Brexit: Driver's 'illegal' ham sandwiches seized at Dutch border under EU rules

[Thomas]

But the fact remains.
More people in Scotland voted for UK membership than did EU membership.

They care more about one, than they do the other.

2 049 576 scots voted for pro european parties in the 2019 GE.

2 001 926 scots voted to stay in the uk in the eu in 2014.

Pro european parties have won every single election in scotland , including the 2016 referendum on leaving the eu , as far back as i can remember never mind in recent years.

[Thomas]

You use a % because it gives a false representation of the actual numbers.
That's why you do it.

I have given you your numbers.

over 2 million  scottish voted for pro european parties in GE 2019 ,( more than the 2014 no to indy vote) while only 700 thousand voted for pro brexit uk parties in ge 2019.

What happened there biff? where was the scots love the uk more than eu vote a year ago last december?

[Baff]

You use a % because it gives a false representation of the actual numbers.
That's why you do it.

Otherwise you would just use the actual numbers.

More people voted for the UK in Scotland than voted for the EU in Scotland.
That is a fact.

You can squirm and wriggle and rewrite those numbers as percentages of other things. But the number of people who voted for each is still the same.
You can add up all the votes from votes on other things and attribute them all to your side....
You can disqualify the votes of the young and attribute all their disqualified vote to your opponents side....

But the fact remains.
More people in Scotland voted for UK membership than did EU membership.

They care more about one, than they do the other.

[Thomas]

Your problem was that the numbers didn't back it up.

Heres some more numbers for you baffy.

Over 2 million  scottish voters (2 049 576) voted for pro european parties in GE2019. (more than the 2014 no vote)

Only 709 485 scottish voters voted for uk brexit parties in GE2019.

What happened to the mysterious scottish voters "who support the uk more than the eu"  a year ago last December?

[Thomas]

Not really Tommy. You don't need to scratch anything. I am an out and out English Nat.

The point is borkie you and some others keep bringing up the fact "england" doesnt care about scot indy when the facts speak for themselves.

I fully accept there are people in england who dont care or wish scotland well , but the vast majority of your politicians and elite do care , and are doing their damndest to stop scotland leaving which is what matters.

If thats your countires ambivalence to scottish indy , then i would hate to see it when you are trying.

[Thomas]

Hence the two arguments that a) the only poll that counts is on voting day and b) those with a vote who can't be arsed to use it have no valid complaints about the result after the event.

sure that is my argument cromwell.

I accept the 2014 scottish result , barry and biffo appear to want to deligitmise scotlands 2016 result as it doesnt suit their narrative. Attempts to ignore scotland dominant pro eu vote in 2016 is what is driving indy support through the roof.

using eu citizens votes to prop up their argument for support for the uk in scotland in 2014 while completely ignoring the fact their greater support for the eu which they never got to enact in 2016 is laughable and puerile.

Your final part about people who cant normally be arsed voting is biffo summed up to a tee. A man who has never voted ( by his own admission)apart from the brexit referendum lecturing others about the workings of democracy is hilarious.

[Thomas]

No.
That was your argument.
Your problem was that the numbers didn't back it up.

Hence you used used "percentages of the number of voters" instead of the actual number of votes to mislead us.

The standard practice in any uk demcoratic vote is to use percentage of turnout , rather than sheer numbers to determine the vote , which is why this arugment is your problem , not mine.

For example , tony blair and labour won the 2001 general election on one of the lowest turnouts for over a hundred years , but still gained over a 166 seat majority because he won the majority of the percentage of the vote.

If we used your peurile argument of sheer number wins the political arugment , then labour would never have won the election as 33 half million is far bigger than the 10 half million labour got , but as we all know ( except you as you dont normally take part ) democracy never works that way .

So the percentage figures i use is what wins the political argument.

[cromwell]

Not really john , because i can't see his point .

1. He is deliberately ignoring the electorate was 300 000 bigger in 2014 than 2016.( in scotland , hence why the only sensible comparison is using percentages)

2. 16/17 year olds and eu citizens had the vote in 2014 , with the majority of eu citizens voting to stay in the uk not because they loved the uk , but becuase they wanted the status quo in case scotland was chucked out the eu.

Had 3 million or so eu citizens uk wide got the vote in 2016 , then you know , as i do , brexit wouldnt have happened. So there wasnt a level playing field.

3.The main crux of the arugment is neither you , nor i , can separate out who would rather be in the uk compared to the eu. Thi is why people like baff , other brit nats and of course your government is running scared.

If biffo is correct and more scottish people love the uk than the eu , what is it brit nats are scared of scotland having a referndum to choose?

You should win easily....shoudlnt you?

So if sheer numbers of a majority wins the political argument as you brit nats tell me rather than the majority of percentage of voters who turn out on the day , then stop brexit.

29 million non brexit voters is greater than 17 million brexit voters , and using biffos puerile argument , this means more "brits" love the eu than love brexit no?

You can't have it both ways.

Hence the two arguments that a) the only poll that counts is on voting day and b) those with a vote who can't be arsed to use it have no valid complaints about the result after the event.

[Thomas]

Ok look it's all very well having a laugh but Baff has a point here even though it's abysmally stated.

Not really john , because i can't see his point .

1. He is deliberately ignoring the electorate was 300 000 bigger in 2014 than 2016.( in scotland , hence why the only sensible comparison is using percentages)

2. 16/17 year olds and eu citizens had the vote in 2014 , with the majority of eu citizens voting to stay in the uk not because they loved the uk , but becuase they wanted the status quo in case scotland was chucked out the eu.

Had 3 million or so eu citizens uk wide got the vote in 2016 , then you know , as i do , brexit wouldnt have happened. So there wasnt a level playing field.

3.The main crux of the arugment is neither you , nor i , can separate out who would rather be in the uk compared to the eu. Thi is why people like baff , other brit nats and of course your government is running scared of a new referendum on choosing. Scotland voted for the uk in the eu in 2014 , not brexit uk.

If biffo is correct and more scottish people love the uk than the eu , what is it brit nats are scared of scotland having a referndum to choose?

You should win easily....shoudlnt you?

So if sheer numbers of a majority wins the political argument as you brit nats tell me rather than the majority of percentage of voters who turn out on the day , then stop brexit.

29 million non brexit voters is greater than 17 million brexit voters , and using biffos puerile argument , this means more "brits" love the eu than love brexit no?

You can't have it both ways.

[johnofgwent]

im not a maths genius its true , but i do remember my school lesson ,and how my teacher always taught me 62 was bigger than 55.

Ok look it's all very well having a laugh but Baff has a point here even though it's abysmally stated.


It's the situation with the Welsh Assembly over Brexit.


As I am sure you know, the 52% to 48% figure was derived from a massive turnout of the electorate.


By the same token hardly three in ten voters bothered to declare their interest or opposition in a Welsh assembly and when you add spoiled votes and stolen ballots like mine that never made it, barely one in four of those eligible to vote did so. The result was 50.2 to 49.8%


A better example is the 9% who rocked up to give Nick Griffin a seat in the North West European parliament Region were in fact 1,000s less than the 3% who voted monster raving looney a few elctions earlier, such was the degree to which Blair destroyed engagement by the electorate in the process.

In the 2005 and 2010 General Election I did not get out of the counts until 3am

In the 2009 ?? EU parliament count, the polls closed at 10, all the ballot boxes were at the sports centre by 10:15 and the turnout (17% I think in our constituency, I may be wrong) was so piss poor I was out the door of the sports centre by 22:40 and able to make it to my local for TWO beers before chucking out time.


Now admittedly I rang a mate at the pub for the quiz and asked him to get a round in for when I got there, and I bought the second round three mins later at one minute to "time", left my car in the car park and walked the 400 yards home but the fact remains using percentages to compare these events is just laughable

[Baff]

Baffy wasnt correct barry , because baffy didnt make that argument. I did.

Heres what i said page 5 of this thread.

and heres baffys puerile response on page 6

So biffos puerile argument is sheer number of voters  outweighs in political arguments the democratic principle of majority percentage votes of electoral turnout.

No.
That was your argument.
Your problem was that the numbers didn't back it up.

Hence you used used "percentages of the number of voters" instead of the actual number of votes to mislead us.

[Borchester]

Honestly borkie , you dont half talk a good game at times , but when push comes to shove , like most of your fellow countrymen , scratch the surface and underneath we find an out and out brit nat.

Not really Tommy. You don't need to scratch anything. I am an out and out English Nat. If anybody else wants to come along for the ride then good luck to them. But I reckon England is better off on its own than being stuck in a grumpy menage a quatre.

So if your lot can rally the troops and establish an independent Scotland then good luck to you guys. Still, it would be nice to know what is happening over the border. Above my desk I have a pile of yellowing copies of the Scotsman and they are what remains of the 100 copies of that newspaper I bought twenty odd years ago when I went to Edinburgh University for my daughter's graduation. And for all information I can clean from the MSM on Scottish affairs, I might as well turn to the pages of my August 2000 copies of the Scotsman.

So let us have some feedback. I always thought Wee Krankie was a very shrewd, stolid sort of politician, but apparently she is really into tranies rights and the adoration of Brussels. And Alex Salmond does not seem to like her either.

Input, input!

[Thomas]

No one south of the border gives a toss about Scottish independence.

So i keep hearing borkie , yet on this thread , two people south of the border appear to be contradicting that very argument you keep making.

Pity your politicians , lords , and forum members like biffo and barry didnt take a leaf out your book instead of spendind days arguing against scot indy , making puerile points , or how can we forget the large amounts of cash sent north from english wallets to bolster the better together campaign and keep scotland in the british prison.

Those making gifts to various arms of the No campaign include the mysterious Rain Dance Investments (£200,000) – a company with no website, which appears to be based in an eight-bedroomed house in a small village in Lincoln

or how about the stalbury trustees , true blooded english gentlemen who promote the ideas of english conservatism who just happened to donate large amounts of cash at under £7500 a pop to the better together campaign...

https://opencorporates.com/companies/gb/01430799



Or how about all the english aristocrats and bankers who went out of their way to financially influence  the british keeping hold of scotland in 2014?

Honestly borkie , you dont half talk a good game at times , but when push comes to shove , like most of your fellow countrymen , scratch the surface and underneath we find an out and out brit nat.

[Thomas]

Baff was quite right to say 62% is greater than 55% because he clearly quoted the context.

Baffy wasnt correct barry , because baffy didnt make that argument. I did.

Heres what i said page 5 of this thread.

a higher percentage , 62 % voted to stay in the european union while only 55 % voted for your union.

and heres baffys puerile response on page 6

how many votes was that?

Oh yes.

1.8 million voted for the EU.
2 million voted for the UK.

So you lose on that argument. Sorry.

So biffos puerile argument is sheer number of voters  outweighs in political arguments the democratic principle of majority percentage votes of electoral turnout.

You know this is a nonsense argument , as you spent the last 4 half years argueing against remainers using that same "sheer numbers of voters "  argument not voting for brexit  against the majority of turnout on the day.

yet on page 11 of this thread , heres where you appear to agree with him..

Baff's doing a great job of debating.

...and yet above in your previous post , on this page 15 of this thread , if i didnt know any better , it would appear you are trying to play daft , deliberately misrepresent my position and attribute my position to biffo..

Baff was quite right to say 62% is greater than 55% because he clearly quoted the context.( edit to add# Biffo didnt say this , thomas said this)

in some cynical ploy to do a 180 degree volte face because you know fine well we have a complete muppet making puerile arguments and you have backed the wrong horse?

Im not suprised by baffys stupidity....we had reams of threads on the old forum with similar rubbish from him in between long periods of him dissappearing.

I am however suprised by your hypocrisy on the subject. Not just your disingenuous position on northern ireland , but more importantly your hypocrisey on sheer numbers outweighing the democratic majority on the day of the electorate in terms of a political point.

Considering of course your position on the subject for the last 4 half years was the opposite when it was put to brexit.

So to sum up...if you agree biffo is correct , and sheer numbers who voted for the uk in scot 2014 outweigh the sheer numbers who voted for the eu in scot 2016 ,( ignoring the electoral percentage of  turnout) thus scotland shouldnt have a referendum on leaving the eu  , then that same false logic means the uk shouldnt leave the EU because 29 million didnt vote brexit while only 17 million did.

Scotland clearly voted for the status quo of both unions in 2014 and 2016 , can't have both becuase of you and your brexiter ilk , so clearly the only democratic response is to offer scotland a new referendum on which union they want to choose , brexit uk , or indy scotland in the eu.

...but your government and its supporters dont want that either.

You carry on though ignoring scotland , while forgetting how badly this worked out for you after the 1979 stitch up , where twenty years later we got what we wanted despite the tories attempting to stop devolution.

[Borchester]

I am lost.

I thought that this thread was about Dutch border guards stealing British truckers' sarnies because Ursula Leyen hadn't paid them.

Still, if we are going to rattle on about Indy2....

No one south of the border gives a toss about Scottish independence. But Wee Krankie does not appear as popular as she was and Boris ain't going to surrender sovereignty unless he has to. So the whole business will bumble along for the next few years