pitrevie

I will just take your last sentence because it demonstrates you clearly do not know what you are talking about. Before you claim that 55% of UK Laws are dictated by the EU Commission please supply proof. The University of Liverpool Law School Professor Michael Dougan the leading EU lawyer says otherwise. This was one of the big lies thrown up by Brexiters. However do feel free to contradict Professor Michael Dougan I look forward to you substantiating that statement. I have already posted two of his videos explaining this but then I doubt you really want to base your opinion on evidence.

My last sentence was "No knowledge as to its accuracy (and its not my problem)" so I have no intention of substantiating something that was passed on to me and forwarded as such with a personal disclaimer.

If you tried reading and comprehending what was posted before climbing on your high horse, we would both be better off.

Nice try just write a load of rubbish none of which you have any knowledge as to its veracity.

I have no knowledge whether any of the following is true but its not my problem.

Next supply a long list of utter garbage without first checking. Well its not difficult to see why you voted for Brexit.

What is wrong with you? I didn't write it, it was sent to me, and as I thought it was, at the least, interesting I put it on the forum making it quite plain that i had no knowledge of its veracity.

It is not my problem because I am a bloody Australian who is not a citizen, resident or even a visitor to the UK, who for some strange reason didn't vote at all. If it is garbage, repudiate it

So you post a load of nonsense none of which you have checked and now you try to claim its nothing to do with you. When challenged on even one part of it you disown it. Great posting.

The urge to destroy can be contagious

Your full of it, grow up and stop crying like a girl.

The EU is going to make all countries armies

into 1 EU army, now tell me, is that a good

thing,,, Adolph.

Alas another myth but don't let reality impinge.

Next supply a long list of utter garbage without first checking. Well its not difficult to see why you voted for Brexit.

Lawyers never lie.

Your just a bad loser, you lost the vote accept it and move on.

If you want to go and live in Syria, I'm sure they'll be pleased to have you.

You know, your forum name seems a bit German, are you now, or have you ever been a German?

I see you haven't bothered to look at the evidence or even to try and refute it with actual evidence.

However as for your last two sentences I think they say a lot more about you than they do about me.

I will just take your last sentence because it demonstrates you clearly do not know what you are talking about. Before you claim that 55% of UK Laws are dictated by the EU Commission please supply proof. The University of Liverpool Law School Professor Michael Dougan the leading EU lawyer says otherwise. This was one of the big lies thrown up by Brexiters. However do feel free to contradict Professor Michael Dougan I look forward to you substantiating that statement. I have already posted two of his videos explaining this but then I doubt you really want to base your opinion on evidence.

My last sentence was "No knowledge as to its accuracy (and its not my problem)" so I have no intention of substantiating something that was passed on to me and forwarded as such with a personal disclaimer.

If you tried reading and comprehending what was posted before climbing on your high horse, we would both be better off.

Nice try just write a load of rubbish none of which you have any knowledge as to its veracity.

I have no knowledge whether any of the following is true but its not my problem.

Next supply a long list of utter garbage without first checking. Well its not difficult to see why you voted for Brexit.

Before you claim that 55% of UK Laws are dictated by the EU Commission please supply proof. The University of Liverpool Law School Professor Michael Dougan the leading EU lawyer says otherwise. This was one of the big lies thrown up by Brexiters. However do feel free to contradict Professor Michael Dougan I look forward to you substantiating that statement. I have already posted two of his videos explaining this but then I doubt you really want to base your opinion on evidence.

It was a Jeremy Paxman BBC Documentary, and he counted the laws made in 3 years (2010-2013), 59% were created by the EU.

Reported here

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/672141/six-out-of-every-10-UK-laws-come-from-European-Union-bureaucrats-Brexit-EU-Jeremy-Paxman

Well he is wrong and Professor Michael Dougan who specializes in EU Law states that quite clearly in his two videos so I will go along with a professor in EU law as opposed to someone on the box.

Just counting laws is a poor measure. It happens all the time in the United States where you will see someone say that they voted 86% in common with x and thus I am politically close to x..... while the fact is that 80%+ of the legislation passed is more ceremonial or of no real legislative value in peoples lives. Also not all laws created by a level of government is bad. These percentage comparisons could both be "right" within a certain criteria but still both numbers could be completely idiotic and useless. Not all laws are of equal value.

Unfortunately casting aspersions is all the Brexiters have, we heard it continuously from Farage every time he was confronted by some financial report he dismissed it as people who were paid to produce reports which favored a particular outcome. Gove even dismissed any input from experts as being irrelevant.

It does not matter what the subject, climate denial, evolution the same people cannot produce any evidence to back up their statements and always fall back on rubbishing the source as having a vested interest in that particular outcome.

Before you claim that 55% of UK Laws are dictated by the EU Commission please supply proof. The University of Liverpool Law School Professor Michael Dougan the leading EU lawyer says otherwise. This was one of the big lies thrown up by Brexiters. However do feel free to contradict Professor Michael Dougan I look forward to you substantiating that statement. I have already posted two of his videos explaining this but then I doubt you really want to base your opinion on evidence.

It was a Jeremy Paxman BBC Documentary, and he counted the laws made in 3 years (2010-2013), 59% were created by the EU.

Reported here

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/672141/six-out-of-every-10-UK-laws-come-from-European-Union-bureaucrats-Brexit-EU-Jeremy-Paxman

Well he is wrong and Professor Michael Dougan who specializes in EU Law states that quite clearly in his two videos so I will go along with a professor in EU law as opposed to someone on the box.

Mr. Paxman (watched closely by the BBC) is more likely to be truthful than a Professor with a vested interest in the EU.

Again the slur about a professor with a vested interest just the sort of lie that continues. Try watching the videos he even answers that type of unjustified slur. However I know its the best you can ever come up with.

Before you claim that 55% of UK Laws are dictated by the EU Commission please supply proof. The University of Liverpool Law School Professor Michael Dougan the leading EU lawyer says otherwise. This was one of the big lies thrown up by Brexiters. However do feel free to contradict Professor Michael Dougan I look forward to you substantiating that statement. I have already posted two of his videos explaining this but then I doubt you really want to base your opinion on evidence.

It was a Jeremy Paxman BBC Documentary, and he counted the laws made in 3 years (2010-2013), 59% were created by the EU.

Reported here

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/672141/six-out-of-every-10-UK-laws-come-from-European-Union-bureaucrats-Brexit-EU-Jeremy-Paxman

Well he is wrong and Professor Michael Dougan who specializes in EU Law states that quite clearly in his two videos so I will go along with a professor in EU law as opposed to someone on the box.

Just to add from the The House of Commons Library has warned that "there is no totally accurate, rational or useful way of calculating the percentage of national laws based on or influenced by the EU." I guess along with the good Professor they don't know what they are talking about but Jeremy Paxman does.

Have just been sent this. No knowledge as to its accuracy (and its not my problem)

Why they want to Brexit

Read it and weep!

A short list of financial and industrial FUBARs from the EU

.

..

Cadbury moved factory to Poland 2011 with EU grant.

Ford Transit moved to Turkey 2013 with EU grant.

Jaguar Land Rover has recently agreed to build a new plant in Slovakia with EU grant, owned by Tata, the same company who have trashed our steel works and emptied the workers’ pension funds.

Peugeot closed its Ryton (was Rootes Group) plant and moved production to Slovakia with EU grant.

British Army's new Ajax fighting vehicles to be built in SPAIN using SWEDISH steel at the request of the EU to support jobs in Spain with EU grant, rather than Wales.

Dyson gone to Malaysia, with an EU loan.

Crown Closures, Bournemouth (Was METAL BOX), gone to Poland with EU grant, once employed 1,200.

M&S manufacturing gone to far east with EU loan.

Hornby models gone. In fact all toys and models now gone from UK along with the patents all with EU grants.

Gillette gone to eastern Europe with EU grant.

Texas Instruments Greenock gone to Germany with EU grant.

Indesit at Bodelwyddan Wales gone with EU grant.

Sekisui Alveo said production at its Merthyr Tydfil Industrial Park foam plant will relocate production to Roermond in the Netherlands, with EU funding.

Hoover Merthyr factory moved out of UK to Czech Republic and the Far East by Italian company Candy with EU backing.

ICI integration into Holland’s AkzoNobel with EU bank loan and within days of the merger, several factories in the UK, were closed, eliminating 3,500 jobs.

Boots sold to Italians Stefano Pessina who have based their HQ in Switzerland to avoid tax to the tune of £80 million a year, using an EU loan for the purchase.

JDS Uniphase run by two Dutch men, bought up companies in the UK with £20 million in EU 'regeneration' grants, created a pollution nightmare and just closed it all down leaving 1,200 out of work and an environmental clean-up paid for by the UK tax-payer. They also raided the pension fund and drained it dry.

UK airports are owned by a Spanish company.

Scottish Power is owned by a Spanish company.

Most London buses are run by Spanish and German companies.

The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

Swindon was once our producer of rail locomotives and rolling stock. Not any more, it's Bombardier in Derby and due to their losses in the aviation market, that could see the end of the British railways manufacturing altogether even though Bombardier had EU grants to keep Derby going which they diverted to their loss-making aviation side in Canada.

39% of British invention patents have been passed to foreign companies, many of them in the EU.

The Mini cars that Cameron stood in front of as an example of British engineering, are built by BMW mostly in Holland and Austria. His campaign bus was made in Germany even though we have Plaxton, Optare, Bluebird, Dennis etc., in the UK.

The bicycle for the Greens was made in the far east, not by Raleigh UK but then they are probably going to move to the Netherlands too as they have said recently.

Anyone who thinks the EU is good for British industry or any other business simply hasn't paid attention to what has been systematically asset-stripped from the UK. Name me one major technology company still running in the UK

.

We used to contract out to many, then the work just dried up as they were sold off to companies from France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, etc., and now we don't even teach electronic technology for technicians any more, due to EU regulations.

I haven't detailed our non-existent fishing industry the EU paid to destroy, nor the farmers being paid NOT to produce food they could sell for more than they get paid to do nothing, don't even go there.

I haven't mentioned what it costs us to be asset-stripped like this, nor have I mentioned immigration, nor the risk to our security if control of our armed forces is passed to Brussels or Germany.

Find something that's gone the other way, I've looked and I just can't.

And of course, the real deal-breaker .... Democracy, transparency and independence. We can vote out our MPs - BUT the European Commission who dictate 55% of UK laws, which are legally binding, are ..... guess what, untouchable, unelected and hidden from view.

I will just take your last sentence because it demonstrates you clearly do not know what you are talking about. Before you claim that 55% of UK Laws are dictated by the EU Commission please supply proof. The University of Liverpool Law School Professor Michael Dougan the leading EU lawyer says otherwise. This was one of the big lies thrown up by Brexiters. However do feel free to contradict Professor Michael Dougan I look forward to you substantiating that statement. I have already posted two of his videos explaining this but then I doubt you really want to base your opinion on evidence.

Another great video from a guy who knows what he is talking about. An expert no less.

As much as I do not have much time for Farage or UKIP.

I tend to agree with you. The current bunch of useless jellyfish are not the answer to taking the UK forward.

Farage would certainly have a better attempt at it than any of the fools that are currently busy backstabbing and cutting each others throat.

I would actually tend to agree with Diplomatico's post in which he suggests that May could be a better 'fit' with the EU (and therefore more acceptable to the institutions etc).

I think May has the balls for the job and her credibility might be higher as she was not part of the Brexit campaign.

I disagree with you. I am not really a '' who is the best fit '' or '' who is more acceptable '' to the institutions guy.

I want someone to get a job done.

On her record as Home Secretary I would say that she is not the person to get that job done.

Farage is not the correct person either, but to me, sadly, he looks the most capable out of the rest of the motley crew that are currently acting like snakes in the grass.

I have no problem that you disagree, it is about opinions.

As much as I would like to see Farage involved I don't think the main player can afford to be too bombastic.

Firm, certainly, in protecting the UK's position but they should also seek to avoid confrontation. We don't want this to become a battle - but I do agree that there is risk that the likes of May could dilute the outcome. Nigel Farage would certainly not do that but this is not the time to seek (personal) revenge or rub Eurocrats noses in it.

I think there needs to be a considered and sensitive approach to the way forward and only a fool would ignore the need to be aware of the institutions (without pandering to them).

Immigration is a classic. I believe we need to reassure existing British expats in Europe, and European immigrants in the UK, that they will not be forcibly repatriated. However, the criteria for future immigration also needs to change - I don't think that subject can be handled with a baseball bat.

Of course, nothing wrong with differing opinions and even robust discussion, providing it remains civil.

I would also point out that we are largely on the same side just approaching from different directions.

It will take a team of negotiators, not an individual to enter talks with the EU. Farage should be part of that team, if for no other reason he is probably more aware than most to the weaknesses of the EU, and would know which strings to pull and tweak.

Dealing with the immigration issue is quite forward if you remove politicians from the equation. issue a date at least 2 years down the line when a new UK immigration policy will take effect. At the same time new NHS and Welfare policies will be introduced.

That gives you at least 12 months to work out the fine detail, a further 12 months to get ready to implement those policies.

The downside is that you will probably have a spike in immigration before the policy is enacted, the upside is that it will cause a natural reduction in immigration after implementation.

For those that are currently in the UK legally, grandfather rights would / will apply.

B liar appears to be nominating himself to be part of the negotiation team, i think a jail cell for him would be more approprate...

There is just one snag, Farage has attempted five times to get into Parliament as an MP and each time the British electorate has rejected him. I do hope that nobody is suggesting we override the wishes of the British people as expressed in each of those elections. I believe his best result was 8% and that was where he attempted to run in a constituency which previously had voted in a very right wing Tory MP. It appears that even they couldn't stomach him.

You do know farage and B liar are not the same person dont you ?...well obviously you dont...

Well since I didn't mention the latter I guess I do. However would you like me to give you a few quotes by the former that have turned out to be lies. The biggest porky being the one about a second referendum should the difference be less than 4%. Let me know if you need a few more examples.

As much as I do not have much time for Farage or UKIP.

I tend to agree with you. The current bunch of useless jellyfish are not the answer to taking the UK forward.

Farage would certainly have a better attempt at it than any of the fools that are currently busy backstabbing and cutting each others throat.

I would actually tend to agree with Diplomatico's post in which he suggests that May could be a better 'fit' with the EU (and therefore more acceptable to the institutions etc).

I think May has the balls for the job and her credibility might be higher as she was not part of the Brexit campaign.

I disagree with you. I am not really a '' who is the best fit '' or '' who is more acceptable '' to the institutions guy.

I want someone to get a job done.

On her record as Home Secretary I would say that she is not the person to get that job done.

Farage is not the correct person either, but to me, sadly, he looks the most capable out of the rest of the motley crew that are currently acting like snakes in the grass.

I have no problem that you disagree, it is about opinions.

As much as I would like to see Farage involved I don't think the main player can afford to be too bombastic.

Firm, certainly, in protecting the UK's position but they should also seek to avoid confrontation. We don't want this to become a battle - but I do agree that there is risk that the likes of May could dilute the outcome. Nigel Farage would certainly not do that but this is not the time to seek (personal) revenge or rub Eurocrats noses in it.

I think there needs to be a considered and sensitive approach to the way forward and only a fool would ignore the need to be aware of the institutions (without pandering to them).

Immigration is a classic. I believe we need to reassure existing British expats in Europe, and European immigrants in the UK, that they will not be forcibly repatriated. However, the criteria for future immigration also needs to change - I don't think that subject can be handled with a baseball bat.

Of course, nothing wrong with differing opinions and even robust discussion, providing it remains civil.

I would also point out that we are largely on the same side just approaching from different directions.

It will take a team of negotiators, not an individual to enter talks with the EU. Farage should be part of that team, if for no other reason he is probably more aware than most to the weaknesses of the EU, and would know which strings to pull and tweak.

Dealing with the immigration issue is quite forward if you remove politicians from the equation. issue a date at least 2 years down the line when a new UK immigration policy will take effect. At the same time new NHS and Welfare policies will be introduced.

That gives you at least 12 months to work out the fine detail, a further 12 months to get ready to implement those policies.

The downside is that you will probably have a spike in immigration before the policy is enacted, the upside is that it will cause a natural reduction in immigration after implementation.

For those that are currently in the UK legally, grandfather rights would / will apply.

B liar appears to be nominating himself to be part of the negotiation team, i think a jail cell for him would be more approprate...

There is just one snag, Farage has attempted five times to get into Parliament as an MP and each time the British electorate has rejected him. I do hope that nobody is suggesting we override the wishes of the British people as expressed in each of those elections. I believe his best result was 8% and that was where he attempted to run in a constituency which previously had voted in a very right wing Tory MP. It appears that even they couldn't stomach him.

This all started because Obama and Hillary lied about a YouTube video to influence the last presidential election. It has been proven beyond a doubt that Hillary knew almost immediately that Benghazi was a terrorist attack and had nothing to do with the video. Hillary lied to the American people and she lied to the families of the dead Americans. There IS a smoking gun and it proves her guilt.

Ah, the congressional committee that was after Hillary for years, went after her with all they got to try and get rid of her and could not prove a thing and reached the conclusion 'there is no smoking gun'. But it's ok, we have our friend here who has watched youtube so knows better.

There is PLENTY of conclusive evidence that Hillary lied about the YouTube video that started the Benghazi controversy.

In a monumental display of self-serving chutzpah, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she was there to testify before the Benghazi Select Committee to honor the service and memory of the four men killed in the terrorist attack. Then why, Madam Secretary, did you tell the parents of the dead as you and they stood in front of their sons’ caskets that you were going to get the maker of the video you blamed for their deaths?

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/hillary_and_the_video_lie.html#ixzz4D5A6Sxuv

So the 8 previous inquiries missed that, never mind I am sure once the next inquiry starts they will discover the truth.

Try here and click on south east region

http://www.europarl.org.uk/en/your-meps.html

Don't see any dates or other information when these UK elections took place?

I think the fact that you need to ask about EU elections demonstrates how phony this argument is about the undemocratic EU.

Michael Heseltine: ‘Johnson is like a general who leads his army to the sound of guns and at the sight of the battlefield abandoned the field’. I think that about sums it up. Now up steps the man who said, "he'll sign a piece of parchment in his blood to prove he doesn't want to be PM." and "People in this country have had enough of experts,”. I don't think even the Tory party are stupid enough to elect Gove as leader so that means we will probably get May who campaigned to stay in but is now saying she will negotiate for us to come out.

It reminds me of a poem I learnt as a child.

Betrayed by Gove who will now run against May and I don't even think the Tory party are stupid enough to want to make Gove PM so we are probably going to end up with a PM who campaigned for remaining in Europe. What is the point in Cameron resigning. However it was obvious last Friday when Boris gave that speech that he never intended nor thought he was going to win.

This is the clown who led the Brexit campaign.

Now to cap it all the idiot who led the Brexit campaign has announced he will not run for the PMs job. Well done Boris you made the mess now let someone else sort it out for you.

Another one of those silly experts so derided by Gove who has just announced his leadership bid.

Is this the same woman who said she wanted Scotland to become independent from the UK as there was too much control in Westminister over Scotland affairs but wants to be part of the EU under the control of Brussels ?

Think she is looking for a pigs snout in the trough job in Brussels

It might be that she thinks that being part of the EU is a far more attractive proposition that being part of the UK. From a Scottish point of view, control from Brussels as you call it or being controlled by Westminster, maybe the Scots see it from a historical perspective.

^And I wouldn't like to live in a country where arrogant, condescending and manipulative views such as yours prevail. Thankfully, they don't, as shown by the referendum. And, if the referendum result gets followed up on properly, in a few years time people will laugh in astonishment that such views were ever aired by someone who claimed to be talking in the best interests of the UK.

Perhaps you could show me where I have stated any such views.

There is a search function whereby you can search for your own posts. Most of them discussing Brexit will do as examples.

I thought so, you cannot produce anything. What this amounts to is that you have stated is that "you wouldn't like to live in a country where arrogant, condescending and manipulative views such as yours prevail" even though you cannot find anything to justify that remark. However it appears that you you can live in a country where someone like Patrick Moore can state his anti immigrant, anti women and anti gay prejudices and that is acceptable.

^And I wouldn't like to live in a country where arrogant, condescending and manipulative views such as yours prevail. Thankfully, they don't, as shown by the referendum. And, if the referendum result gets followed up on properly, in a few years time people will laugh in astonishment that such views were ever aired by someone who claimed to be talking in the best interests of the UK.

Perhaps you could show me where I have stated any such views.

The facts I find most important are (1) there were numerous requests to beef up security which were ignored by the State Department, (2) the Administration and the political hacks in the White House and State Department seemed more worried about putting the correct political spin on the incident rather than coming clean with the facts, (3) Hillary and her State Department and Obama and his White House were trying to explain the incident away as a spontaneous incident which came about from the video while Hillary was texting her daughter that it was a terrorist attack from the beginning, and (4) Obama who was not present and Hillary who was present at the meeting held at the White House while the incident was in real time, in which senior leadership should have been giving direction were not showing any leadership or direction at all. No matter the political party one with which on is affiliated, one cannot walk away without acknowledging that handling of the security in Libya was a cluster<deleted> at the State Department and that the reaction after the incident began a show of ineptness and lack of leadership. However one wants to assign the faults, they did occur and it seems like Harry Truman's adage that "The buck stops here" doesn't apply anymore. The fact that Congressional Committees can't seem to ever get information for whatever the reason from the Executive Branch without a tug of war makes it evidently clear that the government is broken. Congress is supposed to have oversight of government operations and they can't very well do that when the Executive Branch continuously stonewalls information requests hoping the public will get bored with the whole thing. Government no matter the party in the White House should be open, not run in secret as it has been far too long.

Who can disagree with any of that but it appears that although many more people died on 9/11 the inquiry into that event didn't merit the same scrutiny. Also the invasion of Iraq (based on a big fat lie, not sure who said that now) costing again many more lives, destabilized the whole of the Middle East as predicted by Dick Cheney in 1994, costing trillions of dollars still ongoing was also deemed not worthy of any in depth scrutiny. What is that saying about a can of worms?

Andreas, this is by far the best explanation of what we, the British, have avoided (hopefully!) . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2-cQ8TfU4A

Great and powerful video contribution.

I wonder, how many Remainers have seen it and what their response to it could be.

Thanks.

Oh dear it opens with Patrick Moore a man who wrote, that "homosexuals are mainly responsible for the spreading of AIDS (the Garden of Eden is home of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve)". He was chairman of the anti-immigration United Country Party, He wrote in his autobiography that Liechtenstein – a constitutional monarchy headed by a prince – had the best political system in the world. Proudly declaring himself to be English (rather than British) with "not the slightest wish to integrate with anybody". He expressed appreciation for the science fiction television series Doctor Who and Star Trek, but stated that he had stopped watching when "they went PC - making women commanders, that kind of thing". In an interview with Radio Times, he asserted that the BBC was being "ruined by women", commenting that: "The trouble is that the BBC now is run by women and it shows: soap operas, cooking, quizzes, kitchen-sink plays. he was a supporter and patron of the (guess who).until his death in 2012. Do you need any clues.

Is this what we have avoided?

Kill the messenger comes to mind.

I don't know Patrick Moore and I don't argue about other articles he contributed. But the one I was referring to is just great and impressive... At least to me.

I just know I wouldn't like to live in a country where his views prevailed.

Standby for investigation No 9

Andreas, this is by far the best explanation of what we, the British, have avoided (hopefully!) . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2-cQ8TfU4A

Great and powerful video contribution.

I wonder, how many Remainers have seen it and what their response to it could be.

Thanks.

Oh dear it opens with Patrick Moore a man who wrote, that "homosexuals are mainly responsible for the spreading of AIDS (the Garden of Eden is home of Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve)". He was chairman of the anti-immigration United Country Party, He wrote in his autobiography that Liechtenstein – a constitutional monarchy headed by a prince – had the best political system in the world. Proudly declaring himself to be English (rather than British) with "not the slightest wish to integrate with anybody". He expressed appreciation for the science fiction television series Doctor Who and Star Trek, but stated that he had stopped watching when "they went PC - making women commanders, that kind of thing". In an interview with Radio Times, he asserted that the BBC was being "ruined by women", commenting that: "The trouble is that the BBC now is run by women and it shows: soap operas, cooking, quizzes, kitchen-sink plays. he was a supporter and patron of the (guess who).until his death in 2012. Do you need any clues.

Is this what we have avoided?

All I've heard since Friday morning is ' England ' and ' Independence ' but how dare the Scots want to look after their own future.

Boris speaks and is ' charismatic ', Nicola speaks and is called everything under the sun.

On the name calling I fully agree with you. There is no need for it and it is childish and foolish.

However, I just cannot get my head around this Independence from the UK and remain a part of the EU.

If she was calling for Independence for Scotland to make its own way in the world, I would actually support her if that is what the majority wanted.

Independence and being a part of the EU does not sit well with me.

Apparently it does with the Scots who voted by a substantial majority to remain in the European Union.