When will indyref2 happen?

[Comrie]

I only know one person who openly admits they voted leave and no- but there's a lot I suspect who did but won't admit to it in public or if not that, one yes and one no.

[BawWatchin]

4 minutes ago, Comrie said:

I only know one person who openly admits they voted leave and no- but there's a lot I suspect who did but won't admit to it in public or if not that, one yes and one no.

Indeed. All the NO voters I come across give me the "I voted remain but this is UK democracy" shite.

[RedRob72]

More importantly. How many of them would still vote leave?
You don't hear many owning up to it these days.
There may be a "shy leave" effect going on of course..........like "shy tory" or........"shy no" 

Honestly believe a second vote would see a significant reduction supporting Leave both in Scotland and the rest of the U.K.
A modern democracy should be able to challenge and change its view(s).

[BawWatchin]

1 minute ago, RedRob72 said:

A modern democracy should be able to challenge and change its view(s).

[RedRob72]

It may be quite obvious to you BW, but millions seem to be clinging to the line that ‘it would be un-Democratic to re-run the vote’ & ‘the country has already decided’, wouldn’t you agree?

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

It may be quite obvious to you BW, but millions seem to be clinging to the line that ‘it would be un-Democratic to re-run the vote’ & ‘the country has already decided’, wouldn’t you agree?

Yes, but these morons dont seem to understand that democracy is not a speak now or forever hold your peace type affair, its organic evolving and when material circumstances change we have to re-evaluate our decisions. Every single accepted model of decision making in the business/public sector world has some form of ‘re-evaluation in light of new information’ type part, this is because its normal and natural to be able to change your mind.
If its undemocratic to re-run votes after we’ve already had them then lets just get the Whigs back because they won the first general election, it would be undemocratic to vote again.
People in the UK who think that an advisory vote should be held as final even in light of the absolute economic clusterfuck that brexit is proving to be are utter moon howlers who shouldn’t actually be allowed to vote in the first place. Its like people’s minds have been taken over by lemmings. I know Tories are quite sadistic people in that they like the old BDSM and a bit of austerity but f**k me its absolutely astounding that anyone with a brain cell (who doesnt have a vested interest like JRM moving all his money) thinks Brexit is in any way positive. Utter whompercunt thinking and absolutely inexcusably stupid.

[Granny Danger]

A vote on a proposal when we have no information other than vague promises that have since been proven to be untrue is democratic.

A vote on a proposal now we know as much as the detail as we can is undemocratic.

I’m not sure what’s so difficult to understand.

 

[RedRob72]

A vote on a proposal when we have no information other than vague promises that have since been proven to be untrue is democratic.
A vote on a proposal now we know as much as the detail as we can is undemocratic.
I’m not sure what’s so difficult to understand.
 

Unfortunately millions don’t see it that way, if May’s deal is binned, hopefully enough of them will then see that only a second vote offers the progress (either way) that most ordinary punters are demanding.

[BawWatchin]

1 hour ago, RedRob72 said:

It may be quite obvious to you BW, but millions seem to be clinging to the line that ‘it would be un-Democratic to re-run the vote’ & ‘the country has already decided’, wouldn’t you agree?

Oh, I agree entirely and not only when it suits.

[AUFC90]

They're meant to be subsidising us, no?
Maybe I'm missing something but £200bn sounds like a lot of produce for a wee nation of 5m folk? This guy isn't the first economist to spell out the consequences to rUK should Scotland leave and 'take the oil with her'. We have more than just oil too.

The only parts of the UK with a better economy per head is London and the South East. Essentially we subsidise every shitehole from Newcastle to Cornwall. London being the powerhouse it is skews the figures. Ironically London wouldn't be anywhere near the force it is now without North Sea oil.

[Jacksgranda]

On ‎27‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 20:51, The_Kincardine said:

Given that I have spent a lot of time posting in The BRALT I would say this is the most stupid comment I have ever read in my almost 13 years on P&B.

Is this the shite you politics boys have to put up with on a daily basis?

Yes

[NotThePars]

Yes it is but the route to market has been roadblocked by May in favour of nuclear at twice the price
 

Was reading a New Left Review piece that was slaughtering George Monbiot and others for their pro-nuclear stance. It doesn’t sound remotely helpful in the long term.

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, NotThePars said:

 

Was reading a New Left Review piece that was slaughtering George Monbiot and others for their pro-nuclear stance. It doesn’t sound remotely helpful in the long term.

 

Depends what you call the long term. There might not be enough time to replace carbon with renewables without some investment in nuclear. Our ancestors might be a bit miffed in the 28th century if we sorted out carbon without dealing with nuclear waste properly though. Firing it into the sun is getting cheaper.

[BawWatchin]

We should send the pro-nuclear brigade to mars imo. They'll have it warmed up in no time.

[NotThePars]

Depends what you call the long term. There might not be enough time to replace carbon with renewables without some investment in nuclear. Our ancestors might be a bit miffed in the 28th century if we sorted out carbon without dealing with nuclear waste properly though. Firing it into the sun is getting cheaper.

Well the general point of the article is that the costs to maintain them are excessive and that their failure rates are more common than their worth. I don’t even pretend to understand it though. It’s an interesting article that talks about reforestation and cutting down on energy consumption.

[welshbairn]

21 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

 

Well the general point of the article is that the costs to maintain them are excessive and that their failure rates are more common than their worth. I don’t even pretend to understand it though. It’s an interesting article that talks about reforestation and cutting down on energy consumption.

 

Found George's reply I think here, bit long, haven't read it yet, or the original critique.

https://newleftreview.org/II/45/george-monbiot-environmental-feedback

I tried to find out how much Scotland relies on nuclear a few days ago, wasn't clear with electricity exports and imports but looked like about a third. If we want to go zero carbon in the next 5/10 years I think we'll struggle without nuclear or a truly massive step up in renewables and power storage. England wouldn't have a chance, their base level of renewables is far lower, mainly because they don't have much hydro. 

Edited December 2, 2018 by welshbairn

[BFTD]

42 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Depends what you call the long term. There might not be enough time to replace carbon with renewables without some investment in nuclear. Our ancestors might be a bit miffed in the 28th century if we sorted out carbon without dealing with nuclear waste properly though. Firing it into the sun is getting cheaper.

You can get that idea into the sea.

[Comrie]

17 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Depends what you call the long term. There might not be enough time to replace carbon with renewables without some investment in nuclear. Our ancestors might be a bit miffed in the 28th century if we sorted out carbon without dealing with nuclear waste properly though. Firing it into the sun is getting cheaper.

We'll all be driving Thorium powered cars by that point.

Edited December 3, 2018 by Comrie

[sergie's no1 fan]

Things bubbling away nicely now.

[weegienative]

On 02/12/2018 at 11:49, RedRob72 said:

It may be quite obvious to you BW, but millions seem to be clinging to the line that ‘it would be un-Democratic to re-run the vote’ & ‘the country has already decided’, wouldn’t you agree?

Considering the result of the initial referendum has never actually been carried out then yes, it's quite undemocratic.

So what's the standard for referendums going forward? Don't get the result we want, fanny about and make a cluster f**k of it, have a re run of the referendum, get the result we want? Really? Is that the precedent you want to set? Dangerous.