Originally posted by moonbus
If devolution of power is a good in itself, then this does bear on Scottish independence. What historic or romantic or spiritual or economic reasons the Scots may have for wanting independence is not the issue; it is for the Scots to decide, not England -- if devolution of power is a good in itself, that is.

Taken to its logical conclusion, ...[text shortened]... m an entitlement to opt-out and implement self-rule unilaterally.

EDIT: Passport to Pimlico !

I don't disagree with you at all. But you need to read my post in the light of my exchanges with Robbie Carrobie, who blitheress repeatedly about Bannockburn and the ancient Celtic kingdom.

Believe me, I am a democrat, in the pure form of the word, and if the people of Scotland want "independence" from the U.K. then they must have it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So far,

It is a good idea for the UK to leave the EU because we can reduce taxation on tampons. - RO

Its a good reason for the UK to leave the EU because we will be able to reduce taxation on services that already have minimal taxation anyway. - RO

It will be good for the UK to leave the EU because it will restore to us powers that we alrea ...[text shortened]... for the UK to leave the EU because, , , err. . . err. . . . what about Scotland! - divegeester.

I'm asking you to state the case for Scotland getting "tangible" benefits (still awaiting a definition from of those) in being independent from the uk. And you can't do it. So until you can or until you state you position on brexit, then I'm afraid you just come across an unprincipled, argumentative hypocrite. Sort of like you always are I suppose.

Originally posted by moonbus
Are you secure in the knowledge that MI6 is monitoring all telecommunications and handing over anything they can get their hands on to the NSA?

Are you secure in the knowledge that Britain outside the EU could re-instate the death penalty, and that the last man hanged in Britain was executed for a crime he did not commit?

What on earth are you om about!? Are you seriously suggesting that the uk will lose its moral compass and become a victim of US social espionage because of brexit? Hilarious. This is what I find so amusing about the remain group. But you living in Switzerland are out of it anyway aren't you?

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm asking you to state the case for Scotland getting "tangible" benefits (still awaiting a definition from of those) in being independent from the uk. And you can't do it. So until you can or until you state you position on brexit, then I'm afraid you just come across an unprincipled, argumentative hypocrite. Sort of like you always are I suppose.

I have provided an example of a tangible benefit, The European union pouring money into Gaelic in order to keep the language alive. I have also provided the example of a University student receiving a tangible benefit in the form of tuition fees at a rate that is shared by all members of the E.U.these are tangible benefits of being members of the EU. If Scotland leaves the UK and joins the EU we would receive similar tangible benefits. Why you are having difficulty assimilating these facts is known only to you and I suspect that your vain attempts to make a semantic argument based on the definition of 'tangible benefit' when you have been provided with numerous examples really is naught but a reflection of how bereft you actually are. Perhaps Sietse was correct and the average Brexiter really is as thick as mince.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have provided an example of a tangible benefit, The European union pouring money into Gaelic in order to keep the language alive..

What is it exactly that you think "the European Union pouring money into Gaelic" proves or refutes? You have mentioned it several times and even claimed it 'refuted' something. What is it you think that this thing about Gaelic proves? No one is disputing that it was of benefit to the people affected by the money provided and that its supporters think it was a worthy grant. Aside from that, what do you think the citing of this example establishes in this discussion?

Originally posted by FMF
What is it exactly that you think "the European Union pouring money into Gaelic" proves or refutes? You have mentioned it several times and even claimed it 'refuted' something. What is it you think that this thing about Gaelic proves? No one is disputing that it was of benefit to the people affected by the money provided and that its supporters think it was a wo ...[text shortened]... t. Aside from that, what do you think the citing of this example establishes in this discussion?

Do you have any other examples of powers that we already posses and will devolve to ourselves once again? Perhaps you might like to cite the ability to set levels of direct taxation, which we already have? We could devolve that to ourselves again!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Perhaps you might like to cite the ability to set levels of direct taxation, which we already have?

What about the lack of British control or autonomy regarding the forms of taxation Rank outsider told you about?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Do you have any other examples of powers that we already posses and will devolve to ourselves once again? Perhaps you might like to cite the ability to set levels of direct taxation, which we already have? We could devolve that to ourselves again!

You are still dodging. What is it exactly that you think your example about "the European Union pouring money into Gaelic" proves or refutes?

Originally posted by moonbus
As a member of the EU, the UK is also treaty-bound to implement and abide by the European Convention on Human Rights. As there is no native British bill of rights, as soon as the UK leaves the EU, there will be no bill of rights in force at all in the UK. This means that there be would nothing to stop Parliament from implementing draconian measures, and no b ...[text shortened]... ving and working in the EU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

Out of interest, did the UK sign up to the European Convention of Human Rights before or after it joined the EU?

And what country was one of the principal architects of the Convention?

And what country was one of the first signatories?

And on which country's own domestic Bill of Rights was the ECHR partly based on?

And if the UK leaves the EU, is it required to repeal all the legislation that stems from the ECHR?

And even if it does, has any UK governing party suggested withdrawing from the ECHR without simultaneously introducing a modern Bill of Rights (I have to say modern, as we had already gotten around to doing one a few hundred years earlier)?

And when the UK Government of the time tried to introduce identity cards and detention without trial for 90 days (both of which, apparently, are compatible with the ECHR), did these draconian measures ever come into force?

Your picture of the consequences of leaving the EU on human rights in the UK makes no sense in historical, social, moral, legal, political or practical terms.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have provided an example of a tangible benefit, The European union pouring money into Gaelic in order to keep the language alive.

Aside from that being possibly the biggest waste of money in recent living memory (apart from Roy Hodgson's salary of course), I could just as easily cite the UK not having to pay £350,000,000 into the EU each year.
Are you going to be serious or just piss about?

Originally posted by divegeester
Aside from that being possibly the biggest waste of money in recent living memory (apart from Roy Hodgson's salary of course), I could just as easily cite the UK not having to pay £350,000,000 into the EU each year.
Are you going to be serious or just piss about?

Oh dear you ill informed Brexiter! please read the following slowly, carefully and several times to make sure that you comprehend and assimilate it.

A membership fee isn't the same as the economic cost or benefit

read it AGAIN

A membership fee isn't the same as the economic cost or benefit

Now Here are THE FACTS concerning how much money the UK pays for EU membership.

In 2015 the UK government paid £13 billion to the EU budget, and EU spending on the UK was £4.5 billion. So the UK’s ‘net contribution’ was estimated at about £8.5 billion.

Each year the UK gets an instant discount on its contributions to the EU—the ‘rebate’—worth almost £5 billion last year. Without it the UK would have been liable for £18 billion in contributions.

Being in the EU costs money but does it also create trade, jobs and investment that are worth more?

We can be pretty sure about how much cash we put in, but it’s far harder to be sure about how much, if anything, comes back in economic benefits. “There is no definitive study of the economic impact of the UK’s EU membership or the costs and benefits of withdrawal”, as the House of Commons Library says.

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

So it seems that we cannot make any case on contributions to the E.U. alone for there are other elements created which are unquantified and which may benefit the UK in real terms.

REMEMBER a membership fee isn't the same as the economic cost or benefit

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Out of interest, did the UK sign up to the European Convention of Human Rights before or after it joined the EU?

And what country was one of the principal architects of the Convention?

And what country was one of the first signatories?

And on which country's own domestic Bill of Rights was the ECHR partly based on?

And if the UK leaves the ...[text shortened]... ghts in the UK makes no sense in historical, social, moral, legal, political or practical terms.

Drat! Drat! and Double Drat! a Brexiter that knows what he is talking about!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Drat! Drat! and Double Drat! a Brexiter that knows what he is talking about!

As opposed to a Robbie who doesn't?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Oh dear you ill informed Brexiter! please read the following slowly, carefully and several times to make sure that you comprehend and assimilate it.

[b]A membership fee isn't the same as the economic cost or benefit

read it AGAIN

A membership fee isn't the same as the economic cost or benefit

Now Here are THE FACTS concerning h ...[text shortened]... real terms.

REMEMBER a membership fee isn't the same as the economic cost or benefit[/b]

If saving 350 million is not an economic benefit then how is saving a virtually extinct language a benefit?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Drat! Drat! and Double Drat!

Are you being Dick Dastardly now?

Is this silly exchange with you, just more of your self-proclaimed Robbie-the-jester propaganda?

Is your trivialising of your own religious political exclusion, and fake as all your other risible pretence?