Jump to content

Eisegerwind

Member
  • Content Count

    1,621
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Eisegerwind last won the day on June 3 2018

Eisegerwind had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

172 Great guy

Recent Profile Visitors

2,974 profile views
  1. If that's correct we'd be as well chucking it now. If the independence side can't convince the electorate that a bit of short term pain will be insignificant to the long term gain, again, we'd be as well chucking it. It's not possibe and shouldn't be neccessary that the independence side has every answer and every solution to every question and every problem. All that the independence side should be required to do is convince the electorate that we have the people and resources available to solve and overcome any problems that may arise and build a successfull properous nation.
  2. Nope. We need people to vote for independence like the leavers voted for brexit, regardless, of the as we've seen, 'unkown consequences'. The details of borders and currencies and the umpteen other changes that we will have to deal with, are what they will be. The whole point of independence, is a belief that we are a nation, with a population that are big enough and ugly enough, to to deal with what we will need to deal with.
  3. I had in my head SNP were on 39. How many of the other party votes are personal/candidate votes rather than party.
  4. i don't know either but I suspect if the question was the same the numbers would be the same. As a point of pedantry which was pointed out to me by a colleauge, a referendum is a vote on a single point. A 'referendum' on several leave options would be an absolute minefield in just about every way possible. Nor would I but it's what's happening.
  5. Politicians taking a harder line after they've won a vote not that surprising, and yes there probably is revisionism on all sides. However even after the post vote shitshow we've had to endure if that question was put to the electorate again do you not think the 17.4 million would vote the same way again. I guess the election will sort of establish that or not.
  6. I'd regard the above as revisionism, because you are using post vote terminology to analyse pre vote intentions. I htink that's where we differ, for me the Leave vote was leave regardless of hard or soft, therefore the 17.4m applies to both or even all possible options.
  7. I'll summarise. White evangelical protestants have become even more cuntish by adopting Trump as the new messiah.
  8. I don't buy that, I wouldn't expect the general electorate to be that informed or interested in nuances of a Leave vote. (and to be honest no reason why they should be, that's what we pay politicians for). If you look at the EU referendum thread on this forum which is generally posted on by politically minded posters there are no references to any of the terms that you've used in the second sentence prior to the vote. It would appear that theses issues have only become relevant since leave won!
  9. An delightful extract from the BBC website about climate change. Different approaches Sir Ian says it's actually more carbon-efficient to raise sheep and cattle on intensive high-tech farms than on traditional extensive pastures. That's because although intensive farming with animals fed on grains and soya creates more CO2 emissions, it creates fewer methane emissions. Research proves, he says, that because intensively-raised animals grow and mature quicker, they are slaughtered younger - so they belch less methane in their shorter lives. As methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 in the medium term, that means intensively-farmed livestock are less bad for the climate. Image copyright Getty Images Sir Ian said: "All the evidence tells us that intensive farming done well is much more environmentally friendly than extensive farming. "Intensive farming is able to apply much more modern technology. And changes (to farming) will lead to significant reduction in the amount of land farmed directly for food." What's the farmers' viewpoint? The NFU takes exactly the opposite stance. She also forecast that British sheep and cows would be bred and reared to reach slaughter much more quickly in order to reduce methane burps. "The argument about methane is badly flawed. We can 'finish' an animal just as quickly (as intensive farming)… under 15 months using right genetics and using the right breed."
×
×
  • Create New...