The EU Referendum - Thursday 23 June (with voting poll)

First topic message reminder :

Hopefully it will stop the arguments about Gib and we can tell Spain to pee off

Just on the issue of mental illness.

It's very prevalent but also very subjective. So by some definitions roughly a third of people have/are suffering from mental illness of some kind, ranging from the minor (mild depression and anxiety) to the very severe and chronic (Schizophrenia, BPAD etc). The milder forms that don't have psychotic features and are treated with just an antidepressant or soft psychological therapies should not automatically be put forward as a mitigating factor in the murder of someone.

So basically, unless he has a history of severe mental illness, as opposed to a less severe illness that required treatment at some point in the past, he is a murderer and his previous history of mental illness should have no bearing on that verdict.

The above is an opinion not a point of law - i'm not a criminal lawyer

However, I agree with Dolphin, by any definition he is a terrorist, and you can bet your bottom dollar if he was a muslim he would be labelled as such.

Also agree with Dolphin regarding his initial point about mental health and mitigation.

The mental health of this chap was brought up immediately - on the same day.

Does anyone know anything about the mental health of Lee Rigby's killers? Does anyone care? And I wouldn't put too much stock in it either unless they suffered from serious psychotic illnesses or similar that completely warp one's sense of person and reality.

Maybe so. Terrorist is often referred to as people from a calculated group though, not a one man handmade weapon job.

I think it's extremely sad though that what people will take away from this women's death is not her work or her life but an almost tumblr level of being triggered about white people and the label of terrorist

He is. In the words of our own profanity filter, a cumquat. Don't need a label to know that

I'm afraid since 9/11 the word terrorist has become synonymous with radical Islam...

Whatever ...the bottom line is ...a good for nothing social outcast has killed a polar opposite..

Probably best to not cast aspersions as to motive until the wash comes out..

temporary21 wrote:Maybe so. Terrorist is often referred to as people from a calculated group though, not a one man handmade weapon job.

I think it's extremely sad though that what people will take away from this women's death is not her work or her life but an almost tumblr level of being triggered about white people and the label of terrorist

He is. In the words of our own profanity filter, a cumquat. Don't need a label to know that

Huh? And how did you reach that conclusion?
Simply because someone comments on the use or not of a label doesn't mean that they disregard the gravity of the offense that took place or the contribution that the victim made to causes.

Truss, you're right, we don't know the full story.

I was making the general point that a history of mental illness in and of itself is not a cause for mitigation.

Well someone's cranky. Just an opinion

No, you were trying to make a nefarious claim - which I rebutted.

That people shouldn't be making a political point out of someone's tragic death before they were buried?

I don't think anyone is saying "whatever, woman, dont care! theres a debate about race to have!" It is merely a talk of the reporting on these points. Probably one that she would believe is right to be had, I would guess, given her campaigns for the welfare of Syrians and such. Who knows, maybe not.

Yeah I do get the argument. We all see how the word terrorist gets used and not used. It's all about whether the terms meaning has changed, and it's a long one

I just don't think this is the time or place. Let her be put to peace at least for a stsrt

If the person in question is a politician and the person who killed her shouts about death to traitors and freedom for Britain then it is a political point.

But that's what he wants isn't it?

That's what all terrorists want, but we don't give them that do we? What even is his point anyway?

Hero wrote:Munchkin, you've stated you're for Remain but haven't been a fan of the campaign, what would you have liked to seen instead and what about being in the EU over leaving sways your vote?

Good question, Hero. I was waiting for someone to ask me, considering my stance on certain issues

I think Brexit have a few points I agree on. I believe in democracy, and I believe we are losing that to the unelected bureaucrats of the European Commission. Not that I think they have a free run at making laws without input from elected officials, but that proposals are being made outside of the UK, debated by officials from different countries with different interests before being passed as Law. So Laws are being made for the UK by a majority of those not British and not elected by the British public.

I'm not against immigration but I am against the open doors policy. The number of migrants coming into the UK is not an issue for me. The fact that there's no control over who is coming in, or the circumstances they do come in under, concerns me. My biggest concern is the exploitation of migrants within the UK. It is something that has been happening for years now, both to the illegal and legal migrants and, as yet, there seems to be no effective laws to safeguard the vulnerable.
There is also a reasonable fear that those with convictions against them are coming in to the UK and continuing with criminal activities once here. Personally, I don't know the numbers, crimes committed, etc. So I can't say to what extent this happens, just that it happens. I do realise that the vast majority of migrants coming in to the UK add real value to the economy and the society in general.

Another concern is the stability of the EU. I don't buy all the positive messages coming out of the Remain camp. Countries such Greece, Italy and Spain experiencing real economic difficulties with the Euro, does put a very large question mark over the future of the Euro and the stability of the EU. As much as there's talk about risks involved with a Brixit, there's also risks involved with staying in. How much the UK can isolate itself from those risks is key.

Lastly, the Remain campaign. I think the Remain campaign has been a disgrace. More so than the Brexit campaign. I have already voiced my thoughts about this on this thread, so wont add further.

So why do I want us to stay in? Well, for one reason only - The economy. I do believe that the UK's economy will suffer loss in the event of pulling out of Europe. It is possible that gains can be made to cover that loss, by renegotiating deals with Europeans, as well as globally, but that a risk. The risk itself wouldn't concern me so much but for the fact that we would have to negotiate those deals within a short time frame. Against the backdrop of a global uncertainty I'm not convinced it's a risk worth taking - 'better the Devil you know'. So, on balance, although I do believe there are risks associated with Remain, I think the greater risk to the economy lies with Brexit.

There's obviously a lot more can be said, but that's generally my feelings on the debate.

temporary21 wrote:But that's what he wants isn't it?

That's what all terrorists want, but we don't give them that do we? What even is his point anyway?

I'm not sure thats true, nor anywhere near a normal way to react. I dont wanna live in that world where people dont talk after these things.

Right

But 1) we've no idea what he meant
2) she only very recently died. Give it a week surely?

Also may I ask why it's being brought up in s referendum debate? Is that really relevant?

We don't talk about things then we forget, we don't question things then we accept them.

Temp, you're never really gonna have much conversation over things if you have to know the 100% confirmed meaning.

And I wouldnt talk about it around family and friends of hers. But actually it probably is important to understand the politics and the overall message.

I think it is probably brought up here cos undoubtedly it will influence some votes, and probably came up in conversation.

Another view could be that the reason it is being brought up in conversation is to influence votes....

So what do you think he meant then? And why is it relevant?

In here? I dont think I really believe anyone feels they're gonna change anyone's minds in here

temporary21 wrote:So what do you think he meant then? And why is it relevant?

To me? Yeah I think so. We're talking about the biggest political question and democratic decision in years, and then a vocal left wing politician is killed by what seems a very right wing man.

What did he mean? Hate, at the very least.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:In here? I dont think I really believe anyone feels they're gonna change anyone's minds in here

I'm not convinced.

Munchkin wrote:Another view could be that the reason it is being brought up in conversation is to influence votes....

That's also presumably why she was killed, because she was fighting hard and fast for the remain campaign. I can't be 100 percent sure but I'd guess at that. I do understand that it's unfair to leave to suffer from this despite not being at fault for any of it. The guy is mentally unstable and was a neo nazi long before this referendum was even in the offing. But I can't help but feel that it's much more important that what she lost her life for ought to be said rather than being swept behind in the interests of fair play. It's just one of those things where there's no middle ground.

ShahenshahG wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Another view could be that the reason it is being brought up in conversation is to influence votes....

That's also presumably why she was killed, because she was fighting hard and fast for the remain campaign. I can't be 100 percent sure but I'd guess at that. I do understand that it's unfair to leave to suffer from this despite not being at fault for any of it. The guy is mentally unstable and was a neo nazi long before this referendum was even in the offing. But I can't help but feel that it's much more important that what she lost her life for ought to be said rather than being swept behind in the interests of fair play. It's just one of those things where there's no middle ground.

We don't know exactly why Jo Cox was murdered but, on the little we do know, it's safer to assume she was killed because a man didn't get/accept the mental health help required.

What's important to her memory is the things she cared for. Remain was just one of these, and so what is important is that Remain, the debate, is talked about. Not her murder. I have little respect for the sort of people using her murder for their own agendas.

Munchkin wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Another view could be that the reason it is being brought up in conversation is to influence votes....

That's also presumably why she was killed, because she was fighting hard and fast for the remain campaign. I can't be 100 percent sure but I'd guess at that. I do understand that it's unfair to leave to suffer from this despite not being at fault for any of it. The guy is mentally unstable and was a neo nazi long before this referendum was even in the offing. But I can't help but feel that it's much more important that what she lost her life for ought to be said rather than being swept behind in the interests of fair play. It's just one of those things where there's no middle ground.

We don't know exactly why Jo Cox was murdered but, on the little we do know, it's safer to assume she was killed because a man didn't get/accept the mental health help required.

What's important to her memory is the things she cared for. Remain was just one of these, and so what is important is that Remain, the debate, is talked about. Not her murder. I have little respect for the sort of people using her murder for their own agendas.

Same here. But I think Cameron or one of his aides posting a link to her impassioned argument for remain isn't him using her death for his agenda. It's quite simply posting a link to what she strove for but the event of her murder gives it a much bigger platform than she or anyone would have gotten without it. I understand that its not fair and it looks like it'll be milked for what it's worth but no one asked for her to be murdered, as you said it was the act of a mentally ill man who might have done it for a whole host of reasons. But I think it's also unfair to castigate Cameron for this particular intervention. That slimy c*nt has hundreds of things to answer for but this time he only did what he could.

I think the fear here is that people are using an extremely unstable mans words in court as a means to make a point about the leave campaign. I dont think thats what anyones doing, but if it was that would a sick way to use a tragedy

i.E maybe this shoudlnt be part of the referendum debate. He most certainly does not represent the views ot points of the leave campaign.

Munchkin wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Another view could be that the reason it is being brought up in conversation is to influence votes....

That's also presumably why she was killed, because she was fighting hard and fast for the remain campaign. I can't be 100 percent sure but I'd guess at that. I do understand that it's unfair to leave to suffer from this despite not being at fault for any of it. The guy is mentally unstable and was a neo nazi long before this referendum was even in the offing. But I can't help but feel that it's much more important that what she lost her life for ought to be said rather than being swept behind in the interests of fair play. It's just one of those things where there's no middle ground.

We don't know exactly why Jo Cox was murdered but, on the little we do know, it's safer to assume she was killed because a man didn't get/accept the mental health help required.

What's important to her memory is the things she cared for. Remain was just one of these, and so what is important is that Remain, the debate, is talked about. Not her murder. I have little respect for the sort of people using her murder for their own agendas.

Precisely this really. A bit of respect for the dead, at least until things have calmed down

I do find two things very odd about the way the media has handled the Jo Cox killing.

1. Being very very pedantic, was it not an assassination, it was after all a politically motivated killing.
2. It was unequivocally an act of terrorism, a killing carried out to promote fear for remain voters.

Assuming that what he said in court was actually reliable.
If hes extremely ill, who knows if he even meant what he said? Probably why we should wait,and not let an act of terrorism affect the referendum.

I imagine, the media has taken the same stance

Oh dear the cracks are widening...

senior Tory politician will announce today that she is abandoning Brexit in protest at its “hate and xenophobia” and defecting to the Remain campaign.

With splits opening in the Leave camp, Baroness Warsi, the former communities minister who co-chaired the Tory party, accused Michael Gove, the justice secretary and Brexit campaigner, of peddling “complete lies”. Lady Warsi said that the final straw for her was hearing Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, defend a poster with the slogan “breaking point” depicting refugees trudging across Europe.

I personally draw the following conclusions from Thomas Mair killing Jo Cox:

- This was the act of one man, and the blame lies with him. The blame does not sit with the Leave campaign.
- Clearly, like all people, his mind will have been influenced by external factors, and a large number of media reports suggest that Thomas Mair shared extreme right wing views.
- Jo Cox was a left wing politician, a vocal supporter of Remain, and a vocal supporter of UK ground troops being deployed in war zones to protect civilian lives.
- I think it lies outside the realm of reason not to attribute the killing of Jo Cox to political views held by Thomas Mair. I suspect those views, possibly in combination with a degree of "mental illness", resulted in this chain of events.
- I don't think the killing should in any way influence the EU Referendum. No-one in the Leave campaign has endorsed this behaviour, and I do not believe the rhetoric of the campaign from both sides can be sufficient to absolve Thomas Mair of the culpability of his actions, which sits squarely with him.

Jo Cox RIP.

I've had a bit of a hectic weekend so haven't been keeping up to date with the tragic killing of Jo Cox - but is there any fact behind him having a mental illness? I'm not doubting fact if he had one, just heard it banded around but haven't heard what he had wrong with him.

As predicted the polls are now starting to show the usual trend of people leaning towards the status quo. Remain is now a heavy 1/3 favourite as well.... Duty must be well and truly utterly shi*ting his pants at the thought of his racist hero Nigel having little point to exist, let alone the fact he's going to lose 3 months worth of pay on a silly bet

3 months of pay? You've lost me.

And I think you're a little confused. If 'Remain' wins, UKIP and Farage will still have an ongoing fight to be part of, whereas if 'Leave' wins, UKIP and Farage will have served their main purpose.

Hero wrote:Oh dear the cracks are widening...

senior Tory politician will announce today that she is abandoning Brexit in protest at its “hate and xenophobia” and defecting to the Remain campaign.

With splits opening in the Leave camp, Baroness Warsi, the former communities minister who co-chaired the Tory party, accused Michael Gove, the justice secretary and Brexit campaigner, of peddling “complete lies”. Lady Warsi said that the final straw for her was hearing Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, defend a poster with the slogan “breaking point” depicting refugees trudging across Europe.

She never even supported Vote Leave! This is a farcical staged occurrence.

Duty281 wrote:

Hero wrote:Oh dear the cracks are widening...

senior Tory politician will announce today that she is abandoning Brexit in protest at its “hate and xenophobia” and defecting to the Remain campaign.

With splits opening in the Leave camp, Baroness Warsi, the former communities minister who co-chaired the Tory party, accused Michael Gove, the justice secretary and Brexit campaigner, of peddling “complete lies”. Lady Warsi said that the final straw for her was hearing Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, defend a poster with the slogan “breaking point” depicting refugees trudging across Europe.

She never even supported Vote Leave! This is a farcical staged occurrence.

Agree. After some digging I think there have been a total of three Tweets from Warsi previously that hint at support for Brexit.

The better story would have simply been Baroness Warsi declares support for Remain. It's a shame they felt the need to overcook it.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Hero wrote:Oh dear the cracks are widening...

senior Tory politician will announce today that she is abandoning Brexit in protest at its “hate and xenophobia” and defecting to the Remain campaign.

With splits opening in the Leave camp, Baroness Warsi, the former communities minister who co-chaired the Tory party, accused Michael Gove, the justice secretary and Brexit campaigner, of peddling “complete lies”. Lady Warsi said that the final straw for her was hearing Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, defend a poster with the slogan “breaking point” depicting refugees trudging across Europe.

She never even supported Vote Leave! This is a farcical staged occurrence.

Agree. After some digging I think there have been a total of three Tweets from Warsi previously that hint at support for Brexit.

The better story would have simply been Baroness Warsi declares support for Remain. It's a shame they felt the need to overcook it.

Yes, the Times (which supports Remain; but the Sunday version supports Leave, oddly enough) had a headline that she defected, initially, but they changed it for later editions.

http://order-order.com/2016/06/20/warsi-wanted-europe-declined-join-leave-campaign/

Duty281 wrote:3 months of pay? You've lost me.

And I think you're a little confused. If 'Remain' wins, UKIP and Farage will still have an ongoing fight to be part of, whereas if 'Leave' wins, UKIP and Farage will have served their main purpose.

I'm not so sure. I think a Remain vote will sink UKIP. The silly poster campaign by Farage has demonstrated that poor judgement I was talking about earlier on this thread, because it has created a big divide in the Leave campaign between UKIP and the Leave Tories.

The Leave Tories are absolutely key to this (the UKIP right wingers will always vote Leave - it's the Tory "moderates", like Gove, that hold the key to getting them past 50%), and rather than talking about the positive case for Leave at the weekend, they had to devote time to denouncing Farage and his ill-judged poster.

I had previously wondered whether a Remain vote might split the Tories and result in a mass defection to UKIP, but I think the brand is just a bit too toxic for what are a group of relatively traditional MPs. I think Leave need to put Johnson and Gove front and centre for the last three days of campaigning, and put a muzzle on Farage to the extent possible. He's already done his bit in securing the referendum and getting the right wing vote motivated, now they need to focus on the centre right. Johnson, Gove, Grayling and Duncan-Smith are the key now.

Conversely I think Remain need to be mindful of those voters who will be swayed by that Tory cabal, and not just think that this can be won by Labour. Remain need to remind voters that a choice to remain in the EU is the position supported by Labour, SNP, Greens, Lib Dems and Conservatives. They need to bang home that cross-party message and the positive case, whilst implicitly reminding voters that the two largest parties outside of that group which support Leave are UKIP and the BNP. Whose side are you on? It's time for simple messages.

Duty281 wrote:3 months of pay? You've lost me.

And I think you're a little confused. If 'Remain' wins, UKIP and Farage will still have an ongoing fight to be part of, whereas if 'Leave' wins, UKIP and Farage will have served their main purpose.

Not sure how you get to that standpoint. UKIP only exists because they want out of the EU, annoyingly it's them numpties who bought about the pressure for this referendum. We stay in the EU = 98% of their noise can't be repeated as there simply will not be another referendum for a generation at least, at which point they will have simply drifted in to obscurity.

Once Labour get shot of Corbyn and replace with someone who is able to win the working class voters lost to UKIP then this will simply add to this scenario.

Thanks Nigel though for your utterly racist poster though, done the remain campaign a world of good. Funny how Gove and co says he's not part of their campaign but they were more than happy to use him as a face for it the other week in the Q&A on live TV.

Duty281 wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Hero wrote:Oh dear the cracks are widening...

senior Tory politician will announce today that she is abandoning Brexit in protest at its “hate and xenophobia” and defecting to the Remain campaign.

With splits opening in the Leave camp, Baroness Warsi, the former communities minister who co-chaired the Tory party, accused Michael Gove, the justice secretary and Brexit campaigner, of peddling “complete lies”. Lady Warsi said that the final straw for her was hearing Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, defend a poster with the slogan “breaking point” depicting refugees trudging across Europe.

She never even supported Vote Leave! This is a farcical staged occurrence.

Agree. After some digging I think there have been a total of three Tweets from Warsi previously that hint at support for Brexit.

The better story would have simply been Baroness Warsi declares support for Remain. It's a shame they felt the need to overcook it.

Yes, the Times (which supports Remain; but the Sunday version supports Leave, oddly enough) had a headline that she defected, initially, but they changed it for later editions.

http://order-order.com/2016/06/20/warsi-wanted-europe-declined-join-leave-campaign/

...and now the Twitterati is full of people asking that very question - was she ever in favour of Brexit, rather than focusing on the key point here which is that a senior Tory has endorsed Remain in large part due to the ill-judged toxic imagery being pumped out by UKIP.

But that's leave isn't it?

You're not an expert.
You're lying.
You're scaremongering.
Etc etc

Coxy001 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:3 months of pay? You've lost me.

And I think you're a little confused. If 'Remain' wins, UKIP and Farage will still have an ongoing fight to be part of, whereas if 'Leave' wins, UKIP and Farage will have served their main purpose.

Not sure how you get to that standpoint. UKIP only exists because they want out of the EU, annoyingly it's them numpties who bought about the pressure for this referendum. We stay in the EU = 98% of their noise can't be repeated as there simply will not be another referendum for a generation at least, at which point they will have simply drifted in to obscurity.

Once Labour get shot of Corbyn and replace with someone who is able to win the working class voters lost to UKIP then this will simply add to this scenario.

Thanks Nigel though for your utterly racist poster though, done the remain campaign a world of good. Funny how Gove and co says he's not part of their campaign but they were more than happy to use him as a face for it the other week in the Q&A on live TV.

Exactly, there won't be another referendum for an age. So people who want to Leave, a number which will be greater than the number of people who voted Tory in 2015, will realise that the only want to get out of the EU is to vote UKIP, again and again until they get what they want.

Duty281 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:3 months of pay? You've lost me.

And I think you're a little confused. If 'Remain' wins, UKIP and Farage will still have an ongoing fight to be part of, whereas if 'Leave' wins, UKIP and Farage will have served their main purpose.

Not sure how you get to that standpoint. UKIP only exists because they want out of the EU, annoyingly it's them numpties who bought about the pressure for this referendum. We stay in the EU = 98% of their noise can't be repeated as there simply will not be another referendum for a generation at least, at which point they will have simply drifted in to obscurity.

Once Labour get shot of Corbyn and replace with someone who is able to win the working class voters lost to UKIP then this will simply add to this scenario.

Thanks Nigel though for your utterly racist poster though, done the remain campaign a world of good. Funny how Gove and co says he's not part of their campaign but they were more than happy to use him as a face for it the other week in the Q&A on live TV.

Exactly, there won't be another referendum for an age. So people who want to Leave, a number which will be greater than the number of people who voted Tory in 2015, will realise that the only want to get out of the EU is to vote UKIP, again and again until they get what they want.

Is that the same logic behind why the Tories took a fairly big chunk of votes away from the SNP following on from the No vote to independance? They realised that there won't be another independance vote for years and years so saw no reason to vote for the SNP as the voices of "leave the UK" have no real might behind them and instead listened more to pressing current affairs.

When Farage put out that poster I wonder how many Brexiters suddenly had this dawning on them...

Based on current polls there'll be more people voting leave than did the ss party...

Coxy001 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Coxy001 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:3 months of pay? You've lost me.

And I think you're a little confused. If 'Remain' wins, UKIP and Farage will still have an ongoing fight to be part of, whereas if 'Leave' wins, UKIP and Farage will have served their main purpose.

Not sure how you get to that standpoint. UKIP only exists because they want out of the EU, annoyingly it's them numpties who bought about the pressure for this referendum. We stay in the EU = 98% of their noise can't be repeated as there simply will not be another referendum for a generation at least, at which point they will have simply drifted in to obscurity.

Once Labour get shot of Corbyn and replace with someone who is able to win the working class voters lost to UKIP then this will simply add to this scenario.

Thanks Nigel though for your utterly racist poster though, done the remain campaign a world of good. Funny how Gove and co says he's not part of their campaign but they were more than happy to use him as a face for it the other week in the Q&A on live TV.

Exactly, there won't be another referendum for an age. So people who want to Leave, a number which will be greater than the number of people who voted Tory in 2015, will realise that the only want to get out of the EU is to vote UKIP, again and again until they get what they want.

Is that the same logic behind why the Tories took a fairly big chunk of votes away from the SNP following on from the No vote to independance? They realised that there won't be another independance vote for years and years so saw no reason to vote for the SNP as the voices of "leave the UK" have no real might behind them and instead listened more to pressing current affairs.

Actually I don't think the reason you give is the one that drove people in Scotland to vote Tory. For years the SNP have been more popular in Scotland than the independence movement. People have previously voted SNP because they felt they were competent, and would stick up for Scotland when seeking to barter a better deal (i.e. more fiscal autonomy). Labour had disintegrated, the Tories deeply unpopular and this, combined with those SNP factors, lead to a majority SNP govt. Then came the referendum, which deeply divided Scotland (as much as the EU referendum is damaging the fabric of the UK). Independence because a realistic prospect and those voters who voted SNP on the basis of competence and sticking up for Scotland (rather than for independence) deserted them. The SNP effectively lost a tranche of supporters who weren't actually pro-independence, and those voters (now voting principally against independence) shifted to the Tories, a wee bit to Labour and a bit to Lib Dem. The SNP are still the most popular party, but their approach to the neverendum has certainly damaged their prospects in Scottish govt elections.

The other factor is Ruth Davidson, who has done a fantastic job of detoxifying the Tory party image in Scotland. She has made them a credible force again, almost single-handedly. Labour desperately need an equivalent figurehead. Dugdale is competent, but is not inspiring.

In

there are 3 reasons for voting out
1) xenophobia
2) a nostalgia for a 1950s that never really existed
3) You believe the lies of the right wing press

All decision makers in the EU are elected - "unelected bureaucrats" is one lie too many folk believe

TJ wrote:In

there are 3 reasons for voting out
1) xenophobia
2) a nostalgia for a 1950s that never really existed
3) You believe the lies of the right wing press

All decision makers in the EU are elected - "unelected Bloated Brussels bureaucrats" is one lie too many folk believe

You forgot a key phrase of the UKIP message. These bureaucrats are invariably "bloated".

funnyExiledScot wrote:

other folk cut out wrote:

Actually I don't think the reason you give is the one that drove people in Scotland to vote Tory. For years the SNP have been more popular in Scotland than the independence movement. People have previously voted SNP because they felt they were competent, and would stick up for Scotland when seeking to barter a better deal (i.e. more fiscal autonomy). Labour had disintegrated, the Tories deeply unpopular and this, combined with those SNP factors, lead to a majority SNP govt. Then came the referendum, which deeply divided Scotland (as much as the EU referendum is damaging the fabric of the UK). Independence because a realistic prospect and those voters who voted SNP on the basis of competence and sticking up for Scotland (rather than for independence) deserted them. The SNP effectively lost a tranche of supporters who weren't actually pro-independence, and those voters (now voting principally against independence) shifted to the Tories, a wee bit to Labour and a bit to Lib Dem. The SNP are still the most popular party, but their approach to the neverendum has certainly damaged their prospects in Scottish govt elections.

The other factor is Ruth Davidson, who has done a fantastic job of detoxifying the Tory party image in Scotland. She has made them a credible force again, almost single-handedly. Labour desperately need an equivalent figurehead. Dugdale is competent, but is not inspiring.

The SNP vote did not go down.  It actually went up in the constituency vote but by a quirk of the system this lead to less seats overall as they go very few list seats.  Davidson is certainly an effective politician and second only to Sturgeon in Holyrood[/quote]

Wowsers, shoot off to Paris friday lunchtime and miss about 5 pages of OT discourse!!


Since I'm very late in the day, I'll just wade in with it being complete bullsh!t about all this mental health rubbish with the parasite that killed Jo Cox. He's a vile disgusting racist that derserves the same level of hatred and disdain as the Rigby killers.