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

TrickyTree83

sss555s wrote: »

It's no wonder people are attacking you. You are totally spamming this thread with twisted "facts" when you have nothing to do with Scotland other than (it will cost you if Scotland gain independence) your own financial gain.

Anyone with with a vote on either side would do well to ignore your BS.

Let's look at some of your facts...

http://www.euppublishing.com/doi/pdfplus/10.3366/scot.2014.0006






I have highlighted some of the "facts" on the "factual" sheets you posted. The wording of the survey that you call facts seems to be non committal to me and more of an opinion.

The quote above indicates that Scotland is less opposed to immigration than the rest of the UK (confirmed in the Brexit voting results, FACT!). There are more English and Irish in Scotland but any nationality is welcome.

This all dispels your Anglophobia (in big letters) theory and you're acting like someone who is posting from "internet articles" rather than experiencing living in Scotland.

Doesn't dispell anything does it?

As attitudes towards migration is not the same topic as attitudes towards the English (anglophobia) and voting intention.

This merely says that Scots are generally ok with migration, white, black, latin american, asian, etc... in fact, your own quote in bold say pretty much what I've just said in this paragraph and the one above.

Nice try, kind of. At least you did try.

sss555s

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Doesn't dispell anything does it?

As attitudes towards migration is not the same topic as attitudes towards the English (anglophobia) and voting intention.

This merely says that Scots are generally ok with migration, white, black, latin american, asian, etc... in fact, your own quote in bold say pretty much what I've just said in this paragraph and the one above.

Nice try, kind of. At least you did try.

You just won't admit when you're wrong...

Human migration is the movement by people from one place to another with the intentions of settling, permanently in the new location. The movement is often over long distances and from one country to another, but internal migration is also possible; indeed, this is the dominant form globally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_migration

I'd say that dispels it but you will keep trying to worm your way out of it.

All that bravado, large text, facts!, telling people they were wrong and you wouldn't let it go has made you look foolish. (no personal offence)

TrickyTree83

sss555s wrote: »

You just won't admit when you're wrong...



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_migration

I'd say that dispels it but you will keep trying to worm your way out of it.

All that bravado, large text, facts!, telling people they were wrong and you wouldn't let it go has made you look foolish. (no personal offence)

No you just don't understand the difference between discussing migration and discussing a form of xenophobia. Different things. To most people at least.

kabayiri

Scotland doesn't experience the vast majority of EU migration in to the UK.

In the recent figures, just 8K of 266K actually went to Scotland.

They may claim to be friendly towards migrants, but that's easy when you experience no pressure on services. Try visiting Boston in Lincolnshire to get an idea of a place which has changed a lot.

It's just hollow rhetoric.

Of course London copes with migration. With 24 times the spend on infrastructure compared to the NE it should do.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

that's easy when you experience no pressure on services. .

Oh please....

Blaming EU migrants for 'pressure on services' is the worst form of dog whistle politics - absolutely risible.

94% of the UK population is not from the EU - so 94% of the waiting list for a dentist, the passengers on the bus, the traffic on your way to work, would all still be there tomorrow even if we sent all the Europeans home.

EU migrants are on the whole younger and healthier than the native born so use far less NHS services per person than the on average older and less healthy native born British population.

There are millions fewer children in school today than there were when I was a child and we managed just fine then.

And lets not forget they also are the only section of society that provides a net fiscal surplus to the tune of billions per year and subsidise the rest of us - non-EU migrants, the ones we can pick and choose, actually cost us billions per year - and the native born are the worst of all contributing only 89% of what they take out.

It's just hollow rhetoric.
.

It sure is...:(

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...
Blaming EU migrants for 'pressure on services' is the worst form of dog whistle politics - absolutely risible.
...

Complete rubbish Hamish.

You don't live in an area with a big population rise, yet you preach to those who do.

You have no skin in the game, as far as I'm concerned.

Move to an area that does, or stop preaching.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The "Facts" are not in dispute from me.

It's likely an Indy Scotland will mean eye watering levels of austerity and a significant and ongoing financial loss for most people.

But if that's what it takes to stay in the EU/Single Market and disassociate ourselves from the backward looking isolationism and racism now sadly so prevalent in England it's a price worth paying.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

You don't live in an area with a big population rise, yet you preach to those who do.

The problem with your 'theory' is that the claims you make are almost entirely spurious.

There are only a tiny handful of areas in the UK where the proportion of EU migrants living there is even in double digits.

Vanishingly small numbers of people in Britain actually experience big population rises of EU migrants.

There is no legitimate concern to be had about EU migrants driving down pay on average (they don't), taking our jobs (they don't), noticeably increasing hospital waiting lists (they don't), or clogging up services (they don't).

The number of school age children is several million lower today than it was when I was a child - so claiming that we have too many children to cope with in schools is utterly bogus.

And the biggest element by far for increased demand on the NHS is our very own elderly - thankfully there are of course enough staff to care for them in the NHS - but only thanks to immigration.

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...
Vanishingly small numbers of people in Britain actually experience big population rises of EU migrants.
...

That's right. Be dismissive to local issues which people are concerned with.

I seem to remember how this played out in the recent USA election.

London has proven that we can cope with population change, as long as you put the investment in.

Tell me. Do you think there is enough investment going in to East Yorkshire?

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Oh please....

Blaming EU migrants for 'pressure on services' is the worst form of dog whistle politics - absolutely risible.

94% of the UK population is not from the EU - so 94% of the waiting list for a dentist, the passengers on the bus, the traffic on your way to work, would all still be there tomorrow even if we sent all the Europeans home.

EU migrants are on the whole younger and healthier than the native born so use far less NHS services per person than the on average older and less healthy native born British population.

There are millions fewer children in school today than there were when I was a child and we managed just fine then.

And lets not forget they also are the only section of society that provides a net fiscal surplus to the tune of billions per year and subsidise the rest of us - non-EU migrants, the ones we can pick and choose, actually cost us billions per year - and the native born are the worst of all contributing only 89% of what they take out.



It sure is...:(

It probably is indeed true that scotland benefits from the immigrtion into London and the SE.