OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[mistaram]

Swales I can tell you why I voted Brexit first I am n

[Oldtimeram]

You are n?

Do you work with M and James Bond?

[macstheman]

With regard to why some voted one way or the other, whether racist or not, right wing, left wing or whatever to me is not the issue. I voted remain (though I have reviewed that decision) but I have been called racist. Now, why would that be - well I am Scottish and support independence for Scotland. However, I was born in England which I consider home but I do support independence for all recognised countries. My viewpoint remains though that the people decide and the vote went to remain in the UK. But, because I am a supporter of independence some do consider I am racist against the English. Actually, on balance, I prefer the English in many ways, too many Scots have a chip on there shoulder in respect of England. Now, for some reason the SNP is not considered racist but UKIP members are. Now, I am sure that some SNP members are racist against the English (and maybe others) as are some UKIP members racist against whoever but that does'nt make them all so. I feel that all the home nations should be separate but within a loose Union. This also partly motivated my decision to vote remain in the EU. The trouble is obtaining that loose Union whether the UK or the EU. The EU seems to prefer a tied union hence my review. I would vote independence for the Scots even though that seems to make me a racist!!

[roger_ramjet]

With regard to why some voted one way or the other, whether racist or not, right wing, left wing or whatever to me is not the issue. I voted remain (though I have reviewed that decision) but I have been called racist. Now, why would that be - well I am Scottish and support independence for Scotland. However, I was born in England which I consider home but I do support independence for all recognised countries. My viewpoint remains though that the people decide and the vote went to remain in the UK. But, because I am a supporter of independence some do consider I am racist against the English. Actually, on balance, I prefer the English in many ways, too many Scots have a chip on there shoulder in respect of England. Now, for some reason the SNP is not considered racist but UKIP members are. Now, I am sure that some SNP members are racist against the English (and maybe others) as are some UKIP members racist against whoever but that does'nt make them all so. I feel that all the home nations should be separate but within a loose Union. This also partly motivated my decision to vote remain in the EU. The trouble is obtaining that loose Union whether the UK or the EU. The EU seems to prefer a tied union hence my review. I would vote independence for the Scots even though that seems to make me a racist!!

I too would vote in favour of an independent Scotland but, not being Scotch, I do not get to vote on the issue. Now that is racist if anything is: why cannot I vote on separation between Scotland and England just because I am English. Its like giving the wife the right to divorce her husband, but not giving the husband the right to divorce his wife. Perhaps racist is the wrong word, but it has to be an "-ist" in one form or another, as it is a difference based on nationality.

So if there were to be a proper country wide referendum on schism between England and Scotland (and maybe Wales and Ulster too) any decision is surely racist as it is made on national grounds.

Bringing this back to the EU context therefore, even if a vote is made on a racist ground, does that make it any less valid or appropriate? I may not vote on that basis, others on here might not, and some may. But if they fall into the latter camp does that make their perspective invalid? Does that mean that they should be disenfranchised?

One of the great things about our democracy is that everyone is entitled to vote regardless of their reasoning. The way Swale speaks it almost looks as if he wants to be able to review and validate everyone's voting decisions - most specifically if they vote differently to him. I may not agree with the reasons others have to vote, but I will defend his or her right to vote that way nonetheless. To do otherwise is tyrannical, which seems to be where Swale is coming from.

This level of condescending political snobbery is as unacceptable as the racism Swale's targets are alleged to display

[ramAnag]

Of course being in favour of an independent Scotland doesn't make you racist although clearly overt 'nationalism' and xenophobia are not too distant cousins. Wanting to be part of an independent Scotland or wanting to retain certain English traditions and not be governed by a distant European bureaucracy is not, imo, in any way racist however if you saw the programme 'The Ukippers' at the beginning of this year and if your leader stands in front of a poster that implies we are being overrun by people of a different ethnicity then there are just two examples of clearly racist behaviour. Basically one party, UKIP, is built solely on anti immigrant and racist policies while the other is just the major party of a small country, unwisely in my limited opinion, seeking independence from its larger, rather arrogant neighbour.

[AngryRam]

With regard to why some voted one way or the other, whether racist or not, right wing, left wing or whatever to me is not the issue. I voted remain (though I have reviewed that decision) but I have been called racist. Now, why would that be - well I am Scottish and support independence for Scotland. However, I was born in England which I consider home but I do support independence for all recognised countries. My viewpoint remains though that the people decide and the vote went to remain in the UK. But, because I am a supporter of independence some do consider I am racist against the English. Actually, on balance, I prefer the English in many ways, too many Scots have a chip on there shoulder in respect of England. Now, for some reason the SNP is not considered racist but UKIP members are. Now, I am sure that some SNP members are racist against the English (and maybe others) as are some UKIP members racist against whoever but that does'nt make them all so. I feel that all the home nations should be separate but within a loose Union. This also partly motivated my decision to vote remain in the EU. The trouble is obtaining that loose Union whether the UK or the EU. The EU seems to prefer a tied union hence my review. I would vote independence for the Scots even though that seems to make me a racist!!

So would you support a new referendum for Scotland to leave based on the UKs decision to leave the EU?

[macstheman]

Yes but the problem is that Scotland would create for themselves the situation of leaving one union to remain part of another. Now, for me, the issue of independence from the UK is actually (for many Scots) the desire to be independent from England. Many people in England voted independence from the EU for similar reasons ie. the desire to be independent of Brussels. At the present time the Scots (from my experience) see Brussels as a better bet than London purely for nationalistic reasons! They believe that they get the advantages of the EU without being subservient to England. Possibly, after independence (if obtained) a few years down the line they may feel that Brussels is no better or even worse than London! I believe that Scotland should allow themselves at least time to consider whether they want independence or independence from England! On the EU if they go with independence from the UK (England) then they should re-apply for membership of the EU based on their own achieved terms, including assessing the degree of autonomy the EU encompasses. Then, the citizens should vote on the issue.

[swaledale]

I too would vote in favour of an independent Scotland but, not being Scotch, I do not get to vote on the issue. Now that is racist if anything is: why cannot I vote on separation between Scotland and England just because I am English. Its like giving the wife the right to divorce her husband, but not giving the husband the right to divorce his wife. Perhaps racist is the wrong word, but it has to be an "-ist" in one form or another, as it is a difference based on nationality.

So if there were to be a proper country wide referendum on schism between England and Scotland (and maybe Wales and Ulster too) any decision is surely racist as it is made on national grounds.

Bringing this back to the EU context therefore, even if a vote is made on a racist ground, does that make it any less valid or appropriate? I may not vote on that basis, others on here might not, and some may. But if they fall into the latter camp does that make their perspective invalid? Does that mean that they should be disenfranchised?

One of the great things about our democracy is that everyone is entitled to vote regardless of their reasoning. The way Swale speaks it almost looks as if he wants to be able to review and validate everyone's voting decisions - most specifically if they vote differently to him. I may not agree with the reasons others have to vote, but I will defend his or her right to vote that way nonetheless. To do otherwise is tyrannical, which seems to be where Swale is coming from.

This level of condescending political snobbery is as unacceptable as the racism Swale's targets are alleged to display

Firstly i wasnt targetting alleged racists, i was commenting on those who voted Brexit without having a ****ing clue why! That was ina response to respecting the vote and someones opinion, my response was why the **** woudl i respect someones opinion that wasn't based on any fact or indeed on anything other than they were protesting against being poor and put upon, which is fine but they kind of got the wrong thing to vote against.

How is commenting on the sheer ignorance of some of those who voted political snobbery anymore than commenting on the mindless England fans behaviour some form of snobbery? Nowhere did i say they shouldn't be allowed to vote, I was observing why they voted - they clearly hadnt got a clue why they voted, because they could not explain why, they expressed happiness that we would be leaving the EU, but could not say why or how that would improve their lives - sorry Rog you have not only got the wrong end of the stick but seem to think passing judgement on the basis of how people behave and their views is some form of crime - all i said was IF they thought voting for Brexit would mean a reduction of the number of immigrants where they lived or that there would be millions more spent on the NHS, which is a common theme amongst many who voted for Brexit, then their perspective is rather skewed.

[swaledale]

Your response is arrogant and ignorant beyond belief. The only person listening to the lies, to support your own misguided feeling of superiority, is you.

There are people from both sides of the vote on this thread, putting forward thought out arguments, but respecting each others position. You are so closed minded you can't hear anything but what you want to hear, with no consideration of anything beyond you're opinion.

But perhaps, you are in the know, as you so often make yourself out to be?

You, are exactly what you, are describing.

And you a ****ing ****. because I was not making any comment on those who expressed opinions on this thread, i was describing some morons who were on TV being interviewed who had voted for Brexit, I have not at any time said anything about the comments posted by those on this thread, but seeing as you clearly cannot understand plain english, i'm beginning to assume you belong in the ****ing ignorant camp!

[ramspride]

I too would vote in favour of an independent Scotland but, not being Scotch, I do not get to vote on the issue. Now that is racist if anything is: why cannot I vote on separation between Scotland and England just because I am English. Its like giving the wife the right to divorce her husband, but not giving the husband the right to divorce his wife. Perhaps racist is the wrong word, but it has to be an "-ist" in one form or another, as it is a difference based on nationality.

So if there were to be a proper country wide referendum on schism between England and Scotland (and maybe Wales and Ulster too) any decision is surely racist as it is made on national grounds.

Bringing this back to the EU context therefore, even if a vote is made on a racist ground, does that make it any less valid or appropriate? I may not vote on that basis, others on here might not, and some may. But if they fall into the latter camp does that make their perspective invalid? Does that mean that they should be disenfranchised?

One of the great things about our democracy is that everyone is entitled to vote regardless of their reasoning. The way Swale speaks it almost looks as if he wants to be able to review and validate everyone's voting decisions - most specifically if they vote differently to him. I may not agree with the reasons others have to vote, but I will defend his or her right to vote that way nonetheless. To do otherwise is tyrannical, which seems to be where Swale is coming from.

This level of condescending political snobbery is as unacceptable as the racism Swale's targets are alleged to display

Pity no like button Roger but I like it.

[ramAnag]

I too would vote in favour of an independent Scotland but, not being Scotch, I do not get to vote on the issue. Now that is racist if anything is: why cannot I vote on separation between Scotland and England just because I am English. Its like giving the wife the right to divorce her husband, but not giving the husband the right to divorce his wife. Perhaps racist is the wrong word, but it has to be an "-ist" in one form or another, as it is a difference based on nationality.

So if there were to be a proper country wide referendum on schism between England and Scotland (and maybe Wales and Ulster too) any decision is surely racist as it is made on national grounds.

Bringing this back to the EU context therefore, even if a vote is made on a racist ground, does that make it any less valid or appropriate? I may not vote on that basis, others on here might not, and some may. But if they fall into the latter camp does that make their perspective invalid? Does that mean that they should be disenfranchised?

One of the great things about our democracy is that everyone is entitled to vote regardless of their reasoning. The way Swale speaks it almost looks as if he wants to be able to review and validate everyone's voting decisions - most specifically if they vote differently to him. I may not agree with the reasons others have to vote, but I will defend his or her right to vote that way nonetheless. To do otherwise is tyrannical, which seems to be where Swale is coming from.

This level of condescending political snobbery is as unacceptable as the racism Swale's targets are alleged to display

I know Swale has 'gone off on one' a bit Rog - even though I agree with most of what he's said - but is it really 'condescending political snobbery'? Surely in every other walk of life we take notice of (respect) those we believe 'qualified' to offer an opinion and ignore (disrespect) those we don't. To me it's the same with the referendum and why I believe the whole concept to be such a flawed excercise which actually begs the question...is it such a great thing about our democracy that 'everyone is entitled to vote regardless of their reasoning'? To an extent I'm playing 'devil's advocate' but why is everyone's vote equal when everyone's capacity for 'reasoning' obviously isn't and why do we have to respect the opinions of those - on any side - when there is obviously no reasoning, knowledge or insight involved?

[ramspride]

And you a ****ing ****. because I was not making any comment on those who expressed opinions on this thread, i was describing some morons who were on TV being interviewed who had voted for Brexit, I have not at any time said anything about the comments posted by those on this thread, but seeing as you clearly cannot understand plain english, i'm beginning to assume you belong in the ****ing ignorant camp!

Swaledale can't you see you are destroying your own arguments with a reply like that.

[ramspride]

I know Swale has 'gone off on one' a bit Rog - even though I agree with most of what he's said - but is it really 'condescending political snobbery'? Surely in every other walk of life we take notice of (respect) those we believe 'qualified' to offer an opinion and ignore (disrespect) those we don't. To me it's the same with the referendum and why I believe the whole concept to be such a flawed excercise which actually begs the question...is it such a great thing about our democracy that 'everyone is entitled to vote regardless of their reasoning'? To an extent I'm playing 'devil's advocate' but why is everyone's vote equal when everyone's capacity for 'reasoning' obviously isn't and why do we have to respect the opinions of those - on any side - when there is obviously no reasoning, knowledge or insight involved?

RamAnag your quote 'we take notice of (respect) those we believe 'qualified' to offer an opinion' is IMO a big problem and I'm sure that's why a lot of younger voters voted remain. They very often take note of their teachers at school and lectures at university because they believe they are qualified to opinions. Very often they are not. Many of them have never lived in real life but believe they are an authority on it. They instill on many of their students opinions that are not balanced. I have seen this from my own family and friends. Judgments should be made with an open mind after listening to both sides of an argument not preconceived by education. When I and probably you were young we left school in our mid *****, went to work and learn from the real world. Sadly now nearly everyone goes to 'uni' and does enter the real world till their mid twenties or later when their mind are set.

[macstheman]

A friend of mine trained as a teacher and enjoyed a very successful career. This was a second career having worked in an artisan environment. After 15 years of teaching he changed track and trained in a totally new environment but again in the education world. One of the reasons for him leaving the classroom environment was his fellow teachers. Pointing out that having spent 15 years or more in the classroom being taught they remained in the classroom as the lecturer. He felt that theirs was a totally limited appreciation of the real world which limited their ability to help youngster to prepare for that real world. In addition in his opinion their views on how society should be organised was equally limited often based on earlier influences without question. many were totally convinced that the rest of the world were devoid of the ability to apply logic or reasoning and only they knew what they were talking about.

[macstheman]

A friend of mine trained as a teacher and enjoyed a very successful career. This was a second career having worked in an artisan environment. After 15 years of teaching he changed track and trained in a totally new environment but again in the education world. One of the reasons for him leaving the classroom environment was his fellow teachers. Pointing out that having spent 15 years or more in the classroom being taught they remained in the classroom as the lecturer. He felt that theirs was a totally limited appreciation of the real world which limited their ability to help youngster to prepare for that real world. In addition in his opinion their views on how society should be organised was equally limited often based on earlier influences without question. Many were totally convinced that the rest of the world were devoid of the ability to apply logic or reasoning and only they knew what they were talking about. My experiences with my children did little to make me doubt the accuracy of his assessment!