Should People With Low IQ's Be Allowed To Vote?

kabayiri

CLAPTON wrote: »

...
of course from hamish's point of view it does kick the can down the road and Scotland is of course a pretty empty place

Which is why I am surprised he is not a fan of Scottish independence.

Scotland has more land per capita, more water, more oil and gas per capita than the rest of the UK.

If any place in these isles could surely sustain mass immigration to grow their economy it would be an independent Scotland.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

Which is why I am surprised he is not a fan of Scottish independence.

Scotland has more land per capita, more water, more oil and gas per capita than the rest of the UK.

If any place in these isles could surely sustain mass immigration to grow their economy it would be an independent Scotland.

I'm immensely in favour of increased immigration to Scotland.

But I'm not selfish, I think all of the UK should benefit from the increase in human capital that immigration affords us.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I'm immensely in favour of increased immigration to Scotland.

But I'm not selfish, I think all of the UK should benefit from the increase in human capital that immigration affords us.

Do you not shed tears of sorrow for all those countries like Grrece, Spain, Romania etc which will become poorer and poorer so you can become richer?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

Do you not shed tears of sorrow for all those countries like Grrece, Spain, Romania etc which will become poorer and poorer so you can become richer?

Their loss is our gain.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Their loss is our gain.

Said it all really, haven't you.

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...i'm not selfish...

Post of the year

zagubov

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Their loss is our gain.

I wish you hadn't said that.
Scotland is only 2% built-up. It could absorb many more people. But Aberdeen's exceptional; it's up there with London and Brighton in the three most expensive cities to live in.

You're describing the movement of people from country to country as a trivial matter, but it's not. It's not equitable. My main concern about immigration is the brain drain from the country whose professional classes we're depleting.

I don't accept the xenophobic ravings from BNP types who say we'll all be speaking languages with different alphabets/ sacrifice our children to pagan gods/ never mention Christmas again/ whatever nonsense they think up next.

But then nobody here does AFAIK.

The sad truth though is that countries can be depleted of their human capital; it's like exporting their soil - and I don't mean selling it for benefit but giving it away. Immigration's generally good but emigration's the worry.:(

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

I wish you hadn't said that.
Scotland is only 2% built-up. It could absorb many more people. But Aberdeen's exceptional; it's up there with London and Brighton in the three most expensive cities to live in.

You're describing the movement of people from country to country as a trivial matter, but it's not. It's not equitable. My main concern about immigration is the brain drain from the country whose professional classes we're depleting.

I don't accept the xenophobic ravings from BNP types who say we'll all be speaking languages with different alphabets/ sacrifice our children to pagan gods/ never mention Christmas again/ whatever nonsense they think up next.

But then nobody here does AFAIK.

The sad truth though is that countries can be depleted of their human capital; it's like exporting their soil - and I don't mean selling it for benefit but giving it away. Immigration's generally good but emigration's the worry.:(

Emigration can be a good thing, especially for unskilled workers. For many poorer countries, one of the largest or even the largest source of exports is repatriated wages from workers abroad.

If a labourer moves from a Bulgaria where the minimum wage is EUR148/month (link) to the UK where the minimum wage is EUR1,244/month (link) then there is a good chance that they can send back more than the Bulgarian minimum wage to their family back home!

chewmylegoff

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That is the sort of argument made by people who like to manipulate facts in order to mislead the public.

Experts tend not to agree on every last small detail, but on the major issues, there tends to be broad agreement.

There is not a single study by a reputable academic or economist which claims immigration does more harm than good to the UK overall. There are dozens of studies showing significant overall benefits, but where some identify tiny disadvantages for 5% or so of the population, we see people with an anti-immigration agenda cherry pick that data and falsely exaggerate the impact.

And then claim "the experts have no consensus".

But why does it only matter whether immigration is a good thing for the economy. A person with a lower IQ than may wish to vote in favour of stricter immigration controls on a basis aside from what is right for the economy as a whole. He may say to himself - more people = greater competition for housing = more difficult for me to buy a house = I don't want more people here. You would tell him he can't vote because economists by and large agree that immigration is good for the economy - however economists are not the only "experts" whose view is relevant to whether or not immigration is a good thing.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

Emigration can be a good thing, especially for unskilled workers. For many poorer countries, one of the largest or even the largest source of exports is repatriated wages from workers abroad.

If a labourer moves from a Bulgaria where the minimum wage is EUR148/month (link) to the UK where the minimum wage is EUR1,244/month (link) then there is a good chance that they can send back more than the Bulgarian minimum wage to their family back home!

For me, what you are describing is the flexible movement of labour to meet shortage needs at specific times. It's not just between countries. I have done it to work in the SE UK and elsewhere. It was always seen as a transient thing, aimed at covering short term need from client's viewpoint.

Labour's plan for immigration was a tool to change the social makeup. The public resent it when politicians have a hidden agenda.