Now that Britain has voted to leave the EU, what comes next?

[bkkcanuck8]

There were many questions / threats that came up between both referendum -- and an understanding that this would be the only referendum IF status-quo were to continue but.... if something like Scotland were pulled out against the popular vote of Scotland... then there would have to be another referendum.

Exit polling indicated in Scotland that many people who voted stay voted stay on condition of all the promises of devolution that were made (I am not up to date on these but shortly after there seemed to be backtracking).

Also one of the big "threats" where that if Scotland voted to leave the UK they would be voting to leave the EU (while the UK with veto power could hold them out). The inference to this threat is that a vote to stay in the UK would mean staying in the EU (which polling indicated the remain side would win at that time).

It seems very clear that the vote on which to remain in the UK should article 50 be executed starting Scotland leaving the EU.... is invalid since a lot of the reasons to remain in the UK would have been invalidated. It therefore makes logical sense to take it directly to the people of Scotland that given all the changes.... do you wish to remain in the UK or the EU -- assuming that some way could not allow for both.

Are you really against letting the people of Scotland democratically clear up this quandary?

You've got lost.

The Scottish referendum was a simple vote on whether Scotland should remain in the United Kingdom.

The EU referendum was a simple vote on whether UK should remain in the EU.

There are no other inferences.

Both were a one time, once and for all vote.

You would have to have had your head in the sand. The Scottish referendum campaign on many occasions said that a vote for independence did not mean leaving the EU -- while there were a significant number of those campaigning under the umbrella of remaining in the UK that were saying a vote for independence meant leaving the EU and they would have to reapply as an independent country - while the UK would remain in (and could block the application).

The question was simple enough, but the campaigning contained significant amount of scare tactics (as these referendums often are - just like brexit) of what would happen if Scotland were independent. Being in the EU is obviously fairly important to a large number of Scottish people.

I also remember exit polling done on people leaving the polling booths (not official questions) questioning on what reasons they voted the way they did. The balance of the decision on those that wavered but voted to remain in the UK.... said they voted to stay in the UK based on a number of devolvement promises made.

The mandate of the vote was to stay in the UK based on the current status-quo situation.... the status-quo has changed and the reaction has shown that there has been a rise in the independence sentiment because of it. When this happens, it is only fair to seek a new mandate on whether given that the Scottish have indicated that they want to remain in the UK and a larger percentage want to remain in the EU -- and you cannot have both.... the only reasonable thing is to go back to the people that given you cannot have both.... do you wish to remain in a UK outside of the EU or do you wish exit the UK union.

There are arguments that can be made on what the Scottish people want, do they want to stay in the UK outside of the EU or not. The fact that there is even a question is a very good reason to go back to the people and get the situation clarified. It is also best done while things are in turmoil so that both England and Scotland do not have to go through two successive economic restructuring which would be worse than just getting it all resolved right away.

Edited July 17, 2016 by bkkcanuck8

[Nasrullah]

For those who think a degree makes you intelligent it doesn't,

And the lack of a degree doesn't make you unintelligent.

My eldest is at uni in the UK. She and all her uni mates are 'remainers', the most important reason being that "We'll all have to apply for visas to travel round Europe on our college trips and holidays if we leave the EU."

How long-sighted of them!!.....Once their degree or whatever is obtained,many may have to find work in EU countries they really don't want to live in.

The positions they seek might be offshored for varying reasons.....

All for the sake of downloading a visa application........

[jpinx]

There were many questions / threats that came up between both referendum -- and an understanding that this would be the only referendum IF status-quo were to continue but.... if something like Scotland were pulled out against the popular vote of Scotland... then there would have to be another referendum.

Exit polling indicated in Scotland that many people who voted stay voted stay on condition of all the promises of devolution that were made (I am not up to date on these but shortly after there seemed to be backtracking).

Also one of the big "threats" where that if Scotland voted to leave the UK they would be voting to leave the EU (while the UK with veto power could hold them out). The inference to this threat is that a vote to stay in the UK would mean staying in the EU (which polling indicated the remain side would win at that time).

It seems very clear that the vote on which to remain in the UK should article 50 be executed starting Scotland leaving the EU.... is invalid since a lot of the reasons to remain in the UK would have been invalidated. It therefore makes logical sense to take it directly to the people of Scotland that given all the changes.... do you wish to remain in the UK or the EU -- assuming that some way could not allow for both.

Are you really against letting the people of Scotland democratically clear up this quandary?

You've got lost.

The Scottish referendum was a simple vote on whether Scotland should remain in the United Kingdom.

The EU referendum was a simple vote on whether UK should remain in the EU.

There are no other inferences.

Both were a one time, once and for all vote.

not so -- there was a prior referendum in scotland with a heavily biased result required for independence....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014#Devolution

[bkkcanuck8]

This is what the exit polling was based on (from wikipedia - a summary) -- and it has not been kept as to my understanding:

Two days before the referendum, the leaders of the three main UK political parties publicly pledged to devolve "extensive new powers" to the Scottish Parliament.^[462] They also agreed to a timetable proposed by Gordon Brown.^[463] In his speech responding to the referendum results, David Cameron said that an all-party commission, chaired by Lord Smith of Kelvin, would oversee the implementation of the new powers.^[462][463] Cameron also called for an answer to the West Lothian question, by removing the right of Scottish MPs to vote on legislation relating only to England.^[464] This proposal was opposed by Gordon Brown, who signed a petition calling for the additional powers to be devolved without any other conditions being attached.^{[464][465][466]}

[mommysboy]

This is what the exit polling was based on (from wikipedia - a summary) -- and it has not been kept as to my understanding:

Two days before the referendum, the leaders of the three main UK political parties publicly pledged to devolve "extensive new powers" to the Scottish Parliament.^[462] They also agreed to a timetable proposed by Gordon Brown.^[463] In his speech responding to the referendum results, David Cameron said that an all-party commission, chaired by Lord Smith of Kelvin, would oversee the implementation of the new powers.^[462][463] Cameron also called for an answer to the West Lothian question, by removing the right of Scottish MPs to vote on legislation relating only to England.^[464] This proposal was opposed by Gordon Brown, who signed a petition calling for the additional powers to be devolved without any other conditions being attached.^{[464][465][466]}

A Parliamentary committee has just reported back with a radical shake up of the Consitution in which all home countries will largely be autonomous. Scotland will likely be getting extra powers as it stands.

[jpinx]

This is what the exit polling was based on (from wikipedia - a summary) -- and it has not been kept as to my understanding:

Two days before the referendum, the leaders of the three main UK political parties publicly pledged to devolve "extensive new powers" to the Scottish Parliament.^[462] They also agreed to a timetable proposed by Gordon Brown.^[463] In his speech responding to the referendum results, David Cameron said that an all-party commission, chaired by Lord Smith of Kelvin, would oversee the implementation of the new powers.^[462][463] Cameron also called for an answer to the West Lothian question, by removing the right of Scottish MPs to vote on legislation relating only to England.^[464] This proposal was opposed by Gordon Brown, who signed a petition calling for the additional powers to be devolved without any other conditions being attached.^{[464][465][466]}

A Parliamentary committee has just reported back with a radical shake up of the Consitution in which all home countries will largely be autonomous. Scotland will likely be getting extra powers as it stands.

Where can we read this?

[mommysboy]

There were many questions / threats that came up between both referendum -- and an understanding that this would be the only referendum IF status-quo were to continue but.... if something like Scotland were pulled out against the popular vote of Scotland... then there would have to be another referendum.

Exit polling indicated in Scotland that many people who voted stay voted stay on condition of all the promises of devolution that were made (I am not up to date on these but shortly after there seemed to be backtracking).

Also one of the big "threats" where that if Scotland voted to leave the UK they would be voting to leave the EU (while the UK with veto power could hold them out). The inference to this threat is that a vote to stay in the UK would mean staying in the EU (which polling indicated the remain side would win at that time).

It seems very clear that the vote on which to remain in the UK should article 50 be executed starting Scotland leaving the EU.... is invalid since a lot of the reasons to remain in the UK would have been invalidated. It therefore makes logical sense to take it directly to the people of Scotland that given all the changes.... do you wish to remain in the UK or the EU -- assuming that some way could not allow for both.

Are you really against letting the people of Scotland democratically clear up this quandary?

You've got lost.

The Scottish referendum was a simple vote on whether Scotland should remain in the United Kingdom.

The EU referendum was a simple vote on whether UK should remain in the EU.

There are no other inferences.

Both were a one time, once and for all vote.

not so -- there was a prior referendum in scotland with a heavily biased result required for independence....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014#Devolution

What I meant is that these two particular referendums were to be taken as decisive and not repeatable (though most accepted once and for all usually means every 30 years).

[mommysboy]

This is what the exit polling was based on (from wikipedia - a summary) -- and it has not been kept as to my understanding:

Two days before the referendum, the leaders of the three main UK political parties publicly pledged to devolve "extensive new powers" to the Scottish Parliament.^[462] They also agreed to a timetable proposed by Gordon Brown.^[463] In his speech responding to the referendum results, David Cameron said that an all-party commission, chaired by Lord Smith of Kelvin, would oversee the implementation of the new powers.^[462][463] Cameron also called for an answer to the West Lothian question, by removing the right of Scottish MPs to vote on legislation relating only to England.^[464] This proposal was opposed by Gordon Brown, who signed a petition calling for the additional powers to be devolved without any other conditions being attached.^{[464][465][466]}

A Parliamentary committee has just reported back with a radical shake up of the Consitution in which all home countries will largely be autonomous. Scotland will likely be getting extra powers as it stands.

Where can we read this?

I'm not playing go fetch for you in all honesty.

But I did post the link on this or one of the other threads.

Edited July 17, 2016 by mommysboy

[jpinx]

There were many questions / threats that came up between both referendum -- and an understanding that this would be the only referendum IF status-quo were to continue but.... if something like Scotland were pulled out against the popular vote of Scotland... then there would have to be another referendum.

Exit polling indicated in Scotland that many people who voted stay voted stay on condition of all the promises of devolution that were made (I am not up to date on these but shortly after there seemed to be backtracking).

Also one of the big "threats" where that if Scotland voted to leave the UK they would be voting to leave the EU (while the UK with veto power could hold them out). The inference to this threat is that a vote to stay in the UK would mean staying in the EU (which polling indicated the remain side would win at that time).

It seems very clear that the vote on which to remain in the UK should article 50 be executed starting Scotland leaving the EU.... is invalid since a lot of the reasons to remain in the UK would have been invalidated. It therefore makes logical sense to take it directly to the people of Scotland that given all the changes.... do you wish to remain in the UK or the EU -- assuming that some way could not allow for both.

Are you really against letting the people of Scotland democratically clear up this quandary?

You've got lost.

The Scottish referendum was a simple vote on whether Scotland should remain in the United Kingdom.

The EU referendum was a simple vote on whether UK should remain in the EU.

There are no other inferences.

Both were a one time, once and for all vote.

not so -- there was a prior referendum in scotland with a heavily biased result required for independence....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014#Devolution

What I meant is that these two particular referendums were to be taken as decisive and not repeatable (though most accepted once and for all usually means every 30 years).

Indeed, but it pays to remember that the SNP's declared objective is an independent Scotland, so they're not going to be relaxing on this.

[bkkcanuck8]

Indeed, but it pays to remember that the SNP's declared objective is an independent Scotland, so they're not going to be relaxing on this.

They also gave a caveat on once in a generation unless something major changes such UK voting to leave the EU against the popular will of people of Scotland. And it was stated before the first referendum.... well, guess what... time to get a new mandate of what is more important to the people of Scotland.

As far as what mommysboy was referring to it was:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/10/brexit-vote-paves-way-for-federal-union-says-all-party-group

The reaction that I have seen so far from England lets me think this is a non-starter...

But I have also said that I personally think that if Theresa May can somehow work her magic and work out a deal for the creation where they can create a federal union within the UK that allows Scotland to have both continued membership within the EU (through agreement between the EU and UK brexit team) giving it effectively what it has now (or effectively a Norway option) -- while the England works out a free trade agreement for the rest of the UK union.... that there would be no valid reason for a second Scottish referendum. In fact I think Scotland would be in such a superior position with regards to trade relations that over time many jobs would effectively move up the highway to Scotland to take advantage of that position. It would become the preferred location for American and Canadian companies setting up businesses / operations / branches that have access to the EU and to England while still having the comfort of the English language (sort of ).

[mommysboy]

Here's the report about the likely future shape of the UK. These things take ages to be enacted, but I ought to add it is far from guaranteed. However it is cross bench:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/federal-uk-union-brexit-cross-party-group-says-lord-sailsbury-a7129781.html

[jpinx]

.......................

I'm not playing go fetch for you in all honesty.

But I did post the link on this or one of the other threads.

Thanks for the link

That's a very interesting proposal -- sovereignity being with the parts of the Union who can pool together as and when they wish. It's a bit difficult to see how the practicalities would work, but lets see what TM makes of it all. There might be enough bits of ideas in there for her to put together a workable solution..

Edited July 17, 2016 by jpinx

[mommysboy]

Indeed, but it pays to remember that the SNP's declared objective is an independent Scotland, so they're not going to be relaxing on this.

They also gave a caveat on once in a generation unless something major changes such UK voting to leave the EU against the popular will of people of Scotland. And it was stated before the first referendum.... well, guess what... time to get a new mandate of what is more important to the people of Scotland.

As far as what mommysboy was referring to it was:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/10/brexit-vote-paves-way-for-federal-union-says-all-party-group

The reaction that I have seen so far from England lets me think this is a non-starter...

But I have also said that I personally think that if Theresa May can somehow work her magic and work out a deal for the creation where they can create a federal union within the UK that allows Scotland to have both continued membership within the EU (through agreement between the EU and UK brexit team) giving it effectively what it has now (or effectively a Norway option) -- while the England works out a free trade agreement for the rest of the UK union.... that there would be no valid reason for a second Scottish referendum. In fact I think Scotland would be in such a superior position with regards to trade relations that over time many jobs would effectively move up the highway to Scotland to take advantage of that position. It would become the preferred location for American and Canadian companies setting up businesses / operations / branches that have access to the EU and to England while still having the comfort of the English language (sort of ).

Somewhat fantastical!

UK will undoubtedly go the federal route imo, which will make it all the more easier to go independent at some point in the far off future.

Scotland left to its own devices would follow a socialist agenda. Whether this fits in with the business community or leads to good fiscal governance is questionable.

Edited July 17, 2016 by mommysboy

[MJP]

Indeed, but it pays to remember that the SNP's declared objective is an independent Scotland, so they're not going to be relaxing on this.

They also gave a caveat on once in a generation unless something major changes such UK voting to leave the EU against the popular will of people of Scotland. And it was stated before the first referendum.... well, guess what... time to get a new mandate of what is more important to the people of Scotland.

As far as what mommysboy was referring to it was:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/10/brexit-vote-paves-way-for-federal-union-says-all-party-group

The reaction that I have seen so far from England lets me think this is a non-starter...

But I have also said that I personally think that if Theresa May can somehow work her magic and work out a deal for the creation where they can create a federal union within the UK that allows Scotland to have both continued membership within the EU (through agreement between the EU and UK brexit team) giving it effectively what it has now (or effectively a Norway option) -- while the England works out a free trade agreement for the rest of the UK union.... that there would be no valid reason for a second Scottish referendum. In fact I think Scotland would be in such a superior position with regards to trade relations that over time many jobs would effectively move up the highway to Scotland to take advantage of that position. It would become the preferred location for American and Canadian companies setting up businesses / operations / branches that have access to the EU and to England while still having the comfort of the English language (sort of ).

Somewhat fantastical!

UK will undoubtedly go the federal route imo, which will make it all the more easier to go independent at some point in the far off future.

Scotland left to its own devices would follow a socialist agenda. Whether this fits in with the business community or leads to good fiscal governance is questionable.

I've been reading descriptions of "Little England". Tea and cricket on the village green, Morris Minors, WI jam and scones, Morris dancers and Maypoles. Cider and pasties.

Honestly, that sounds like heaven to me.

Let NI and Scotland go their own way, London too and I'll be quite happy in Little England.

No one can afford a house, there's no job security anyway so in my opinion it failed a long time ago.

[Khun Han]

For those who think a degree makes you intelligent it doesn't,

And the lack of a degree doesn't make you unintelligent.

But it's a fair indication.

I would describe it as an extremely loose indication.

That usually means you don't have one.

And in my case you'd be absolutely correct. Despite attending a grammar school and getting a good set of O Levels, I didn't even bother with sixth form, let alone uni. I was running my own well-established business by the time all my mates who went to uni graduated. They've turned out to be a mixed bunch as far as career success goes, and I'm still a successful businessman. The other mates from school who didn't bother with uni have generally been successful career-wise. All anecdotal, of course, and I digress.

[bkkcanuck8]

And in my case you'd be absolutely correct. Despite attending a grammar school and getting a good set of O Levels, I didn't even bother with sixth form, let alone uni. I was running my own well-established business by the time all my mates who went to uni graduated. They've turned out to be a mixed bunch as far as career success goes, and I'm still a successful businessman. The other mates from school who didn't bother with uni have generally been successful career-wise. All anecdotal, of course, and I digress.

It all depends, but the average salary for a person with a University degree is higher than those without... Factors depend on country of course (i.e. cost of University degree + cost of a few less years in the workforce) but on average you are probably better off with a University degree. Then of course it depends on the degree area of expertise -- etc. Not everyone that goes to University is smart, and not all those that don't are not. I met some people that went through University and were definitely not but they had a good work/study ethic and put in the work to make it through. There are those that were smart but because of lack of discipline did not.

I supposedly at one time had an IQ of 148 for what it is worth but in Secondary School and early on I just could not focus and discipline was not great.... I did get a quick college degree, and probably one and a half years of University but left after being offered a rather good job in software development -- I took the job and decided maybe in the future I would go back. I always had a little insecurity even though have done very well... worked in many countries -- and even a few recognized leaders in my field.... I do make sure to take an effort to approach it as a continuous learning process which has served me well.

I have known others that were partially self-educated (or in some cases self-educated) in my field that either graduated from some "useless" field (like History) or not graduated from University at all that I would hire in a heart-beat -- more so than many University graduates. On average though -- I would say a University education is a better indicator of qualifications. It is not however a guarantee.

Also understand that there are some very intelligent people that are more interested in fields that a University degree is not that helpful in (such as trades). I have had friends leave my industry and do other things like home renovation and construction, some that work in Hollywood (or Hollywood north) in non-technical industries.... things that a University degree was not needed -- yet are intelligent and successful.

Judging a person's intelligence by a degree is like judging a book by it's cover.... not the best way to approach things.

[GuestHouse]

I have known others that were partially self-educated (or in some cases self-educated) in my field that either graduated from some "useless" field (like History)

History is arguably the course of study with highest demand for academic rigour, requiring as it does a return to original sources, often spread across multiple documents, artefacts and languages to establish and demonstrate the thesis under study.

Skills that we so very often see lacking in the claims and counter claims made in TVF debate.

Meanwhile the weakness of Utilitarian view of eduction can be seen in engineering and technology which over generations created processes and methods that were until the latter half of the last century killing people in their construction and application.

Deaths on construction sites, transport systems, factories, by the products that the industrial world produced were common place and accepted as 'the consequence of the modern world'.

It took a psychologist and two sociologists (field of study derided by the Utilitarian view of eduction), to open the door on what was going wrong, why our industrial world was killing people and how to stop doing so.

There is no such thing as a useless education.

[Orac]

Indeed, but it pays to remember that the SNP's declared objective is an independent Scotland, so they're not going to be relaxing on this.

They also gave a caveat on once in a generation unless something major changes such UK voting to leave the EU against the popular will of people of Scotland. And it was stated before the first referendum.... well, guess what... time to get a new mandate of what is more important to the people of Scotland.

As far as what mommysboy was referring to it was:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/10/brexit-vote-paves-way-for-federal-union-says-all-party-group

The reaction that I have seen so far from England lets me think this is a non-starter...

But I have also said that I personally think that if Theresa May can somehow work her magic and work out a deal for the creation where they can create a federal union within the UK that allows Scotland to have both continued membership within the EU (through agreement between the EU and UK brexit team) giving it effectively what it has now (or effectively a Norway option) -- while the England works out a free trade agreement for the rest of the UK union.... that there would be no valid reason for a second Scottish referendum. In fact I think Scotland would be in such a superior position with regards to trade relations that over time many jobs would effectively move up the highway to Scotland to take advantage of that position. It would become the preferred location for American and Canadian companies setting up businesses / operations / branches that have access to the EU and to England while still having the comfort of the English language (sort of ).

Somewhat fantastical!

UK will undoubtedly go the federal route imo, which will make it all the more easier to go independent at some point in the far off future.

Scotland left to its own devices would follow a socialist agenda. Whether this fits in with the business community or leads to good fiscal governance is questionable.

I've been reading descriptions of "Little England". Tea and cricket on the village green, Morris Minors, WI jam and scones, Morris dancers and Maypoles. Cider and pasties.

Honestly, that sounds like heaven to me.

Let NI and Scotland go their own way, London too and I'll be quite happy in Little England.

No one can afford a house, there's no job security anyway so in my opinion it failed a long time ago.

The problem with this "Little England" view is it is something akin to "Thai Culture" that seeks to highlight all the good things but excludes anything negative - your village green sound very picturesque but in the background there is Arthur Scargill and a crowd of miners fighting with the police and that Morris Minor is a classic but no long in production and has now been replaced by the Morris Marina by that world beating company British Leyland several of which are rotting next to it as they appear to have broken down.

[Mangostin]

some "useless" field (like History)

I think the easy comparison we can make here is that "history", it's basically the "experience" of the human's race, to claim that experience it's just useless, it might prove surely right with so many people, but luckily not for all.

[mopar71]

[MissAndry]

And in my case you'd be absolutely correct. Despite attending a grammar school and getting a good set of O Levels, I didn't even bother with sixth form, let alone uni. I was running my own well-established business by the time all my mates who went to uni graduated. They've turned out to be a mixed bunch as far as career success goes, and I'm still a successful businessman. The other mates from school who didn't bother with uni have generally been successful career-wise. All anecdotal, of course, and I digress.

Now you're comparing ability to run a business with intelligence, which is an entirely different thing.

Drive, ambition and hard work can make you successful in business even if you're a bit stupid.

I've met many really intelligent people who hardly ever made much money, they just weren't interested.

There just isn't any correlation between IQ and earning ability.

Edited July 18, 2016 by MissAndry

[mommysboy]

And in my case you'd be absolutely correct. Despite attending a grammar school and getting a good set of O Levels, I didn't even bother with sixth form, let alone uni. I was running my own well-established business by the time all my mates who went to uni graduated. They've turned out to be a mixed bunch as far as career success goes, and I'm still a successful businessman. The other mates from school who didn't bother with uni have generally been successful career-wise. All anecdotal, of course, and I digress.

It all depends, but the average salary for a person with a University degree is higher than those without... Factors depend on country of course (i.e. cost of University degree + cost of a few less years in the workforce) but on average you are probably better off with a University degree. Then of course it depends on the degree area of expertise -- etc. Not everyone that goes to University is smart, and not all those that don't are not. I met some people that went through University and were definitely not but they had a good work/study ethic and put in the work to make it through. There are those that were smart but because of lack of discipline did not.

I supposedly at one time had an IQ of 148 for what it is worth but in Secondary School and early on I just could not focus and discipline was not great.... I did get a quick college degree, and probably one and a half years of University but left after being offered a rather good job in software development -- I took the job and decided maybe in the future I would go back. I always had a little insecurity even though have done very well... worked in many countries -- and even a few recognized leaders in my field.... I do make sure to take an effort to approach it as a continuous learning process which has served me well.

I have known others that were partially self-educated (or in some cases self-educated) in my field that either graduated from some "useless" field (like History) or not graduated from University at all that I would hire in a heart-beat -- more so than many University graduates. On average though -- I would say a University education is a better indicator of qualifications. It is not however a guarantee.

Also understand that there are some very intelligent people that are more interested in fields that a University degree is not that helpful in (such as trades). I have had friends leave my industry and do other things like home renovation and construction, some that work in Hollywood (or Hollywood north) in non-technical industries.... things that a University degree was not needed -- yet are intelligent and successful.

Judging a person's intelligence by a degree is like judging a book by it's cover.... not the best way to approach things.

I doubt my IQ is more than average (average is not as average as one might think). Yet I have found myself correcting some extremely intelligent people over their powers of simple logic. When I worked as an English teacher, it was clear that the qualified teachers without a degree were initially lower calibre than those with a degree. But that difference tended to narrow quite quickly.

At the very least a degree shows an aptitude to follow a demanding course of study over an extended period of time and work within a system. That's maybe not an absolute measure of intelligence, a close indicator though.

I found myself suddenly developing at the age of 40ish. I think it coincided with me teaching English at Proficiency Level. On one occasion I had to instruct someone who wanted to do a Masters Degree in an English University. I had to up my game, it was much the same as when I used to play soccer at college. I wasn't very good, but being around talented players made me better. I guess I would assert there are many factors involved in assessing intelligence. And then there is 'traction'. Many intelligent people are all accelerator: consider the nutty professor lost in abstraction for instance.

Edited July 18, 2016 by mommysboy

[Khun Han]

And in my case you'd be absolutely correct. Despite attending a grammar school and getting a good set of O Levels, I didn't even bother with sixth form, let alone uni. I was running my own well-established business by the time all my mates who went to uni graduated. They've turned out to be a mixed bunch as far as career success goes, and I'm still a successful businessman. The other mates from school who didn't bother with uni have generally been successful career-wise. All anecdotal, of course, and I digress.

Now you're comparing ability to run a business with intelligence, which is an entirely different thing.

Drive, ambition and hard work can make you successful in business even if you're a bit stupid.

I've met many really intelligent people who hardly ever made much money, they just weren't interested.

There just isn't any correlation between IQ and earning ability.

I think you're trying to plop people into pigeon holes using narrow and outdated parameters. Education is what you learn from your life, not just a set of subject-specific theorems. Just as people can be remarkably intelligent with little formal education (and no interest in getting one) but a huge thirst for knowledge, other people can go right up to and through uni focussing on not much more than the narrow subject matter of their studies and be basically as thick as two short planks. And vice-versa, and there is the vast majority of people who are at various points in the middle.

If one were to argue that having a formal and specific education makes one more suitable for a related career, I'd agree. But boasting that such an education is a marker for a more free-thinking and intelligent person is just advertising insecurity rooted in outdated elitism, the pinnacle of which is the idea that Britain's absurd public school system produces better-quality people .

[MissAndry]

Education is what you learn from your life, not just a set of subject-specific theorems.

Education is what you learn in school/college/university.

What you learn in life is called experience.

the idea that Britain's absurd public school system produces better-quality people .

Britain's 'absurd public school system' was to promote leadership abilities and provide networking for the 'right people'.

Education wasn't that important within that system.

Edited July 18, 2016 by MissAndry

[Khun Han]

Education is what you learn from your life, not just a set of subject-specific theorems.

Education is what you learn in school/college/university.

What you learn in life is called experience.

the idea that Britain's absurd public school system produces better-quality people .

Britain's 'absurd public school system' was to promote leadership abilities and provide networking for the 'right people'.

Education wasn't that important within that system.

Like I said, you're using narrow parameters to pigeon hole people. Education comes from all kinds of sources. A certificate (hopefully) comes from a formal education.

And the whole basis and ethos of the public school system is it's basis in a supposedly 'superior' education. It's the logical conclusion/pinnacle of your daft argument.

[MissAndry]

Education comes from all kinds of sources.

No it doesn't.

And the whole basis and ethos of the public school system is it's basis in a supposedly 'superior' education.

No it isn't.

Edited July 18, 2016 by MissAndry

[GuestHouse]

Education is what you learn from your life, not just a set of subject-specific theorems.

Education is what you learn in school/college/university.

What you learn in life is called experience.

the idea that Britain's absurd public school system produces better-quality people .

Britain's 'absurd public school system' was to promote leadership abilities and provide networking for the 'right people'.

Education wasn't that important within that system.

Sopt on.

Khun Han's fudge on the definition of education is exactly that a fudge so that he can fit the rest of his views around the definition he himself has provided.

Your point on what we learn from life is experience is also correct but I'll add an observation of my own.

All but a very few people who claim (by example 25 years of experience) are actually in posession of a couple of years of experiences and a couple of decades of practicing what they first learned.

It's why they get so very upset when the world in which they 'practice' what are in truth limited skills changes around them.

[Khun Han]

Education comes from all kinds of sources.

No it doesn't.

And the whole basis and ethos of the public school system is it's basis in a supposedly 'superior' education.

No it isn't.

You've made your point and I've made mine, and we've now gone miles offtopic. Not very clever of either of us, is it?

[Khun Han]

Education is what you learn from your life, not just a set of subject-specific theorems.

Education is what you learn in school/college/university.

What you learn in life is called experience.

the idea that Britain's absurd public school system produces better-quality people .

Britain's 'absurd public school system' was to promote leadership abilities and provide networking for the 'right people'.

Education wasn't that important within that system.

Sopt on.

Khun Han's fudge on the definition of education is exactly that a fudge so that he can fit the rest of his views around the definition he himself has provided.

Your point on what we learn from life is experience is also correct but I'll add an observation of my own.

All but a very few people who claim (by example 25 years of experience) are actually in posession of a couple of years of experiences and a couple of decades of practicing what they first learned.

It's why they get so very upset when the world in which they 'practice' what are in truth limited skills changes around them.

Blimey! I actually agree with your last two paragraphs. And there was I, thinking that you were just cleverly trolling in these debates! But, as I just pointed out to MissAndry, we've taken the topic into a different galaxy.

[MissAndry]

You've made your point and I've made mine, and we've now gone miles offtopic. Not very clever of either of us, is it?

I thought you did rather well demonstrating how little you know about the British education system.

It didn't need me to be clever, I just needed to point out your misconceptions.

And this discussion isn't that off topic, as Brexit was the result of the 'elite' trying to manipulate normal folk.

The 'elite' being those who went to the right public school followed by Oxford and Cambridge, a system you and yours can't compete in no matter how bright because mummy and daddy aren't the right people. I hope you aren't going to try and convince anyone that places at Oxford and Cambridge are awarded on academic ability.

Edited July 18, 2016 by MissAndry