Where can you sell things online in Thailand

[webfact]

MSPs call for separate Scottish immigration deal over Brexit

 

Holyrood's Europe committee has called for Scotland to be allowed its own separate immigration deal after Brexit.

 

The committee, which includes representatives of all Holyrood's parties, said there were "acute" risks for EU migrants living in Scotland and called for a "differentiated" solution.

 

The call follows similar one made by a cross-party group of Westminster MPs.

 

The UK government has pledged to discuss the devolution of additional powers as the country leaves the EU.

 

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38857951

 

-- © Copyright BBC 2017-02-06

[jpinx]

Devolving more powers to Holyrood is a step in the right direction, without being earth-shattering.  Slowly, Slowly catchee monkee....

[nontabury]

5 hours ago, jpinx said:

Devolving more powers to Holyrood is a step in the right direction, without being earth-shattering.  Slowly, Slowly catchee monkee....

 

 If Scotland were a seperate country,I would be all for it. However while there is no border between Scotland and the rest of the U.K. it's a NoNo, as we all know where the majority of them would head for. For those who did remain in Scotland,the question has to be asked "would they be welcome"?  Well not by all, if this poster originating in Scotland is to be believed.

Edited February 6, 2017 by nontabury

[jpinx]

13 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 

 If Scotland were a seperate country,I would be all for it. However while there is no border between Scotland and the rest of the U.K. it's a NoNo, as we all know where the majority of them would head for. For those who did remain in Scotland,the question has to be asked "would they be welcome"

Ireland survived a long time with a Land Border, after the creation of the Free State -- for those of us old enough to remember those days, so there's no reason Scotland and England could not manage it. 

[RuamRudy]

21 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 

 If Scotland were a seperate country,I would be all for it. However while there is no border between Scotland and the rest of the U.K. it's a NoNo, as we all know where the majority of them would head for. For those who did remain in Scotland,the question has to be asked "would they be welcome"?  Well not by all, if this poster originating in Scotland is to be believed.

 

Of course it is not to be believed, because like much of what you post, it is claptrap. Your Scottish friends really must be living in a tiny little, isolated echo chamber of bitterness to keep spewing all this nonsense. Please tell them to go outside and see for themselves that all their time spent creating these very amateurish Facebook posts is wasted - because the reality is much more positive than they seem to think.

[nontabury]

15 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Ireland survived a long time with a Land Border, after the creation of the Free State -- for those of us old enough to remember those days, so there's no reason Scotland and England could not manage it. 

 Agreed as long as they built a physical wall.

 

5 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Of course it is not to be believed, because like much of what you post, it is claptrap. Your Scottish friends really must be living in a tiny little, isolated echo chamber of bitterness to keep spewing all this nonsense. Please tell them to go outside and see for themselves that all their time spent creating these very amateurish Facebook posts is wasted - because the reality is much more positive than they seem to think.

Don't tell me tell the 55%

 

[jpinx]

Just now, nontabury said:

 Agreed as long as they built a physical wall.

 

Don't tell me tell the 55%

 

There was - and still isn't - any physical wall along the UK -- Ireland border.  This is not Trumpsland

[RuamRudy]

6 hours ago, jpinx said:

Devolving more powers to Holyrood is a step in the right direction, without being earth-shattering.  Slowly, Slowly catchee monkee....

If Indy Rev2 is either a non-starter or a damp squid, I think that a federal approach to all the member countries would be my next preferred option. An English assembly of sorts is badly needed as it is, but more devolution to Scotland without a separation between Westminster and English-only needs will not improve things on either side of the border.

[jpinx]

3 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

If Indy Rev2 is either a non-starter or a damp squid, I think that a federal approach to all the member countries would be my next preferred option. An English assembly of sorts is badly needed as it is, but more devolution to Scotland without a separation between Westminster and English-only needs will not improve things on either side of the border.

I hear you, but I'm not so sure.  Morphing into independence through multiple stages of devolution was basically what happened in Ireland during the partition and formation of the Free State, and it actually worked out quite well.  The concept of a federated united kingdom has been kicked around elsewhere, and it's not so daft.  The problem is that the current crop of politicians would have to vote themselves out of a job and then stand again under new rules.  They really are not man enough to face that.  It's nice to know that there's more cogent thought "out there" than the radical clowns at the extremes of politics. 

[RuamRudy]

14 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 Agreed as long as they built a physical wall.

 

Don't tell me tell the 55%

 

 

Tell them what? First of all you posted a fake quote from NS about welcoming immigrants; when I pointed out that it is fake and that your imaginary Facebook friends are delusional, you respond by saying that we are racists? What is it? We cannot be both racist and overly welcoming of immigrants. Please, at least try to show consistency when sh!tposting.

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, jpinx said:

I hear you, but I'm not so sure.  Morphing into independence through multiple stages of devolution was basically what happened in Ireland during the partition and formation of the Free State, and it actually worked out quite well.  The concept of a federated united kingdom has been kicked around elsewhere, and it's not so daft.  The problem is that the current crop of politicians would have to vote themselves out of a job and then stand again under new rules.  They really are not man enough to face that.  It's nice to know that there's more cogent thought "out there" than the radical clowns at the extremes of politics. 

 

A good point about turkeys not voting for Christmas, but a nice idea to remove an entire layer of politicians from the public purse. But there is clear discontent across the country and I fully understand the concerns of the English when they see what they consider to be disporportionate sums spent north of the border. If this discontent were to form some sort of grass roots movement that did not amount to English v Scots, but simply commoner v politicians, maybe it could make a difference. You may say, I'm a dreamer...

[jpinx]

Yes - nice dreams, but the reality is always a bit more mucky.   In the real world it never seems possible to remove a layer of anything in government. 

 

Someone needs to look into the details of how Ireland was partitioned and the "Irish Free State" formed, prior to the formation of The Republic of Ireland.  The option for a "Scottish Free State" is valid as a pro-tem arrangement while people get used to it.

[sanukjim]

No way as they are part of The UK .Their hope is a pipe dream.The EU then could make make 50 different deals with 50 different states in The US in staid of one with The US government. 

[jpinx]

3 minutes ago, sanukjim said:

No way as they are part of The UK .Their hope is a pipe dream.The EU then could make make 50 different deals with 50 different states in The US in staid of one with The US government. 

It's the USA's policy that makes anyone deal with USA, rather than individual states.  UK can easily write the rules the way they want them....

[sagittarius6999]

There are some really stupid posts, such as they guy who mentioned that Ireland had a land border with Northern Ireland and no problems existed, how can you possibly compare the 2. The border between the North and the south was done basically on religious grounds and thousands of not nice people crossed it with arms and explosives to kill people and in those days the words Immigrants never past anyone's lips. Today. many immigrants cross over to the UK by the ferries across the Irish sea, so maybe we should  have a wall or whatever between them

[7by7]

RoI and the UK are part of a Common Travel Area, which includes the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, and there is little or no immigration control within the CTA. However, at present it is only citizens of the CTA and the other EEA states who do not need a passport when travelling from one part of the CTA and another; all others do, and a visa if required. Even CTA and other EEA citizens need to be able to show an identification document which confirms their nationality if required by UK or Irish immigration. Unlikely if crossing by land or sea, very probable if travelling by air; the airline will want to see it, even if you never see an Irish or UK immigration official.

 

What will happen after Brexit? Good question. I suspect that the CTA will remain; it was in place well before either country joined the EU and I see no reason why it should not continue after Brexit.

 

Indeed, the main reason why the RoI did not join the Schengen Area was because so doing would mean them leaving the CTA as the UK did not join.

 

But, of course, anyone who enters the UK from the RoI or vice versa without the proper paperwork would be there illegally; which is actually the case now!

 

An interesting analysis of the possibilities: Brexit briefing: impact on Common Travel Area and the Irish.

 

What of Scotland?

 

Immigration is not a devolved power; it rests with the UK Parliament in Westminster.

 

Comparisons with Ireland are simplistic; the Republic of Ireland is an independent, sovereign state; Scotland is not. The RoI is not part of the UK; Scotland is.

 

If Scotland were to become independent then they would, of course, be able to set their own immigration policy. But there would be a massive problem in this area.

 

The British and Irish governments would never agree to an independent Scotland remaining in the CTA if they joined Schengen. To join the EU they would have to also join Schengen.

 

So, remain in the CTA or join the EU?

 

 

 

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, jpinx said:

Ireland survived a long time with a Land Border, after the creation of the Free State -- for those of us old enough to remember those days, so there's no reason Scotland and England could not manage it. 

 

Yes there is - most people don't want it. And aren't going to be dictated to by Sturgeon. Nor in the current mood are they likely to con more devolved powers in areas that are reserved for the UK.

 

 

[Baerboxer]

56 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

RoI and the UK are part of a Common Travel Area, which includes the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, and there is little or no immigration control within the CTA. However, at present it is only citizens of the CTA and the other EEA states who do not need a passport when travelling from one part of the CTA and another; all others do, and a visa if required. Even CTA and other EEA citizens need to be able to show an identification document which confirms their nationality if required by UK or Irish immigration. Unlikely if crossing by land or sea, very probable if travelling by air; the airline will want to see it, even if you never see an Irish or UK immigration official.

 

What will happen after Brexit? Good question. I suspect that the CTA will remain; it was in place well before either country joined the EU and I see no reason why it should not continue after Brexit.

 

Indeed, the main reason why the RoI did not join the Schengen Area was because so doing would mean them leaving the CTA as the UK did not join.

 

But, of course, anyone who enters the UK from the RoI or vice versa without the proper paperwork would be there illegally; which is actually the case now!

 

An interesting analysis of the possibilities: Brexit briefing: impact on Common Travel Area and the Irish.

 

What of Scotland?

 

Immigration is not a devolved power; it rests with the UK Parliament in Westminster.

 

Comparisons with Ireland are simplistic; the Republic of Ireland is an independent, sovereign state; Scotland is not. The RoI is not part of the UK; Scotland is.

 

If Scotland were to become independent then they would, of course, be able to set their own immigration policy. But there would be a massive problem in this area.

 

The British and Irish governments would never agree to an independent Scotland remaining in the CTA if they joined Schengen. To join the EU they would have to also join Schengen.

 

So, remain in the CTA or join the EU?

 

 

 

 

Thank you for posting these interesting facts. I doubt most people appreciate this. It's these types of nuances that the SNP gloss over in their rush to push through their independence agenda.

 

I really believe they'd happily cut their nose off to spite their face in pursuance of their holy grail.

 

That catch 22, Schengen and the EU, or remaining in the CTA has never, AFAIK, ever been addressed in SNP comment. Although I suspect Ms. Sturgeon would simply say Scotland's special and would be granted special rules 

[jpinx]

Hell no - the current SNP can not get their heads around the simple fact they have to balance their books first, but that doesn't stop us using the SNP to see if ground could be broken in some other direction, perhaps inspired by the way Ireland was dealt with.  7by7 is great for producing the low-down on the current situation and how the current laws and regulations circumscribe the possibilities, but we're in new territory now and we need to explore other possibilities which seem abhorrent to the dyed-in-the-wool conservatives surrounding the feeding trough.  There are too many closed minds in the thought-chain to make this an easy process.

Edited February 6, 2017 by jpinx

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

If Indy Rev2 is either a non-starter or a damp squid, I think that a federal approach to all the member countries would be my next preferred option. An English assembly of sorts is badly needed as it is, but more devolution to Scotland without a separation between Westminster and English-only needs will not improve things on either side of the border.

I would go further; a cantonal approach would be good

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

RoI and the UK are part of a Common Travel Area, which includes the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, and there is little or no immigration control within the CTA. However, at present it is only citizens of the CTA and the other EEA states who do not need a passport when travelling from one part of the CTA and another; all others do, and a visa if required. Even CTA and other EEA citizens need to be able to show an identification document which confirms their nationality if required by UK or Irish immigration. Unlikely if crossing by land or sea, very probable if travelling by air; the airline will want to see it, even if you never see an Irish or UK immigration official.

 

What will happen after Brexit? Good question. I suspect that the CTA will remain; it was in place well before either country joined the EU and I see no reason why it should not continue after Brexit.

 

Indeed, the main reason why the RoI did not join the Schengen Area was because so doing would mean them leaving the CTA as the UK did not join.

 

But, of course, anyone who enters the UK from the RoI or vice versa without the proper paperwork would be there illegally; which is actually the case now!

 

An interesting analysis of the possibilities: Brexit briefing: impact on Common Travel Area and the Irish.

 

What of Scotland?

 

Immigration is not a devolved power; it rests with the UK Parliament in Westminster.

 

Comparisons with Ireland are simplistic; the Republic of Ireland is an independent, sovereign state; Scotland is not. The RoI is not part of the UK; Scotland is.

 

If Scotland were to become independent then they would, of course, be able to set their own immigration policy. But there would be a massive problem in this area.

 

The British and Irish governments would never agree to an independent Scotland remaining in the CTA if they joined Schengen. To join the EU they would have to also join Schengen.

 

So, remain in the CTA or join the EU?

 

 

 

All good stuff until the end. Not all EU countries are in Schengen and this will adapt anyway. So I don't see this being a deal breaker 

[onthesoi]

.

Edited February 6, 2017 by onthesoi

[onthesoi]

This information provides much greater depth and detail in explaining the pattern of how the UK voted. The key findings are:

• The data confirms previous indications that local results were strongly associated with the educational attainment of voters

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38762034

[jpinx]

13 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

This information provides much greater depth and detail in explaining the pattern of how the UK voted. The key findings are:

• The data confirms previous indications that local results were strongly associated with the educational attainment of voters

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38762034

 

Good grief !!  MORE statistics?  What about lining up the education as some percentage of the overall - and then co-relating it to the age and/or ethnicity.  It's well-known that degrees (for example) are common a smuck now due to falling standards, but to get a degree in the 1960's or70's was a different thing altogether. Also the chances of a relatively recent arrival from another culture is unlikely to have an UK recognised education level.    Really -- enough of the analysis -- we've got a result and it's been accepted by Westminster and most people "out there", except only the hardline remainers.

 

As an aside -- the level of detail about the voters is coming perilously close to infringing the privacy of the ballot....

Edited February 6, 2017 by jpinx

[Grouse]

30 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Hell no - the current SNP can not get their heads around the simple fact they have to balance their books first, but that doesn't stop us using the SNP to see if ground could be broken in some other direction, perhaps inspired by the way Ireland was dealt with.  7by7 is great for producing the low-down on the current situation and how the current laws and regulations circumscribe the possibilities, but we're in new territory now and we need to explore other possibilities which seem abhorrent to the dyed-in-the-wool conservatives surrounding the feeding trough.  There are too many closed minds in the thought-chain to make this an easy process.

 

12 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

This information provides much greater depth and detail in explaining the pattern of how the UK voted. The key findings are:

• The data confirms previous indications that local results were strongly associated with the educational attainment of voters

Around 270 locations can be identified where the local outcome was in the opposite direction to the broader official counting area, including parts of Scotland which backed Leave and a Cornwall constituency which voted Remain

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38762034

Wow! Great stuff!

 

Essential reading I would say!

 

The "huge" number of Brexiteers who ignore me should really read this! 

[7by7]

 

11 minutes ago, jpinx said:

<snip>

7by7 is great for producing the low-down on the current situation and how the current laws and regulations circumscribe the possibilities, but we're in new territory now and we need to explore other possibilities which seem abhorrent to the dyed-in-the-wool conservatives surrounding the feeding trough

 

4 minutes ago, Grouse said:

All good stuff until the end. Not all EU countries are in Schengen and this will adapt anyway. So I don't see this being a deal breaker 

 

All new applicants to join the EU have to agree, among other criteria, to join the EUs economic, financial and political institutions and adopt EU law. This includes adopting the Euro and joining the Schengen Area.

 

Not all EU members use the Euro at present; but, except for the UK and Denmark, who negotiated opt outs when it was introduced, will have to as soon as their economic circumstances allow.

 

Not all EU members are in the Schengen Area at present; though most are, as are all the EEA sates and Switzerland. The UK and the RoI were able to opt out of Schengen at the very beginning, but again new EU members are expected to join, as are those states who are already EU members and didn't opt out when they had the chance.

 

Of course, there are those who argue that Scotland is already in the EU. Well, it is; in the same way that England, Wales and Northern Ireland are; because it is part of the UK. It is the UK which is a member, not the individual component parts.

 

Would the EU allow an independent Scotland to automatically be part of the EU? Doubtful, it would set a precedent which many countries, Spain because of the Basque region for example, would abhor and those countries would almost certainly veto it.

 

Would an independent Scotland be allowed to join on the same terms that the UK previoulsy had, especially regarding the Euro and Schengen? again, almost certainly to be vetoed because of the precedent such a move would create.

 

So, whatever happens to the Euro and the Schengen Area in the future, and the future of both is not certain, an independent Scotland would have to apply for membership and meet the Copenhagen Criteria.

[Grouse]

3 minutes ago, jpinx said:

 

Good grief !!  MORE statistics?  What about lining up the education as some percentage of the overall - and then co-relating it to the age and/or ethnicity.  It's well-known that degrees (for example) are common a smuck now due to falling standards, but to get a degree in the 1960's or70's was a different thing altogether. Also the chances of a relatively recent arrival from another culture is unlikely to have an UK recognised education level.    Really -- enough of the analysis -- we've got a result and it's been accepted by Westminster and most people "out there", except only the hardline remainers.

Not at all

 

We have all accepted the result and will cope with it

 

However it's nice to know our suspicions were correct ?

[jpinx]

Add this to the "statistics"

[RuamRudy]

4 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Add this to the "statistics"

 

I have gotten to that age where reading glasses are a must, but even with them on  I have no idea what I am looking at - is red least aggressive and blue most? I am confused about Russia sitting in the middle - they seem, to a man, to be war war...

[jpinx]

7 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I have gotten to that age where reading glasses are a must, but even with them on  I have no idea what I am looking at - is red least aggressive and blue most? I am confused about Russia sitting in the middle - they seem, to a man, to be war war...

Sorry about that old man :D  I had it on max magnification too :)    Dark red has least enthusiasm for defending their own country, up through white at about 50:50 to dark blue being more likely to leap to arms in defense of their realm. :)   The gray ones were not part of the survey...

 

PS. on most browsers you can hold the Ctrl key and + will magnify or - will diminish