The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

TrickyTree83

beecher2 wrote: »

This is just silly, and a bit embarrassing to read.

How is it?

If we check the background of my wife, myself, my parents, her parents, our financial status, our relationship history, where we met, where we've been and who we've been with in the UK. Why is it unreasonable to seek the same level of checks for the safety of EU citizens?

TrickyTree83

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The increase in risk is so tiny as to be negligible.

As a European you are an order of magnitude more likely to be killed by....

- Your kettle or toaster

- Your stepladder

- Falling in the bath/shower

- Drowning in a pool or the sea

- In a car crash

- Crossing the road

- Getting the Flu

- A heat wave

Than you are by terrorism.

If you really want to decrease the risks of Europeans (or Brits) dying from things you should first work on the very long list of things that are actually likely to kill you - rather than focusing on one of the least likely things of all - while talking about destroying the very foundations of society in a pointless and terrorism appeasing display of Xenophobia and Bigotry that plays into the hands of our enemies.

Why is it ok to introduce higher risk to life for the sake of not asking people to submit to background checks?

Sorry but I've been through the non-EU migration checks, you're fighting a losing battle here. The checks are reasonable and understandable, not checking people and increasing risk for the sake of a platitude (because once checks are done free movement doesn't really disappear! Take it from experience!) is folly.

I think you'll find that the powers in the EU agree that checks are required, and it doesn't diminish the powers of freedom of movement for the law-abiding citizen.

The state should be addressing all of those other issues, and frequently try to do so by regulation, why not regulate the settlement and movement of people too? You check a manufacturer of a toaster is not selling dangerous wares, but you don't want to check dangerous criminals, child smugglers, sex traffickers, drug smugglers and potential terrorists or hate preachers?

You and beecher are coming across as ideologues in this.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideologue

You're trying to argue with someone who has been through a system of checks and still enjoys free movement across the EU, that checks are not required. The pair of you, it really is astonishing.

When we travel we're able to apply - for free - for a Schengen visa for my wife. When she gets this visa we're able to travel freely across the continent. Arguably under EU law we don't even need the Schengen visa, it just makes things easier in the long run. Yet we were subjected to extensive checks when she originally came into the country and even more stringent checks when applying for indefinite leave to remain, it hasn't diminished our democratic rights, it hasn't diminished our lives. I'm very pleased that the UK takes such measures to make sure we're not exposed to criminality and terrorism.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

*sigh*......

Because they've already come out and said it.


http://time.com/4293818/aimen-dean-isis-brexit/


"The destruction of the Union" is what they want.....

And there's no better way to do that than to force the Union to destroy itself by dismantling key parts of it's core beliefs.

You "destroy" a Union by fermenting fear and creating barriers to it's success - this much is clear - and forcing the EU to insert barriers to trade, to freedoms of movement, to view it's own citizens as suspect because of their religion, is giving them exactly what they want.

The Islamophobia displayed on these boards and amongst some sections of society is nothing other than playing directly into the hands of terrorists - giving succour to our enemies - and providing support for their aims.

Do some research and find out how many christians, jews, and non-muslims of all sorts lived in the area generally called the middle east (say) after the second world war and compare that with the current period.
Then explain the results.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Why is it ok to introduce higher risk to life for the sake of not asking people to submit to background checks?

Sorry but I've been through the non-EU migration checks, you're fighting a losing battle here. The checks are reasonable and understandable, not checking people and increasing risk for the sake of a platitude (because once checks are done free movement doesn't really disappear! Take it from experience!) is folly.

I think you'll find that the powers in the EU agree that checks are required, and it doesn't diminish the powers of freedom of movement for the law-abiding citizen.

You're moving the goalposts now.

Nobody is arguing that checks and immigration policies shouldn't be applied when first entering the EU Schengen zone. They are applied today and will continue to be as your account of getting a Schengen visa proves.

However everyone understands that Refugees are different and harder to check.

And Europe is not going to refuse access to a million refugees just to appease the Bigots and give the terrorists what they want. We will just have to conduct what checks we can and minimise the risk as best we can and live with the consequences thereafter.

But reversing Schengen is off the table. There is little to no benefit to be gained by reintroducing barriers at every border in Europe which is what you were talking about earlier. And it's practically impossible to Police anyway.

European nations don't have the resources (UK included) to place a border guard every 50m along their external borders as it is. Let alone also at every internal EU border. It would be as ludicrous as expecting the army/police to patrol every inch of our coastline 24/7 while also setting up a hard border for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and manning it around the clock. And not just on roads/railways.

It's never been done or succeeded anywhere outside of small localised conditions like the Berlin Wall or Iron Curtain - and that required forced conscription and economy destroying military spends - and the USA (with vastly greater resources) tries to do it today with Mexico but fails spectacularly - see 11,000,000 illegal Mexican immigrants for details.

TrickyTree83

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You're moving the goalposts now.

Nobody is arguing that checks and immigration policies shouldn't be applied when first entering the EU Schengen zone. They are applied today and will continue to be. However everyone understands that Refugees are different and harder to check. But we're not going to refuse access to a million refugees just to appease the Bigots and give the terrorists what they want. We will just have to conduct what checks we can and minimise the risk as best we can and live with the consequences thereafter.

But reversing Schengen is off the table. There is little to no benefit to be gained by reintroducing barriers at every border in Europe. And it's practically impossible to Police anyway. European nations don't have the resources (UK included) to place a border guard every 50m along their external borders as it is. Let alone also at every internal EU border. It would be as ludicrous as expecting the army/police to patrol every inch of our coastline 24/7 while also setting up a hard border for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and manning it around the clock. And not just on roads/railways.

It's never been done or succeeded anywhere outside of small localised conditions like the Berlin Wall or Iron Curtain - and that required forced conscription and economy destroying military spends - and the USA (with vastly greater resources) tries to do it today with Mexico but fails spectacularly - see 11,000,000 illegal Mexican immigrants for details.

No no, I've never moved my goalposts.

Go and read back over my posts.

The pair of you started to attack me over my position of believing the Schengen area where there are no internal border checks is something that should stop to increase safety. I'm not advocating border checks every 50m either. You can check people flowing through the major entry points easily enough. Doing nothing is worse than doing something.

One of the first things France did when the Bataclan happened was to introduce border checks. Hungary are reportedly introducing border checks in direct contravention of the Schengen agreement, I don't know how true this is but it doesn't stop the law-abiding citizen. The UK border checks didn't stop the law-abiding citizen but they do stop - to an extent - criminals and terrorists and their sympathisers. You'll never stop it completely but it's reasonable to do everything possible within reason to stop these bad people from doing bad things.

For example, if you've ever been to Eastern Europe inside the EU you'll know that getting a speeding ticket, or a driving licence for that matter, is not whether or not you did it/can pass it, but whether you can pay for it. Obtain your EU citizenship by paying for the privilege and off you swan to France/Germany/Sweden/wherever.

Another great example is that we know of a fellow who will get whatever you want through Poland (an external EU border) regardless of the customs checks, and then get whatever you want into Ukraine in the same manner. And then bring similar contraband back through the entire EU without checks. Great for those people who want cheap cigarettes, food, products from Ukraine where the exchange rate is 1 GBP to 30 UAH+. The borders just aren't secure.

Edit: Another example, and I realise this is all totally anecdotal, we have an Estonian friend who paid for her driving licence. She's never had a lesson in her life and she's a danger on the road. She's been reported to the police numerous times for seemingly dangerous driving, pulled over and tested for drink/drug driving. But she's always clean, so off she trots. You appear to think the continent is the same as the UK - it's not. Corruption is still very much alive, particularly in the Eastern European states.

I'm sincerely sorry but the reality of the situation does not match the ideal. The UK is actually a bloody sensible setup. Free movement - for the law abiding citizen, which means you need to check. At the moment that just doesn't happen on the continent.

By advocating Schengen for Scotland you are in fact saying you're happy to rely on these states, and the people working in their institutions and on their borders to perform adequate checks on the movement of people and goods to keep you, your family and friends safe. And I know for an absolute fact that doesn't happen when you can pay them off. I can't prove any of this with links to articles or documents, I'll freely admit that but I've said many many times that I'm exposed to this world and I'm told all about it from the people that used to and still do live around there.

Another little anecdote for you, my wife and her friends find it bizarre that we queue up for health treatment. They used to ask why I don't pay the doctor to go to the front of the queue and be seen in minutes. I would reply that it wasn't how it worked in this country unless you went private. Their response was that they also have public healthcare, but if you pay the doctor you go to the front of the queue, for anything! A cancer patient with no money will wait whilst someone rich with an ingrowing toenail gets seen in minutes. This and the other anecdotes I've given you are the reality of the Eastern EU. Do not be naive.

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

The very concept of an 'independent scotland' is xenophobic : why ever would a non xenophobe object to being part of the UK?

Do you understand anything about the Scottish Independence debate? Like, any of it?

Almost no-one on either side has xenophobic tendencies towards the English. It's mostly due to political differences and the want to take their own governance in their own direction. They don't want decisions about Scottish citizens being made by Westminster politicians that have no interest beyond London and their Country Clubs.

I'm a big fan of the English (on the whole), but that doesn't mean I want your politicians trying to privatize my health service, or for Trident on us, for instance.

Thrugelmir

Herzlos wrote: »

They don't want decisions about Scottish citizens being made by Westminster politicians that have no interest beyond London and their Country Clubs.

That's the inherent danger with a lack of understanding. Becomes meaningless soundbites that have no real substance.

Herzlos

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Why is it ok to introduce higher risk to life for the sake of not asking people to submit to background checks?

3 simple points.

1. The background checks are still being done
2. The risk is negligable. I mean, statistically, it's 1 in about 20 million, or 0.00000005% reference. You're twice as likely to be killed by a shark.
3. Increased border checks don't make any significant difference. Most of these terrorists are home grown and radicalized within these border checks.

You wouldn't agree to increased government scrutiny to reduce your chance of being killed by your own toaster, so why accept it for a terrorist? As pointed out, reacting in a pointless, panicked, xenophobic and totalitarian way is exactly what they want you to do, and will do absolutely nothing to address the problem.

TrickyTree83

Herzlos wrote: »

3 simple points.

1. The background checks are still being done

Are they? Really? You know this 100% do you? How much time have you spent in these new EU countries that are now the frontier? How many people have you spoken to about the differences between here and these countries?

2. The risk is negligable. I mean, statistically, it's 1 in about 20 million, or 0.00000005%reference. You're twice as likely to be killed by a shark.

And yet they mitigate against shark attacks, toasters going wrong, drink driving, etc... why not increase mitigation on criminal elements crossing internal EU borders?

3. Increased border checks don't make any significant difference. Most of these terrorists are home grown and radicalized within these border checks.

Home grown radicalism, sure, I agree. But in the same way that gun control works in this country. It doesn't eradicate it but it certainly reduces it.

You wouldn't agree to increased government scrutiny to reduce your chance of being killed by your own toaster, so why accept it for a terrorist? As pointed out, reacting in a pointless, panicked, xenophobic and totalitarian way is exactly what they want you to do, and will do absolutely nothing to address the problem.

I can't help but feel you're all actually idealogues. It's genuinely bizarre that you don't acknowledge the role of legislation played in things like electrical appliance safety, road safety, health, etc... and at the same time say there is no role for background checks on travel and settlement when the external EU borders where the only checks currently take place are so corrupt I can purchase citizenship documents, driving licences, customs papers. And you think introducing checks on all major crossings and points of entry will somehow impinge on peoples rights? What do you say to the non-EU migrants right now who have to go through those checks?

I implore you to go and find out, talk to people, translate local media if you need to in order to find out how life really goes in these states. Then ask yourself if you think internal border checks at major entry points wouldn't give increased protection against criminal elements.

Don't simply spout ideals out like the ideal itself is going to stop people from attacking you and those around you, or from ripping you off, from trafficking children, women, asian slaves, illicit drugs etc...

Herzlos

I'd rather view myself as a libertarian pragmatist. Cutting civil liberties to try and mitigate against an irrelevant risk is a bad idea. I'm all for some checks to be done, but I probably draw the line further than you do. I just appreciate that a lot of Security Theatre is just theatre rather than security (like bottles of water in airports).

Do you agree that we should be engaged in full cavity searches on entry to all public places? No? So you've got a line as well, where do you define it? How much security is too much?