. But they were wrong.
Scotland voted for a parliament that is in favour of a new referendum before 2021. Why should your opinion matter more than Scottish elections and the Scottish Parliament? - The SNP manifesto may indeed call for IndyRef 2 before 2021. But this isn't respecting the first IndyRef result. Less than 1.3 million Scots voted for the recent SNP manifesto, BTW.
In fact, more Scots voted in 2014 to stay in the UK than voted SNP in this recent general election. Something to think about, perhaps ...
Also, please address what Nosurewheretogo says on this matter. He has posted figures and percentages multiple times on this thread.
We could avoid the expense of further elections and just defer to your opinion? - no, that's not my opinion. My opinion goes something like this:
In maybe 10 or 15 years, a second referendum sounds like a reasonable idea.
the craziness of first-past-the-post elections .... we'll no doubt have to now live through the scotts demanding another referendum, because we may take their lands, but we will never take their freedom!
and so they want to be free of the uk, where they have a disproportionate influence in parliament, and be a little dot that's part of the eu.
yup, freedom.. but anyway, as it stands right now they have 48 seats after getting 1.2m votes.
The 2014 result is respected - I don't think it is respected by all political parties. For instance, is Sturgeon respecting the result of this once-in-a-generation exercise?
The ones disrespecting democracy are those in Westminster trying to stop Scotland having its say on its own future, hiding behind the result in 2014 [italics mine] - those in Westminster are simply respecting the 2014 result. Scotland decided its future at the time by choosing to stay in the UK.
In maybe 10 or 15 years, a second referendum sounds like a reasonable idea.
the craziness of first-past-the-post elections .... we'll no doubt have to now live through the scotts demanding another referendum, because we may take their lands, but we will never take their freedom!
and so they want to be free of the uk, where they have a disproportionate influence in parliament, and be a little dot that's part of the eu.
yup, freedom.. but anyway, as it stands right now they have 48 seats after getting 1.2m votes.
Scotland can decide if it wants independence any time it wants - and to hell with the 2014 referendum result?
What baffles me if why you think your opinion on the subject matters more than results of four consecutive victories for a manifesto for a new referendum in Scotland - but my opinion isn't opposed to a new IndyRef; I was commenting on the timeframe of IndyRef2 and its lack of respect for the first referendum result.
Please address this.
the craziness of first-past-the-post elections .... we'll no doubt have to now live through the scotts demanding another referendum, because we may take their lands, but we will never take their freedom!
and so they want to be free of the uk, where they have a disproportionate influence in parliament, and be a little dot that's part of the eu.
yup, freedom.. but anyway, as it stands right now they have 48 seats after getting 1.2m votes.
the fact is that there are many Scots who think it is a big enough change in the settlement that we should revisit the question of independence in a new referendum - but what about the timeframe? It's only been 5 years since the once-in-a-generation 2014 IndyRef.
I think Sturgeon should let Brexit happen (i.e. let the whole of the UK leave the EU), then wait at least 10 years before InyRef 2. In calling for a second referendum so soon, she's showing she doesn't respect democracy because she's not respecting the result of the 2014 vote.
It has always been the position of UK governments that Scotland can become independent if it wants to - Slim, you're talking like Scotland wasn't allowed the 2014 IndyRef. I wish you could hear yourself.
the craziness of first-past-the-post elections .... we'll no doubt have to now live through the scotts demanding another referendum, because we may take their lands, but we will never take their freedom!
and so they want to be free of the uk, where they have a disproportionate influence in parliament, and be a little dot that's part of the eu.
yup, freedom.. but anyway, as it stands right now they have 48 seats after getting 1.2m votes.
If Scottish people want another referendum in ten years, that’s democracy. If they don’t want another referendum for another hundred years—or more—again, that’s democracy. It’s up to politicians to make the argument for their position, and it’s up to the electorate who they vote for - what you don't mention, in fact what you never mention, is the following three points ...
1. The Scottish electorate doesn't exist in a vacuum. They can't just decide exactly when to have a second referendum. For starters, the UK must complete its leaving of the EU before anything is even considered.
2. The result of the first IndyRef must be respected. Sturgeon clamouring already for a second isn't respecting the first result and therefore isn't democracy.
3. This point's kinda related to the first and second points: Scottish citizens are also UK citizens. You and Sturgeon continue to think and speak as if Scotland is already an independent country. It's not. Sturgeon said the recent Tory victory was a victory for England. This is very sneaky of her. For starters, the Tories aren't an English party - Tory seats won in Wales and Scotland helped put Boris Johnson back in power. The SNP are a nationalist party, however. Less than 1.3 million Scots voted for them in the recent GE. Really, they and their supporters should have little if any influence re a second IndyRef.
Edit: The Tories seem to think that, having argued against a referendum, and lost the election in Scotland, their policy should prevail anyway. That’s pure contempt for democracy. Their next manifesto should say: we don’t give a damn how you vote, we’ll decide what happen in Scotland regardless - hahaha! The projection from you and the SNP is priceless.
the craziness of first-past-the-post elections .... we'll no doubt have to now live through the scotts demanding another referendum, because we may take their lands, but we will never take their freedom!
and so they want to be free of the uk, where they have a disproportionate influence in parliament, and be a little dot that's part of the eu.
yup, freedom.. but anyway, as it stands right now they have 48 seats after getting 1.2m votes.
Sturgeon and other supporters of independence will always support independence and argue in favour of it - but if she loses two IndyRefs in a row, it's game over ... surely ...
If she loses a second time, will you and Sturgeon accept it
That misunderstands how this works - but a second defeat - two in a row - must end Sturgeon's dreams of independence, at least for a generation or two. The only other way is to keep re-running the referendum until the 'correct' answer is given. And that isn't democracy.
Sturgeon hasn't really accepted or respected the first IndyRef result.
The idea of a third referendum is questionable anyway, because I am sure Scotland will vote for independence at the next opportunity - this is probably what Sturgeon thinks, too ... like she thought Scotland would vote leave in the first IndyRef.
But back to what isn't being considered: if Scotland votes Remain in the UK again, any reasonable person would throw in the towel.
("The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" - Albert Einstein, I think.)
In Quebec they had two referendums on sovereignty and so far the people of Quebec have not wanted another referendum. If they ever want another referendum they should be allowed to have it, but there doesn’t seem to be support for it - I think the most important thing for the people of Quebec is to honour the results of the previous referendums.
^^^ Something in there for you and Sturgeon to learn, I think ...
It is up to voters to decide when, if ever, another referendum should take place - you keep persisting in this fantasy. And as long as you do, I'll keep correcting you: it's up to Boris Johnson, as PM of the UK, when to allow a 2nd IndyRef for Scotland.
You keep forgetting that you, SBF, are a UK citizen. And Boris is UK PM. Therefore, Boris Johnson is your Prime Minister, whether you like it or not.
Edit: and here's another thing to consider - suppose Leave wins IndyRef 2 and Sturgeon is obviously pleased with the result. Does it become best of three, i.e. should there be a decider? Or does Sturgeon say 'I've got the result I always wanted - that's it'?
