Scotland Watch

[Little John]

Let's thread some truth into this, the word 'migrant' is a cognitive dupe to dehumanise, these folk are 'blow-back' victims of social engineering courtesy of the highest brutality dished out in order to maintain that illusion of milk and honey you refer to and the whole façade serves nothing but that systemic fig-leaf in cloaking a minority privilege, it's not even utilitarian.....it's good old fashion greed born of economic/ecological illiteracy.
Masters of the universe, I think not, more like abstract abracadabra.

What a load of twaddle.

It's like saying the word "homosexual" is a slur because some people use it disparagingly. Whereas, in reality, the term homosexual is a completely morally neutral noun. The same goes for defining some one who migrates from one place to another. Surprise, surprise, they may be entirely morally neutrally defined by the common noun of "migrant" which is, of course, merely a single definition of such a person and they will, of course, be definable in a myriad of other ways as well, just as we all may be. However, in the context of a discussion about migration patterns in this country, such a narrow definition is entirely appropriate. The fact that, in some quarters, it is used as a term of disparagement is no reason whatsoever to allow the word to become hijacked by such quarters. Or do you propose we give ground every time a word is hijacked by bigots? Any word? Where do you draw the line?

What you are trying to argue is limp, liberal, linguistic piffle. Or, worse, it's pernicious piffle because it seeks to automatically tar as a bigot, by implication, anyone who uses the term "migrant" to describe someone who has recently migrated to this country. If that is what you are doing then you can F--k right off because I have had just about enough of that shit. I strongly suspect you are not, however. What I suspect you are doing is simply mindlessly parroting out the standard liberal line that has been constructed for you by your betters in order to stifle your capacity to think for yourself. In which case, engage your brain please.

[peaceful_life]

Let's thread some truth into this, the word 'migrant' is a cognitive dupe to dehumanise, these folk are 'blow-back' victims of social engineering courtesy of the highest brutality dished out in order to maintain that illusion of milk and honey you refer to and the whole façade serves nothing but that systemic fig-leaf in cloaking a minority privilege, it's not even utilitarian.....it's good old fashion greed born of economic/ecological illiteracy.
Masters of the universe, I think not, more like abstract abracadabra.

What a load of twaddle.

It's like saying the word "homosexual" is a slur because some people use it disparagingly. Whereas, in reality, the term homosexual is a completely morally neutral noun. The same goes for defining some one who migrates from one place to another. Surprise, surprise, they may be entirely morally neutrally defined by the common noun of "migrant" which is, of course, merely a single definition of such a person and they will, of course, be definable in a myriad of other ways as well, just as we all may be. However, in the context of a discussion about migration patterns in this country, such a narrow definition is entirely appropriate. The fact that, in some quarters, it is used as a term of disparagement is no reason whatsoever to allow the word to become hijacked by such quarters. Or do you propose we give ground every time a word is hijacked by bigots? Any word? Where do you draw the line? What you are trying to argue is limp, liberal, linguistic piffle. Or, worse, it's pernicious piffle because it seeks to automatically tar as a bigot, by implication, anyone who uses the term "migrant" to describe someone who has recently migrated to this country. If that is what you are doing then you can **** right off because I have had just about enough of that shit. I strongly suspect you are not, however. In which case, engage your brain please.

Firstly..YOU engage your manners.

These people are NOT 'migrants', even using a neutral* context of the word, they are not choosing benign drift, they are destabilised and forced by means of economic exploitation.

I wasn't accusing anyone of bigotry, but let's not obfuscate reality with comfortable nouns.

[peaceful_life]

Every migrant who comes here makes it more difficult for a person already here to get a job.

I think that is a fundamental error. There is not a fixed number of jobs in the economy. If a Romanian comes here and picks cabbages it allows jobs to be created in the cabbage distribution and retailing system.

Erm....no.

If the Romanian didn't come here then a British person would be employed to pick the cabbage and precisely the same number of other jobs would exist.

At what wage cost?.....enough to buy a Romanian farm to grow your own cabbages?
Exchange rates, bloomin magic they are.

[Little John]

.....These people are NOT 'migrants', even using a neutral* context of the word, they are not choosing benign drift, they are destabilised and forced by means of economic exploitation.

I wasn't accusing anyone of bigotry, but let's not obfuscate reality with comfortable nouns.

Where have I stated what their reasons are for migrating other than a couple of posts back where I implied it may, among other things, be for reasons of economic desperation? You are doing it again (though, I suspect you are not even aware of it, so inculcated are you in the standard liberal narrative) by implying a bigoted agenda (in this case, by implying that my position is somehow ignorant of the macro-economic forces that underlay migration patterns) by anyone who is at odds with any aspect of an open immigration policy in this country. Pack it in. Whatever the reason for their migration, they are migrants. From the governor of the bank of England to a Somali refugee. One of them is a probable wanker and the other is someone who may well have suffered terribly. But, they are both migrants because they have both migrated from one country in one part of the world to another country in another part of the world

It's a f***ing noun. Get a grip.

[Catweazle]

I'm quite happy to see the word "Migrant" used to refer to people travelling here to work / sponge if it differentiates them from " Asylum Seeker", an entirely different group of people.

I worry that the distinction is being lost and that future governments will lump them all together as a common "problem".

[peaceful_life]

.....These people are NOT 'migrants', even using a neutral* context of the word, they are not choosing benign drift, they are destabilised and forced by means of economic exploitation.

I wasn't accusing anyone of bigotry, but let's not obfuscate reality with comfortable nouns.

Where have I stated what their reasons are for migrating other than a couple of posts back where I implied it may, among other things, be for reasons of economic desperation? You are doing it again (though, I suspect you are not even aware of it, so inculcated are you in the standard liberal narrative) by implying a bigoted agenda (in this case, by implying that my position is somehow ignorant of the macro-economic forces that underlay migration patterns) by anyone who is at odds with any aspect of an open immigration policy in this country. Pack it in. Whatever the reason for their migration, they are migrants. From the governor of the bank of England to a Somali refugee. One of them is a probable wanker and the other is someone who may well have suffered terribly. But, they are both migrants because they have both migrated from one country in one part of the world to another country in another part of the world

It's a ******* noun. Get a grip.

I know what it is, what I'm saying is the word is nondescript in doing any kind of justice to the reasons why these folk are on the move and thus is very handy in normalising a culture of BLAME towards them. Nevertheless...the word is dehumanising, another headache relic from the systemic use of reductionist compartmentalising, handy for the efficient shuffling in binary columns of non accountability, but utterly useless in facing the now ironic reality that such systems have brought about these present problems of overcomplexity and it's isn't simply economic reasons, be them micro or macro, indeed that's a vague secondary to the ecological and climatic drivers, all thanks to the same system.

Nowhere have I suggested that the numbers of folk living on these shores doesn't matter, neither have I suggested that contesting open immigration policy isn't important, that's just fallacious fluff, as is trying to pigeon-hole my observations (whether you agree with them or not, they are mine) as some kind of happy clapping liberal pap. You could at best accuse me of being pedantic, but other than that, you need to be packing it it.

Of course there are pressing issues, how we deal with them is paramount.


Anyhoo, getting back to the OP.....

Noam Chomsky on Scottish Independence : Statehood and Power
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/09/06 ... and-power/

[Snail]

Scottish independance, whether it actually happens or not, should be a wake-up call to every UK citizen.

The incompetence is breath-taking.

The UK could be about to lose a massive chunk of its territory.

Incompetent fools giving up half the union. Incompetent fools proving themselves incompetent in so many things, again and again.

We're ruled by fools.

This proves it.

[Little John]

I know what it is, what I'm saying is the word is nondescript in doing any kind of justice to the reasons why these folk are on the move....

Of course it's nondescript in terms of those aspects of a person over and above the bald fact of their migration. That's what other words are for! Words like "asylum", "refugee", "economic" and "political". There will also be many more words still that you could use by the way.

Jesus wept.

[biffvernon]

Borders, a brief history: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1sjHGODFHg

[biffvernon]

I'm quite happy to see the word "Migrant" used to refer to people travelling here to work / sponge if it differentiates them from " Asylum Seeker", an entirely different group of people.

I worry that the distinction is being lost and that future governments will lump them all together as a common "problem".

My mother migrated, so she must fairly be described as a 'migrant'. The reason for her migration was to escape a fascist government that had come to power in the land where she was born and she sought asylum here, so she must fairly be described as an 'asylum seeker'. On being granted British citizenship she then, presumably, became an asylum finder.

[kenneal - lagger]

Why not ask a Neandertal what he thinks about the migration of Homo Sapiens or an Indigenous North American about European migrants or one of the original South Africans what he thinks about Zulu or Boer or English migrants. Oh! You can't because they are all or nearly all dead or their culture has been swamped. You could even ask a Palestinian.

Uncontrolled migration leads to a load of problems. The next wave will probably be driven by Ebola.

[Tarrel]

Meanwhile, back OT:

I notice the £ had a wobbly last week on announcement of the closing of the opinion poll gap in the indyref. I wonder what will happen tomorrow when the markets digest the news of the YouGov poll putting "Yes" in the lead?

[biffvernon]

Staying on topic, what of this, Tarrel?
http://www.change.org/p/the-electoral-c ... new-advice

Better Together after finding a poll in favour of the Yes campaign are now in talks with each other to put together some kind of deal. While there is very little chance that the Scottish Electorate will believe them anyway based on the fact that they ensured that DEVO MAX was not on the ballot, it raises serious questions about the electoral rules.

Part 4 sections 1-4 of the Scottish Referendum Act 2013 stipulates that campaigners are not allowed to release new documentation to the public within 28 days of the referendum date except in response to a direct enquiry.

As no such information has been sought this meeting with better together and subsequent advice that will apparently be published is in contrevention of said act.

As there is less than 10 days left of the referendum campaign, we believe that it is the commissions responsibility to investigate the matter under law and if necessary advise better together to cease and desist or risk allowing the rules of the referendum to be breached.

[Little John]

Meanwhile, back OT:

I notice the £ had a wobbly last week on announcement of the closing of the opinion poll gap in the indyref. I wonder what will happen tomorrow when the markets digest the news of the YouGov poll putting "Yes" in the lead?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwRFoxgEcHc

[Tarrel]

Hmm. Interesting. I signed the petition. It deserves to be looked at, but I'm not sure there is a case. However, I might be wrong.

I guess it would depend on who is issuing the new information. Is it the Better Together campaign, or is it the UK Government after consultation with other parties? Is there a difference? I don't know.

There is little doubt that major political parties dominate in each campaign; the SNP in the "yes" campaign and, increasingly, Labour in Better Together.. But technically, the two campaigns are separate from the parties. Each has a chairperson (both called Blair funnily enough), as well as a frontman.

Going off slightly at a tangent, one thing that has surprised me is how quiet the Lib Dems have been. We live in a strongly "yes" area, but it is not staunch SNP. The dominant politics is Lib Dem, but they have been virtually silent in the local independence debate. In fact, pretty much the only "no" activity we've had has been the flying visit by labour's Jim "100 towns in 100 days" Murphy. By contrast, the "yes" team have been out in the town centre practically every week, with their balloons, badges and stickers, and "yes" stickers are literally everywhere. They recently reported that a doorstep canvassing campaign in a neighbouring town had revealed a "yes" intention of 79%!