Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

jouso wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Does that mean meaningful employment is actually up? I mean, 0-hours contracts count as employment, but may not actually result in any work. Ditto with part time, people may not be unemployed but they may still be seeking minimal work.

Yes. In a word. It should also be noted that being on a zero hours contract is not always a bad thing. ONS research showed them to be vastly focused in mobile seasonal industries, like tourism, food, and hospitality, the average work week for a zero hours contract was 25 hours, and of the 1.4 million people on them, only 14% were actively looking for more work.

Zero hours contracts can be nasty things if you're trapped in them with no prospects, but only 4% of the workforce is actually on them, and most of those jobs need the zero-hour contracts for flexibility. That's not to say 'all' of them are that way, but the point here is that decreasing unemployment isn't some illusion created by zero hour contracts.

Well, most of the rest of the EU manages without zero hours contracts and McDonalds and the like still employ people.

I don't really mind a 16-year old burger flipper on a zero hour contract but when you get nurses and social care workers on that kind of agreement something is really rotten.

https://www.nursingtimes.net/roles/nurse-managers/nhs-using-increasing-number-of-zero-hour-contracts/5061074.article

I worked on a zero hour contract in security for two and a half years a student, and it suited me just fine. I have a friend who works for the Historic Palaces in a similar function. There's nothing inherently wrong with zero hour contracts, it's only when you have people stuck on them who work regularly and really should be full time employees (for the various associated employment benefits and protections) that it gets problematic and wrong.

 Ketara wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Does that mean meaningful employment is actually up? I mean, 0-hours contracts count as employment, but may not actually result in any work. Ditto with part time, people may not be unemployed but they may still be seeking minimal work.

Yes. In a word. It should also be noted that being on a zero hours contract is not always a bad thing. ONS research showed them to be vastly focused in mobile seasonal industries, like tourism, food, and hospitality, the average work week for a zero hours contract was 25 hours, and of the 1.4 million people on them, only 14% were actively looking for more work.

Zero hours contracts can be nasty things if you're trapped in them with no prospects, but only 4% of the workforce is actually on them, and most of those jobs need the zero-hour contracts for flexibility. That's not to say 'all' of them are that way, but the point here is that decreasing unemployment isn't some illusion created by zero hour contracts.

Well, most of the rest of the EU manages without zero hours contracts and McDonalds and the like still employ people.

I don't really mind a 16-year old burger flipper on a zero hour contract but when you get nurses and social care workers on that kind of agreement something is really rotten.

https://www.nursingtimes.net/roles/nurse-managers/nhs-using-increasing-number-of-zero-hour-contracts/5061074.article

I worked on a zero hour contract in security for two and a half years a student, and it suited me just fine. I have a friend who works for the Historic Palaces in a similar function. There's nothing inherently wrong with zero hour contracts, it's only when you have people stuck on them who work regularly and really should be full time employees (for the various associated employment benefits and protections) that it gets problematic and wrong.

I worked for New look via an agency, whilst in between jobs. You have to sign off, unemployment support, and the limited help it offers. Too attend work where you may or may not be needed(60 yrs old never late, never missed a shift). Used to get text saying when and where shift would start. Till texts started saying shifts been cancelled. Try paying bills on 1 day per week.

 loki old fart wrote:

I worked for New look via an agency, whilst in between jobs. You have to sign off, unemployment support, and the limited help it offers. Too attend work where you may or may not be needed(60 yrs old never late, never missed a shift). Used to get text saying when and where shift would start. Till texts started saying shifts been cancelled. Try paying bills on 1 day per week.

Sounds to me like you fell into the 'trapped in them with no prospects' and ' stuck on them who work regularly and really should be full time employees' camps I mentioned before.

 Ketara wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

I worked for New look via an agency, whilst in between jobs. You have to sign off, unemployment support, and the limited help it offers. Too attend work where you may or may not be needed(60 yrs old never late, never missed a shift). Used to get text saying when and where shift would start. Till texts started saying shifts been cancelled. Try paying bills on 1 day per week.

Sounds to me like you fell into the 'trapped in them with no prospects' and ' stuck on them who work regularly and really should be full time employees' camps I mentioned before.

Well at the time, there was no full time work available. Thankfully that has now changed. But zero hour contracts should be banned.
They only benefit bad employers.

Now where were we....

 Ketara wrote:

They usually are, within reason. It's why we don't all become table dancers and move to New York on a drunk whim one night after a kebab in Manchester. Not to mention the fact that moving country is infinitely more major a decision than ticking a box on a bit of paper regarding a political issue that a third of people didn't even bother to show up to vote on.

This makes the assumption that the people moving would be the ones that didn't vote. On the other hand those that might consider leaving may be the ones that feel most aggrieved about the result. There is a lot of frustration and anger from those that wish to remain now (to the point that I know people that do their best to call anyone that voted leave a 'moron' and damn the consequence; not my view to help solve the situation but I can understand why). As with anything once people make an emotional decision they will fit the economical reality to that bias. Emotions rule in all things, once people get so far wound up then they tend to act with heart rather than long term values (a simplistic but valid assertion and the same issue that is had with ISIS etc).

So basically saying that the Leave campaign on the basis that it didn't want to be ruled by an 'undemocratic' EU whilst saying that Scotland should be run by a government not elected by the Scottish people. That seems a bit hypocritical.

Of who? Me? I don't run the Government.

To basically say that UK should have the right to determine whether it should have self determination (that the EU allegedly prevents in some peoples eyes) but then effectively say the Scotland should not have the same right (which is definitely prevented by the UK) then yes that is hypocritical. It's not meant as a personal attack; after all I catch myself being hypocritical at times and yell at myself for doing so, but it's because we are emotional beings and is very easy to do. So I'm quite happy for you to call me hypocritical if you want!

Not to mention the fact that there's only so many resources and hours in the day to go around, as well as the political stability of the country to consider (it's not fair on the rest of the electorate to hold referendums on a single subject every two years). I don't think saying, 'not for the following decade' is particularly oppressive when you just had a vote on it. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

Well having a referendum every two years is becoming common place in the UK! However I do agree with SNP, what was voted for in previously has basically been blown out the water by the EU result. So as far as I am concerned (being a die hard English person) I think it is only reasonable to let the Scottish people review their decision on the back of the what has now happened. I also don't agree with that there isn't enough resources, that's an excuse - you can always hire more resources and in some ways getting a decision on the issue would provide more clarity for the EU discussions as you have a definitive answer one way or another on this specific issue (and in reality so should NI, Wales and possibly Gibraltar)

And? Two different referendums, two different issues. I could take a referendum on what dog food my pet should eat tonight, but the economic benefits of that aren't necessarily a motivational factor in the voting, and even if they are, how much so compared to the EU one is debatable. I'm stretching the point slightly for illustration, but it should be pretty clear that two referendums can be miles apart on people's voting motivations, and trying to apply people's reasoning for one vote to another based purely on the reasoning that some extended definition of 'independence' is involved in both, is a bit of a stretch. [\quote]

On the other hand there could be similar motivational issues (apart from immigration which the Scottish people seem much more rational about) as they are both referendums on independence of one form or another. We cannot say either way, just postulate and test.

On that basis no one would emigrate ever! I also fail to see what this barrier maybe; or whether it is just an English suspicion....

No...? It's just, as I already said, moving away from friends, family, job, language, family places, and so forth is a pretty big shift, and people don't usually do it unless there's an overriding political or economic incentive. I don't think us leaving the EU was it, any more so than I did when the Tories won the last election and people said the same thing. You are, of course, free to believe them, time will tell...

Yes time will tell; the risk being is that as I said previously if you do start losing at least some of your younger work force (even if it is a relatively small fraction) that's a big blow for the long term future of the Country. And younger people do not have the same issues to moving because the ties are less.

I mean, seriously, a poll of a thousand unspecified people? I genuinely don't view that as even being sufficient evidence to lend weight to anything for the most part. Not to mention that this is a recurring news story, like the Daily Mail asking what causes cancer this week. Here's a 2006 poll of the same number of people with roughly the same result (which references another 2003 poll which also got the same result).

I'm not really sure you are understanding how statistics work and the point about errors (though to be fair most other people don't either because there is a perception that the 'result is the result' or that can't possibly be right and 'I'm just going to believe what I believe'). The poll is correct within the errors; what we don't know is what the error is because we don't have the raw data to play with - Unless there has been deliberate manipulation of the figures or just plainly made up poll evidence. No one is claiming it is proof of what people *will* do that needs other evidence. But you can still theorise what the implications are and produce testable theories. You then use that evidence to revise the theory and so on. But you can't do that without adequate statistics and understanding the errors on your data. The risk always of believing something won't happen is that you are completely shocked when it does because of failure to analyse the data correctly.

Seriously, this is a non-story. All it shows is that people like to think about moving abroad, because we're all grouchy as feth and grass is always greener on the other side. But when it actually comes down to it, we tend to stay where we are. If you look at the emigration figures, they've stayed relatively static at between 250,000-300,000 per year since the 90's (excluding a temporary slight increase after the financial crash). They've actually been falling the last several years, despite all those polls indicated above.

You are completely missing the point, it's not about the raw figures. It's about the age group that makes up these figures. If all the migrants out of the Country are 65+ (retiring to Benidorm say) it makes little impact on our economy in the long term. However if you have an increasing proportion of young people that move abroad then it is bad news long term for the Country because they provided the now and future taxes that support the older generation. It is the proportional split that is important *not* the raw numbers.

Now us leaving the EU may well change that, and emigration may well pick up. But my point is that this poll specifically is not proof of anything, and most likely will not prove to be any more accurate than the umpteen dozen taken before it on the issue over the last decade and a half, all of which showed exactly the same result as it, but with no discernible impact in terms of actual emigration figures. If it is right, it'll be by chance as opposed to accurate diagnosis.

Sigh...there is no reason think the polls are not accurate of the questions asked (if maybe not precise statistically speaking). The poll makes no mention of the numbers of people that actually do leave. The fact that the polls are pretty static would actually imply they are indeed quite precise (and possibly accurate), though again we need the errors. However the numbers of people emigrating could allow you to theorise what the actual thinking to emigration ratio is. That may then allow you to estimate what an increase in the thinking of leaving means to the actual leaving numbers. You can then test this against empirical statistical evidence; if the proportion of young people saying they want to leave increases then there is a significant probability that the *age ratio* of the emigrating population will change unless we assume that young people are full of more 'bluster'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 loki old fart wrote:


I worked for New look via an agency, whilst in between jobs. You have to sign off, unemployment support, and the limited help it offers. Too attend work where you may or may not be needed(60 yrs old never late, never missed a shift). Used to get text saying when and where shift would start. Till texts started saying shifts been cancelled. Try paying bills on 1 day per week.

Unfortunately don't expect this to change. I do wonder just how many of the employed are in a similar circumstance. I'd actually like to see what the average paid working hour (so not the paid 37, worked 50 hours issue) per person has done during this time, as I suspect it has gone down. In some ways it could possibly increase as it's "reduction in red tape" way to allow businesses to employ people when and where they want without having to consider the benefits that a full time staff member is paid. It's the better for Country poorer for the individual issue again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

You're living in Scotland, and you're worried about nationalism?

That surely depends on whether they want to join the EU; if they do the argument that Scotland is more nationalist falls apart. I think the 'nationalism' side of things comes from frustration that Scotland has no say on UK policy and has been for some time and people get fed up of it (the argument here stands up much better than it did for the same EU argument, but seems to be conveniently ignored). I don't think we would be in this mess if Scotland, Wales and NI were given fair access to the table rather than having an Authoritarian Westminster telling them what to do and how to do it.

Well Scotland did kind of join up with England about 300 or so years ago.

I do find people who are Pro-Independant Scotland yet are also Pro-EU to be massive hypocrites. "We don't want to be ruled by Westmister, but it's okay to be ruled by Brussels, that's different." It's why I like DINLT, at least he is consistent in his Xenophobia. (I kid.)

I can understand why someone would be anti Eu and also be anti Scottish independence, a lot of the issues come from the fact that the EU is doing things that it has no authority to do because it basically gave itself the authority. Whereas Scotland did actually agree to being merged with England.

 Ketara wrote:


The result being that the graduates 'struggling to find work' will tend to be the ones with worst qualifications, which coincidentally, will make them the least attractive for employment abroad.

This isn't true at all. I know people that had Physics degrees that couldn't find work (other than in a supermarket) when they really wanted to use that degree. Now they are doing PhDs to make them more attractive to the foreign market (hardly a poor qualification).

 welshhoppo wrote:
Well Scotland did kind of join up with England about 300 or so years ago.

I do find people who are Pro-Independant Scotland yet are also Pro-EU to be massive hypocrites. "We don't want to be ruled by Westmister, but it's okay to be ruled by Brussels, that's different." It's why I like DINLT, at least he is consistent in his Xenophobia. (I kid.)

I can understand why someone would be anti Eu and also be anti Scottish independence, a lot of the issues come from the fact that the EU is doing things that it has no authority to do because it basically gave itself the authority. Whereas Scotland did actually agree to being merged with England.

You're exalted.

Why the hell would you want to break away from Westminster only to throw yourself in with Brussels?

Edit:

Crap, I exalted Whirlwinds post by mistake. It came in unseen like a ninja.

 Ketara wrote:

It's not happening. Sturgeon doesn't want it, because she doesn't think she can win (but she'll pretend she does so she can play up the nationalist sentiment), and May has other fish to fry. It's not happening. Sorry.

Sorry this thinking just reminds me of this:-




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Well Scotland did kind of join up with England about 300 or so years ago.

I do find people who are Pro-Independant Scotland yet are also Pro-EU to be massive hypocrites. "We don't want to be ruled by Westmister, but it's okay to be ruled by Brussels, that's different." It's why I like DINLT, at least he is consistent in his Xenophobia. (I kid.)

I can understand why someone would be anti Eu and also be anti Scottish independence, a lot of the issues come from the fact that the EU is doing things that it has no authority to do because it basically gave itself the authority. Whereas Scotland did actually agree to being merged with England.

You're exalted.

Why the hell would you want to break away from Westminster only to throw yourself in with Brussels?

Edit:

Crap, I exalted Whirlwinds post by mistake. It came in unseen like a ninja.

Maybe because in reality a lot of the issues the UK faces are nothing to do with the EU and mostly to do with our own UK Governance. It's complex issues that have been placed at the feet of the EU as a simple solution which a lot of people are going to be sorely disappointed with when reality actually kicks in. Maybe there are more Scottish people that actually realise the benefits of the EU but find the way Westminster dictates is not to their liking. That doesn't seem hypocritical to me; I'm inclined to agree.

Can you not unexalt the post? I don't care either way, I don't really see the point, it only encourages echo chamber behaviour because people like to be liked and I find it rather pointless.

Westminister literally brings in rules that the EU decides. It's one of the most important parts of the EU and its system of laws. I've seen reports that say 60% of laws are decided by the EU, I've also seen reports that say it is less than 10%, both are bull gak and the true answer is probably somewhere in the middle, but that is still a great influence on our lawmaking.

You may not like the way that Westminister dictates the way EU laws are applied, but will you like the way that Holyrood will? Because they will have to do that too. And let me say this, Scotland has one of the most centralised governments in the entire world, it is almost completely focused on Glasgow and Edinburgh. You might not like the idea of Westminister being so focused on London, but essentially the same thing will happen, except with Edinburgh.

If May had any sense she'd offer Scotland two choices; remain in the UK and enjoy more devolved powers, or leave the UK and enjoy giving Brussels control of everything.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Westminister literally brings in rules that the EU decides. It's one of the most important parts of the EU and its system of laws. I've seen reports that say 60% of laws are decided by the EU, I've also seen reports that say it is less than 10%, both are bull gak and the true answer is probably somewhere in the middle, but that is still a great influence on our lawmaking.

That's not really true. The EU generally produces generalised policies that it hopes the countries will adopt (but not always as in the case of the Working Time Directive, or keeping a lid on air pollution). Most of these policies are called 'Directives' and in general they are rational and useful policies. It is actually up to the individual Governments how they apply them.

A good example being the fisheries quotas. Yes limits are placed but these are based off scientific evidence as to how much any region can be fished before you risk irreversibly damaging it (the concern coming off the Grand banks cod fish disaster). It is up to the UK to decide the legislation is applied (or not as the case may be). The UK Government decides how it divests the quotas and UK decided to give approx. 85% of the fishing rights to about 6 large fishing companies (many with foreign fleets). The local one ship fishermen are effectively given the table scraps but they actually make up the majority of the UK fishing fleet. This is because the government (and especially the Tory one) favours big business over the SMEs for a few reasons. However when the local fishermen complains to the local tory, the MPs response is "blame the EU because they don't release more quotas". However even if they did the evidence suggests that this wouldn't go to the local fishermen but rather the multinational fleets. What people hence see is foreign fishermen taking 'our' fish and leaving our own fishermen struggling because they don't get enough allocation. Whereas the reality is the only thing the EU are doing are trying to save fish stocks for now and in the future - the actual local issues was solely as result of the UK governments actions.

And let me say this, Scotland has one of the most centralised governments in the entire world, it is almost completely focused on Glasgow and Edinburgh. You might not like the idea of Westminister being so focused on London, but essentially the same thing will happen, except with Edinburgh.

My understanding is that Scottish government want to take the vast tracts of land owned by a few wealthy individuals and let them become state owned so more of the Scottish population can benefit from them. That doesn't sound like an overly centralised government. That sounds like a government recognising that there is a centralised issue and they want to open up more opportunities to the populace to grow outwards. I accept that SNP will need to implement their own versions of the EU Directives, but they appear to be much more left wing than what we have in the Westminster and that's more likely to result in a 'fairer' legislation for it's people. And to note I'm not Scottish, I'm a midlander borne and bred but I do think a lot of SNPs ideas have some good sense.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Well Scotland did kind of join up with England about 300 or so years ago.

Not willingly.

I do find people who are Pro-Independant Scotland yet are also Pro-EU to be massive hypocrites. "We don't want to be ruled by Westmister, but it's okay to be ruled by Brussels, that's different." It's why I like DINLT, at least he is consistent in his Xenophobia. (I kid.)

From a very basic view it maybe comes across as hypocritical, but it's a lot more complex than that. Different people have different combinations of views about the UK and the EU.

I'm pro-EU and pro-IndyScotland, for the same reasons; Lack of Tory control. Scots don't want independence because we hate the English. I'm sure some of you are pretty decent*

They aren't the same thing either, with the EU we'd have an equal place at the table and access to resources we need, which fits in with us being largely left/socialist.
With the UK, our vote is essentially meaningless; we already have a disproportionately high number of MP's but have absolutely no say on anything at Westminster, because we're such a small minority. All our MP's can do is irritate other MPs. We have a lot of devolved powers in Scotland, but there are a lot of things we're still beholden to Westminster for.

A few years ago, I was pro-union, but after a few years of the Tories trying to shaft everyone to benefit their mates, I came to the conclusion that being involved with the tories is worse than being an independent Scotland. With an independent Scotland, there's a chance we'll struggle for money and have to cut back on services, but with another Tory goverment it's a certainty that we'll get cut backs on services no matter how well we're doing. The EU at least kept some of that in check.

For clarity, here's a prioritized list of what I'd like the political landscape to look like.
1. UK as a full member of the EU (undone Brexit)
2. UK as essentially a full member but without a say (Brexit light)
3. Independent Scotland, in the EU
4. Independent Scotland, no EU
5. UK without EU.


*I jest. I cross the border quite a lot and get on with all of you Englanders I've met.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
If May had any sense she'd offer Scotland two choices; remain in the UK and enjoy more devolved powers, or leave the UK and enjoy giving Brussels control of everything.

Why? Brussels doesn't control everything for anyone else.

We were offered more devolved powers to not leave last time, which didn't all happen. Plus, if we become independent, May has absolutely no say over what we do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Why the hell would you want to break away from Westminster only to throw yourself in with Brussels?

Because the 2 aren't in any really equivalent?

@ Herzlos

The Act Of Union was quite willing on Scotland's behalf.

And Brussels are forever looking to increase their power over individual member states. They will take over more and mores aspects of each country's governance. This has all been mentiomed before.

Whirlwind wrote:
This makes the assumption that the people moving would be the ones that didn't vote.

Er......no it doesn't? I don't believe I said that anywhere, or even vaguely implied it?

On the other hand those that might consider leaving may be the ones that feel most aggrieved about the result. There is a lot of frustration and anger from those that wish to remain now (to the point that I know people that do their best to call anyone that voted leave a 'moron' and damn the consequence; not my view to help solve the situation but I can understand why). As with anything once people make an emotional decision they will fit the economical reality to that bias. Emotions rule in all things, once people get so far wound up then they tend to act with heart rather than long term values (a simplistic but valid assertion and the same issue that is had with ISIS etc).

I'll disagree there. Sorry. I don't think anywhere near enough young people care that much. Being a keyboard warrior is easy.

To basically say that UK should have the right to determine whether it should have self determination (that the EU allegedly prevents in some peoples eyes) but then effectively say the Scotland should not have the same right (which is definitely prevented by the UK) then yes that is hypocritical. It's not meant as a personal attack; after all I catch myself being hypocritical at times and yell at myself for doing so, but it's because we are emotional beings and is very easy to do. So I'm quite happy for you to call me hypocritical if you want!

I'm not sure saying that self-determination should wait another eight years because they just had a round is that hypocritical. There's more than one group of people in the nation the government has to run the country for. I repeat, it's really not that oppressive, or 'denying self-determination', so much as it is working within the practicalities of the real world (as opposed to some strange universe where the government has the resources to arrange to split up the country at the same time as it untangles from the EU).

Not only that, where does it end? Saying, 'well Scotland deserves another vote instantly because of the EU scenario'. Let's say we approve that. Then we have to have the 'Let's hold another vote on the EU membership now we know Scotland's leaving' referendum. Then another Scottish independence referendum in light of the result of that vote.

The minute you start making two separate votes contingent upon each other like that, you enter the realms of madness. How about we just accept that in a world of finite resources, the Scots can vote again in ten years, if they want to? I mean, you can say 'well, the EU vote changes things, and Scottish interests should be brought to the fore', but hang on. The minute you do that, you're downgrading MY interests. You're effectively saying that my negotiated exit should have crucial money and attention withdrawn to deal with this other issue that was already voted upon last year. Why do my interests (and those of the rest of the population of the UK) get downgraded and deprioritised in favour of, at best, half the Scottish voters? Who decides that's fair? Do they ask me? Or everyone else?

Should we take a referendum on whose interests should be prioritised in the immediate future?

I mean, seriously, a poll of a thousand unspecified people? I genuinely don't view that as even being sufficient evidence to lend weight to anything for the most part. Not to mention that this is a recurring news story, like the Daily Mail asking what causes cancer this week. Here's a 2006 poll of the same number of people with roughly the same result (which references another 2003 poll which also got the same result).

I'm not really sure you are understanding how statistics work and the point about errors (though to be fair most other people don't either because there is a perception that the 'result is the result' or that can't possibly be right and 'I'm just going to believe what I believe'). The poll is correct within the errors; what we don't know is what the error is because we don't have the raw data to play with - Unless there has been deliberate manipulation of the figures or just plainly made up poll evidence. No one is claiming it is proof of what people *will* do that needs other evidence. But you can still theorise what the implications are and produce testable theories. You then use that evidence to revise the theory and so on. But you can't do that without adequate statistics and understanding the errors on your data. The risk always of believing something won't happen is that you are completely shocked when it does because of failure to analyse the data correctly.

I didn't mention anything about 'errors' in the bit you quoted, or elsewhere. My issue was with the established track record for similar polls, which indicates a flawed interpretation of the data (where you assume the results are down to Brexit instead of a large number of alternative potential factors).

In all seriousness, it's starting to feel like you keep launching off on counter-arguments with things I'm not saying, or unrelated to myself. You threw a comment earlier about the hypocrisy of a position regarding scottish independence I never assumed, and there's two more similar things in this post alone.

You are completely missing the point, it's not about the raw figures. It's about the age group that makes up these figures. If all the migrants out of the Country are 65+ (retiring to Benidorm say) it makes little impact on our economy in the long term. However if you have an increasing proportion of young people that move abroad then it is bad news long term for the Country because they provided the now and future taxes that support the older generation. It is the proportional split that is important *not* the raw numbers.

And when some evidence surfaces that this is occurring, it might be worth discussing. Since the only evidence is a poll identical to many taken over the last fifteen years, there's no fresh evidence to indicate that it is occurring. Therefore I'm dismissing it. When an identifiable trend showing more young people emigrating the country over a sustained period emerges, call me.

Sigh...there is no reason think the polls are not accurate of the questions asked

Okay. Allow me to rephrase. The poll is evidence that young people like to think about moving abroad more than older people. Based on the previous polls, it would appear to be the case that young people like to think about it a lot, but so far, it hasn't really shown up in the emigration figures. The fact that the results of the poll is similar to the previous ones indicates that Brexit hasn't affected them one iota.

Whirlwind wrote:
This isn't true at all. I know people that had Physics degrees that couldn't find work (other than in a supermarket) when they really wanted to use that degree. Now they are doing PhDs to make them more attractive to the foreign market (hardly a poor qualification).

In all seriousness, those with humanities qualifications from worse ranking universities are the ones that have trouble finding work the most. That's statistically proven on several levels if you really want to go and dig into it, I'm not going to bother swapping anecdotal data on it. Graduate prospects by university and course are a key metric for ranking Universities, so they all keep a pretty close eye on it.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Herzlos

The Act Of Union was quite willing on Scotland's behalf.

Of course, but when the options are "Join the union" or "Lose all of your lands in England" it's not much of a choice is it?

And Brussels are forever looking to increase their power over individual member states. They will take over more and mores aspects of each country's governance. This has all been mentiomed before.

And seems to be getting veto'd at most opportunities, which we Scots could do. Westminster makes most of the decisions for us which are polar opposite to what we want, and there's literally nothing we can do about it. Take Brexit as an example. We overwhelmingly voted against, and it's happening anyway.

That's because Scotland is a part of the U.K. You had the chance to leave, you decided not to. And your not anti union you are anti tory? Even though that is a single party that is currently in power?

Also, think realistically like heck would Scotland actually be on an equal footing with all the European Nations. Germany and France are still the most powerful nations in Europe and have a lot of MEPs, Scotland wouldn't have that many. Spain would probably hate your guts because Scotland has helped fuel the issue of independence for Catalonia.


And the EU is slowly bum shuffling its way to more controls over the nations underneath it. They literally just told Ireland that their deal with Apple was illegal. They told Greece that they had to change their economic policies or they were not going to be bailed out.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Well Scotland did kind of join up with England about 300 or so years ago.

I do find people who are Pro-Independant Scotland yet are also Pro-EU to be massive hypocrites. "We don't want to be ruled by Westmister, but it's okay to be ruled by Brussels, that's different." It's why I like DINLT, at least he is consistent in his Xenophobia. (I kid.)

I can understand why someone would be anti Eu and also be anti Scottish independence, a lot of the issues come from the fact that the EU is doing things that it has no authority to do because it basically gave itself the authority. Whereas Scotland did actually agree to being merged with England.

Clearly you are unaware that the UK agreed to merge with the EU and enter into its system of government in the early 1970s.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

jouso wrote:
... ...

I worked on a zero hour contract in security for two and a half years a student, and it suited me just fine. I have a friend who works for the Historic Palaces in a similar function. There's nothing inherently wrong with zero hour contracts, it's only when you have people stuck on them who work regularly and really should be full time employees (for the various associated employment benefits and protections) that it gets problematic and wrong.

That is the whole point.

Zero hours contracts are great for companies that rely on casual and seasonal labour, and okay for students and semi-retired people who want to pick up some extra cash on a part-time basis, but they are gakky for people who actually need a proper full-time job to support themselves and their families from their earnings.

The sad truth is that the UK has spent the past 30 years not managing to replace swathes of industrial jobs obliterated in the 1980s and we only have "better" employment rates because social security quietly sponsors huge numbers of low paid workers through Income Support.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Clearly you are unaware that the UK agreed to merge with the EU and enter into its system of government in the early 1970s.

Nope. That was the Common Market, which was sold to us as a simple trading arrangement. But of course that was a lie.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Well Scotland did kind of join up with England about 300 or so years ago.

I do find people who are Pro-Independant Scotland yet are also Pro-EU to be massive hypocrites. "We don't want to be ruled by Westmister, but it's okay to be ruled by Brussels, that's different." It's why I like DINLT, at least he is consistent in his Xenophobia. (I kid.)

I can understand why someone would be anti Eu and also be anti Scottish independence, a lot of the issues come from the fact that the EU is doing things that it has no authority to do because it basically gave itself the authority. Whereas Scotland did actually agree to being merged with England.

Clearly you are unaware that the UK agreed to merge with the EU and enter into its system of government in the early 1970s.

I'm going to be extremely pedantic and say that the UK voted to join the EEC, which is so different from the EU in its current form that it might as well be completely different. At least the system of government hasn't changed that much in 300 years (which isn't necessarily a good thing.)

Clearly you are unaware of the Treaty of Rome 1957 which established the basis of the EU -- e.g. the European Commission, still the principle governing body -- and was entered into by the UK in 1973 voluntarily and confirmed by referendum in 1975.

Again, we were lied to. We were told it was only a trade agreement and wouldn't involve a loss of any sovereignty.

I am well aware of the Treaty of Rome, having studied it quite a bit during my years as a law student. And I can say that the product formed from those treaties was not political in nature due to issues from the member states that they were infringing on their sovereignty.

 Ketara wrote:

Er......no it doesn't? I don't believe I said that anywhere, or even vaguely implied it?

Erh to quote "Not to mention the fact that moving country is infinitely more major a decision than ticking a box on a bit of paper regarding a political issue that a third of people didn't even bother to show up to vote on. " is definitely implying that people that didn't vote are the ones complaining about moving

On the other hand those that might consider leaving may be the ones that feel most aggrieved about the result. There is a lot of frustration and anger from those that wish to remain now (to the point that I know people that do their best to call anyone that voted leave a 'moron' and damn the consequence; not my view to help solve the situation but I can understand why). As with anything once people make an emotional decision they will fit the economical reality to that bias. Emotions rule in all things, once people get so far wound up then they tend to act with heart rather than long term values (a simplistic but valid assertion and the same issue that is had with ISIS etc).

I'll disagree there. Sorry. I don't think anywhere near enough young people care that much. Being a keyboard warrior is easy.

So is arrogance apparently. After all the striking Junior Doctors, the student strikes a couple of years ago, election of young people in Hong Kong/Umbrella revolts and Tiananmen Square were obviously all keyboard warriors Just because they campaign and act in different ways does not make it any less relevant

I'm not sure saying that self-determination should wait another eight years because they just had a round is that hypocritical. There's more than one group of people in the nation the government has to run the country for. I repeat, it's really not that oppressive, or 'denying self-determination', so much as it is working within the practicalities of the real world (as opposed to some strange universe where the government has the resources to arrange to split up the country at the same time as it untangles from the EU).

They voted on a bunch of assumptions that are now false; if the people now want a different outcome then that is something to be considered. Generally I disapprove of referendums because they pander to demagogues and misleading claims or just outright lies. The preference would be they had an Scottish election and they voted on a manifesto. If that included SNP saying they would leave the UK to rejoin the EU and they won then fair enough. That's true democracy as you are voting for elected representatives to act on your behalf.

Not only that, where does it end? Saying, 'well Scotland deserves another vote instantly because of the EU scenario'. Let's say we approve that. Then we have to have the 'Let's hold another vote on the EU membership now we know Scotland's leaving' referendum. Then another Scottish independence referendum in light of the result of that vote.

And exactly why referendums should not take place on such complex issues.

The minute you start making two separate votes contingent upon each other like that, you enter the realms of madness. How about we just accept that in a world of finite resources, the Scots can vote again in ten years, if they want to? I mean, you can say 'well, the EU vote changes things, and Scottish interests should be brought to the fore', but hang on. The minute you do that, you're downgrading MY interests. You're effectively saying that my negotiated exit should have crucial money and attention withdrawn to deal with this other issue that was already voted upon last year. Why do my interests (and those of the rest of the population of the UK) get downgraded and deprioritised in favour of, at best, half the Scottish voters? Who decides that's fair? Do they ask me? Or everyone else?

So you are saying that your interests are more important than the people that actually live there. If you want a say go and live in Scotland as you are entitled to do. Scotland is an independent state, so is Wales and NI. It is called the United Kingdom for a reason, because it is made of several separate states. If Scotland wants to go independent then that is there choice and I wish them all the best. To say that someone that doesn't live and has no interest in that Country's day to day activities other than making that person a bit poorer is the worst king of Authoritarianism there is. It is simply saying you lot over there can't do something because it's not in my interest is an appalling approach to civil liberties (and is more reminiscent of the society in the Hunger Games; you work I profit).

I mean, seriously, a poll of a thousand unspecified people? I genuinely don't view that as even being sufficient evidence to lend weight to anything for the most part. Not to mention that this is a recurring news story, like the Daily Mail asking what causes cancer this week. Here's a 2006 poll of the same number of people with roughly the same result (which references another 2003 poll which also got the same result).

I didn't mention anything about 'errors' in the bit you quoted, or elsewhere. My issue was with the established track record for similar polls, which indicates a flawed interpretation of the data (where you assume the results are down to Brexit instead of a large number of alternative potential factors).

Yeah no, sorry you don't get it. It's not a problem lots of people don't because it can be confusing when you don't work with them daily. There is no 'track record' for polls that's the point. The data is the data and is correct for the poll. The precision of the poll tells you how close the different polls are and the accuracy tells you how close the 'true' mean value you are, but you can only determine these if you know the errors. To put it bluntly you can't say anything about the poll's accuracy without the errors. But doing advanced statistics 101 on the forum is a bit much.

In all seriousness, it's starting to feel like you keep launching off on counter-arguments with things I'm not saying, or unrelated to myself. You threw a comment earlier about the hypocrisy of a position regarding scottish independence I never assumed, and there's two more similar things in this post alone.

Like? So I can clarify.

And when some evidence surfaces that this is occurring, it might be worth discussing. Since the only evidence is a poll identical to many taken over the last fifteen years, there's no fresh evidence to indicate that it is occurring. Therefore I'm dismissing it. When an identifiable trend showing more young people emigrating the country over a sustained period emerges, call me.

Except by that point it's too late and they have gone, it is historical evidence. The question is whether you look at the evidence you have now, determine the possible outcomes and act to ensure a more favourable outcome, rather than working on a wing and a prayer hoping that is doesn't happen.

Okay. Allow me to rephrase. The poll is evidence that young people like to think about moving abroad more than older people. Based on the previous polls, it would appear to be the case that young people like to think about it a lot, but so far, it hasn't really shown up in the emigration figures. The fact that the poll is similar to the previous ones indicates that Brexit hasn't affected it one iota.

Why, I haven't seen you quote the percentage breakdown of the emigration by age. And the last sentence is plainly false because there isn't any data to support this supposition either way. All we can say is that more young people are looking to move abroad because (from your citation) "Young people were the most likely to want to leave, with a quarter saying they were hoping to live abroad". That means that the number of young people thinking of leaving the UK has doubled. My hypothesis is that this will lead to a similar *proportional* increase in young people leaving even if the overall numbers stay the same. And I repeat this is bad for the long term (low immigration) viability of the Country if this maintained over a significant period of time.

Whirlwind wrote:
This isn't true at all. I know people that had Physics degrees that couldn't find work (other than in a supermarket) when they really wanted to use that degree. Now they are doing PhDs to make them more attractive to the foreign market (hardly a poor qualification).

In all seriousness, those with humanities qualifications from worse ranking universities are the ones that have trouble finding work the most. That's statistically proven on several levels if you really want to go and dig into it, I'm not going to bother swapping anecdotal data on it. Graduate prospects by university and course are a key metric for ranking Universities, so they all keep a pretty close eye on it.

I was just highlighting that your comment that "The result being that the graduates 'struggling to find work' will tend to be the ones with worst qualifications, which coincidentally, will make them the least attractive for employment abroad." is a generalisation as even those with good degrees from good universities are struggling to find 'appropriate' jobs in this Country.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Er......no it doesn't? I don't believe I said that anywhere, or even vaguely implied it?

Erh to quote "Not to mention the fact that moving country is infinitely more major a decision, than the comparative decision involving ticking a box on a bit of paper regarding a political issue, that a third of people didn't even bother to show up to vote on. " is definitely implying that people that didn't vote are the ones complaining about moving

....how? In all seriousness, I'm staring at the sentence, and genuinely not comprehending how you're getting that. I'll try and reword, since there seems to be a bit of a communications failure here.

'I would think that to the majority of people, moving country is an infinitely more major personal decision, than a decision involving ticking a box on a bit of paper over a political issue; when the aforementioned issue was deemed unimportant enough by as many as a third of the people in the country to not be worth walking to the polling booth on.'

Does that straighten it out?

So is arrogance apparently. After all the striking Junior Doctors,

Those I approve of.

the student strikes a couple of years ago,

Those were mostly moronic. The number of students I spoke to who thought that the change in loan format meant it would work the same as a commercial loan, was frankly, staggering. I'm all in favour of protest, but most of them I saw on the telly and in person barely seemed to know the details of what it was they were protesting for.

election of young people in Hong Kong/Umbrella revolts and Tiananmen Square were obviously all keyboard warriors Just because they campaign and act in different ways does not make it any less relevant

Please. The temporary nature of keyboard activism is a well-documented concept. The number of people who just hit 'share' on stuff and use that as their way of protesting isn't uncommon, there's fifty of them for every one who gets off their arse and does something more. Which often makes it considerably less relevant, because nobody, be it your MP, your local councillor, your local business community, your bank, or more, gives a damn about what you're hitting 'share' on (unless they can use it for advertising purposes).

They voted on a bunch of assumptions that are now false;

Which were? Last I recalled, everyone knew the British referendum was coming, I sure know I did. The assumption had to be that Brexit was a possibility. If it wasn't, then they really have nobody else to blame for not paying attention.

That's true democracy as you are voting for elected representatives to act on your behalf.

There's no such thing as true democracy in reality. Every system has flaws and abuses.

The minute you start making two separate votes contingent upon each other like that, you enter the realms of madness. How about we just accept that in a world of finite resources, the Scots can vote again in ten years, if they want to? I mean, you can say 'well, the EU vote changes things, and Scottish interests should be brought to the fore', but hang on. The minute you do that, you're downgrading MY interests. You're effectively saying that my negotiated exit should have crucial money and attention withdrawn to deal with this other issue that was already voted upon last year. Why do my interests (and those of the rest of the population of the UK) get downgraded and deprioritised in favour of, at best, half the Scottish voters? Who decides that's fair? Do they ask me? Or everyone else?

So you are saying that your interests are more important than the people that actually live there.

Nope. Wrong tack. I'm asking why their interests are more important than mine that they now get priority in taking up the time and money of our joint government at this moment in time over an issue they very recently got to take up the time and money of our joint government over. One of our interests will be prioritised, the government is scrabbling around for the staff to deal with one disentanglement. I'm saying, they had a vote recently. Why should their interests be prioritised over mine here?

Note, I'm not asserting that my interests should be prioritised. I'm questioning why theirs should be. What is it about Scottish independence that makes it such a compelling issue at this precise moment that it should be prioritised above the interests of the vast majority of the country at this exact moment?

. But doing advanced statistics 101 on the forum is a bit much.

Mate, I understand every word you're saying. I get the feeling the opposite isn't true here, as I'm not actually arguing with anything you're saying in the statistics schpiel.

Like? So I can clarify.

I'll be frank, I'm just more inclined to drop this one. You keep telling me I don't understand statistical data when I'm not talking about the data, but rather the assumptions being drawn from the data.

If we were sitting in a pub right now, this is the point I'd get in the next round and change the subject.

Keith Vaz anyone?

I was just highlighting that your comment that "The result being that the graduates 'struggling to find work' will tend to be the ones with worst qualifications, which coincidentally, will make them the least attractive for employment abroad." is a generalisation as even those with good degrees from good universities are struggling to find 'appropriate' jobs in this Country.

Note the phrase 'tend to'. It's not an absolute thing. It's pretty obvious from the phrasing it's a generalisation. That doesn't stop it being (generally) accurate.

 welshhoppo wrote:
That's because Scotland is a part of the U.K. You had the chance to leave, you decided not to. And your not anti union you are anti tory? Even though that is a single party that is currently in power?

We narrowly declined our chance to leave, largely based on lies, fearmongering and broken promises from the Better Together campaign, such as the idea that staying in the UK was the only way to stay in the EU. To be told to stay in the Union to stay in the EU, only to be pulled out of the EU anyway, is a material enough change to justify another referendum. We want to stay in the EU, which means that if we have to go it alone to do so, then so be it.

Also, think realistically like heck would Scotland actually be on an equal footing with all the European Nations. Germany and France are still the most powerful nations in Europe and have a lot of MEPs, Scotland wouldn't have that many. Spain would probably hate your guts because Scotland has helped fuel the issue of independence for Catalonia.

We'd have a lot less sway than the UK, sure (but since the UK doesn't want a say in Europe, that's no big deal), but we'd still be treated as an independent country with it's own ability to implement directives, and have our seat at the table with our veto. Neither of those we have in the UK; we have power over the devolved stuff, but otherwise do what we're told.

They literally just told Ireland that their deal with Apple was illegal.

Because it was.

They told Greece that they had to change their economic policies or they were not going to be bailed out.

Which is reasonable, any bank would do the same.

Neither of those are good examples of the EU overstepping boundaries and trying to become a superstate.

It's a bit of a misconception that all Scottish independence supporters want out of the UK, only to hand over sovereignty to Brussels.

Not me! I want out of both Unions, having voted to do so in 2014 and 2016.

So keep your damn stereotypes to yourself!

On the subject of graduates failing to find work... About 10 years ago, before any of this mess started. Potentially even before the financial crisis, I graduated uni with, what I thought a sensible degree. - BSc in Medical Biochemistry from a major Scottish University (I'm Scottish).

My interviews with private companies (of which there weren't that many in the West of Scotland) didn't go well, partly because I sucked at interviews. But what I found interesting was that the NHS wouldn't even give me the time of day, because the only degree of that ilk they recognised was a single specific degree in Biomedical Sciences from, I think it was Dundee University.

That sort of thing happened to be not mentioned by my university..

So I spent the first half of the summer job hunting and the second one half as basically a paid internship at a pharmaceutical company (in England!), effectively being paid to check that forms were initialed and signatured properly by the researchers before the lawyers reviewed them.

Needless to say, that didn't feel like it was going anywhere.. the job didn't pay well enough to live independently, even though they asked me to say on for a while and I was staying with family for it, meaning a 2 hour commute everyday...

Especially as I only got the job because that family member has friends that were mentioning this need.. (So yeah, alternate moral, it seems family connections still rule in the modern world...)

Anyway, the point of the ramble is, I felt like I was one of those graduates who were stuck after uni, so even back then I went back to uni, as the best option, with a post grad 1 year conversion course into IT with Database specialisation.

It turns out THAT opened up far more doors and, despite not being much better at interviews, I found a job pretty quickly - and this was in mid financial crisis.

Not only that but my business and it's other supporting businesses and partners are literally screaming for employees now, particularly for naturally English speaking ones. I remember that a few years ago, near the end of the crisis, my business was looking for 3 digits worth of additional IT related staff.

They came away with 20.

As I understand it, this is still an issue

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Again, we were lied to. We were told it was only a trade agreement and wouldn't involve a loss of any sovereignty.

Without conceding your point, the Leave Campaigns lied to us about the dangers of remaining and the benefits of leaving, so I suppose it evens out.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Well Scotland did kind of join up with England about 300 or so years ago.

I do find people who are Pro-Independant Scotland yet are also Pro-EU to be massive hypocrites. "We don't want to be ruled by Westmister, but it's okay to be ruled by Brussels, that's different." It's why I like DINLT, at least he is consistent in his Xenophobia. (I kid.)

I can understand why someone would be anti Eu and also be anti Scottish independence, a lot of the issues come from the fact that the EU is doing things that it has no authority to do because it basically gave itself the authority. Whereas Scotland did actually agree to being merged with England.

England did kind of join up with EU lot less than 300 years ago.

If UK can decide to leave EU then why not Scotland from UK...300 years ago is so ancient history that just because they decided then shouldn't mean they can't ever separate. That would be England holding Scotland in ransom. "We dont' care about your interests but you aren't allowed to leave either".

And hypochrisy to want to be ruled by somebody you believe has your interests in better interest than other? So because A is bad B must also be bad?