Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

The Conservatives should embrace a yes vote for Scottish independence now

Britain has fought many wars over self-determination, so independence for Scotland should not be treated as a privilege


Simon Jenkins


The Guardian, Tuesday 31 December 2013





This could be the year that Great Britain comes to an end. The prospect is historically momentous. Yet it is one that appears to evoke nothing more than a yawn from most English people. The reason, I assume, is that to them it does not much matter. They have moved on from such things.

We tend to forget that the confederacy to which most of us owe loyalty – the United Kingdom – was invented only in 1801 and lasted until 1922. The so-called UK survives only by the thread of Northern Ireland. As for Great Britain, it was a joint monarchy declared by James I in 1604, generously embracing Ireland and France. It became a single state under one parliament only in 1707 (without Ireland, then still a colony). If the Scots do vote for independence in this year's referendum there will doubtless be some new treaty to replace the act of union, but Great Britain will be no more.



More: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/31/conservatives-embrace-yes-vote-scottish-independence

i think i think or at least i always thought i thought and as i am i must think i think for which i think i thank descartes

Thought for the day for M and H.

Many people believe that they are think when they are merely actually are rearranging their prejudices.
--=--=--
Those who attempt to think sometimes recognise their beliefs and prejudices and the limitations of those judgements and themselves, thus possibly allowing them at least the satisfaction of reconsideration and rearrangement of their prejudices once in a while.

===============
One question is what is prejudice attempting to protect one from?


=========

I look at the list to see if the Hazy one had got a gong for fawning to Wavey Dave and party HQ.

But alas couldn't see his name!

i think many learn their prejudices from their mother's knee, which is why their prejudiced utterances become their stocking trade

of course, other prejudices are not prejudices at all, except in the prejudiced eyes of others
these sogenannte prejudices may actually be the result of thinking about others' prejudices and then formulating their own
as time goes by, these prejudices may be perceived as prejudices by the holder of those prejudices, so they may move
in such a case, the holder will judge that his previous prejudices were indeed prejudices whereas the new positions are well thought out thoughts, or at least that is what he thinks they are having given much thought
on the other hand, even having thought that his prejudices were prejudices, he may conclude that those prejudices are not prejudices at all, though others may still consider those prejudices prejudices, whereas he thinks those prejudices are indeed the fruit of careful thought

and is there honey still for tea?

“Think to yourself and let others enjoy the privilege of you doing so too.”

Voltaire with a Twist.

"You have been pontificating here too long for the benefit of none but yourself. Depart, we all say, and let us have done with you, and let us enjoy the privilege of you so doing"

the likely opinion of most on this board

Na.

After you Claude!

Political class is to blame for new wave of migrants

AND so it begins. But do not blame the citizens of Romania and Bulgaria for flocking to our shores when our Government has extended an open-ended invitation.

Published: Wed, January 1, 2014

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/451430/Political-class-is-to-blame-for-new-wave-of-migrants


Which of us, if unfortunate enough to be born in one of the poorest countries of Eastern Europe, can say we would turn down the offer of access to the jobs market and benefits system of one of the richest countries in Western Europe?

Basic economics dictates that a westward flow of migrants will continue across Europe while the EU’s freedom of movement laws continue to hold sway.

Many of the new arrivals have come with the intention of working and it will not be their fault if the taxes they pay fail to cover the cost of the public services they consume or the welfare state entitlements they take up. Neither will they be to blame if their presence causes further downward pressure on wages or makes it harder for Britain’s unemployed to find work.

The minority – perhaps a sizeable one – of Romanians and Bulgarians who are coming simply to live off benefits deserve less sympathy. But even they are simply taking advantage of a system they did not create.

It was our politicians who did that.

They should not expect forgiveness any time soon.

sorry, but can you enlighten us as to which brand of politicians inaugurated this?
merely curious

Noo Labour, with the tacit agreement of both the other crews.

chuckle chuckle chuckle
and for how long did labour allow this policy to continue and from when?
just thought to get the pitch marked out :-)

No.

It was Churchill wanting closer ties (control) in Europe and Ted Heath for leading the country in.

Then Maggie for not breaking the Union up, followed by Major signing the UK fortunes away.

Labour having to put up with the sign contract and Gutless Cameroon huffing and puffing but not tearing up legally binding contracts and retreating and sulking his way into obscurity.

=======

It is all piffle and waffle. The costs of retreating out of Europe are too high and Cameron although blustering knows it.

Reform some regulations etc. yes. But the same applies to rules and regulations of the UK government and also enforcement of some rule and laws we already have,

A large % of MPs would be behind bars if they were unemployed, or on well-fare and made similar false expense claims and "private" deals with "political" advisers.

===========

IDS waste of money would could be used and his claims for IT should be examined more closely.

===========

Who is financing the UKIPPERS?

How about letting in say 10,000 of them, Romanians and Bulgarians. In return for these countries taking fred. They I would think would not be able to stomach him for a year at a time, so can have him for a rotating 6 months. :-))

when i want your opinion, i'll ask for it, but don't hold your breath - or on second thoughts, please do

meanwhile, i await Max so i/we can have a sensible discussion

I will even pay for a one way flight. lol

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the "major shift" in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.

He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.

He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.

He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."

The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.

Some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since then, according to Whitehall estimates quietly slipped out last month.

On Question Time on Thursday, Mr Straw was repeatedly quizzed about whether Labour's immigration policies had left the door open for the BNP.

In his column, Mr Neather said that as well as bringing in hundreds of thousands more migrants to plug labour market gaps, there was also a "driving political purpose" behind immigration policy.

He defended the policy, saying mass immigration has "enriched" Britain, and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.

But he acknowledged that "nervous" ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters.

"Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.

"But ministers wouldn't talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn't necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men's clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland."

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: "Now at least the truth is out, and it's dynamite.

"Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right.

"This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage."

The chairmen of the cross-party Group for Balanced Migration, MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, said: "We welcome this statement by an ex-adviser, which the whole country knows to be true.

"It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain."

Dreams.

Prefer to stay here and try to educate Manuel as he had such an inferior institutional education which must have affected his subsequent development.

Also, I enjoy tweaking the small remnant of consciences of some of the younger and older reactionaries.

---------------

Mind Romania is supposed to be a beautiful country and I recall somewhere I read of Prince Charles had bought some property as a bolt hole.

I hope he had a visa.

--------

Hays,

I have always thought you believed in fairy stories.