Posts by anndra_w

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

    I would guess that's true of pretty much all MPs though!

    Not sure that is fair. I'm a leftie, will never again vote Labour for that reason and I agree with much of what Galloway says but I can't say I like the man. He has a bit of a murky past when it comes to financial deals and money etc. The UK is in desperate need of some form of left wing opposition to the 3 main parties but I don't believe Galloway is the man to do it. He's divisive. That said I love watching him on Question Time or in Congress etc tearing the other polticians to pieces. It's not a difficult thing to do though because the majority of politicans dont believe in very much at all anymore.

    I agree with a lot of what he says but I knew folk who worked on his election campaigns in Glasgow when he was still in the Labour party and apparently he uses folk to get himself where he wants to be then doesn't look back. Anyway any defeat for Labour is good as far as I'm concerned.

    I know this is Scotland I'm going to talk about and it's a seperate government but the Tory leader in Scotland is a lesbian. She has split her party because of her sexuality. Also heard that Cameron only said he was for same sex marriage because his wife agrees with it.

    I can't stand that women. She doesn't have much of a party left to split but she really is a right tit!

    Right... you wont like this one bit, but it has to be said. Without using others "Quotes", but a lot of what I have read here, people are saying that travellers (albeit) Irish travelles want to live with people of their own blood. Fair enough. However if an Englishman were to say the same thing, about living in a homogenous society he would be decreed a racialist, so come on get of the fence

    In places like Spain there are expat communities where UK expats stay together. Living in a homogenous campsite is not quite the same thing as asking for an entire nation to be homogenous.

    Scottish oil is in decline though. It's not really viable to depend on it for a large portion of GDP in the future.

    There's a lot of oil and revenue still to come and there is the possibility of more oil off the West coast around Lewis but I agree with you we can't rely on it forever and we need to plan for when we don't have it. I think it's crucial that the oil revenue is used wisely for the future. They were talking yesterday about how they could use the budget surplus we have each year for an oil fund and this would grow through interest like Norway has done. Oil aside we need to be looking to the future yes but I think we are stronger doing that ourselves.


    Interesting, I don't agree people would vote for it, we already have had a referendum in the 90's at the same time as we elected the Scottish government, it was an out and out NO and I would say that still stands, I don't know another Scot that thinks its a good idea. It would be a huge step backwards for everyone, Scotland would not survive, we DON'T have the revenue from oil, Maggie put paid to that, we have no military, health care, industry (fishing/ship yards,steel works ect, again, cheers Maggie!


    Even if you don't know any other Scot who wants independence support for independence is growing with recent polls showing a a majority of Scots supporting going it alone. (who can tell with polls however) We didn't have a referendum on independence in the 90's it was on devolution and we voted resoundingly yes. There is no doubt Scotland would survive on it's own. We are reasonably wealthy, oil rich nation that has been in economic surplus in the last few years even while the UK it self runs a deficit. Even the Tories are starting to admit this fact. Of course we have health care, we have NHS Scotland which is devolved while industry is growing faster in Scotland than the rest of the UK. We will continue to have revenue from the oil but we could use it to the benefit for Scotland, the UK as a whole has benefited from it for a long time now. Scotland has an opportunity to look to other it's neighbour Norway, a small, oil rich, social democratic nation and take inspiration to try and build a fairer society here. We're stronger running things for ourselves than being run by a government the nation was united in voting against. With regard to military Scotland has been a part of the UK and so has a share of things like the military. A disproportionate amount of the UK military is from Scottish servicemen so it wont be a case of we're left with nothing. We are currently balancing our books without receiving all revenue raised in Scotland so there is no doubt we would survive financially if we were to be in receipt of all the funds raised here.


    That aside i think it is culturally a disaster, its time to unite and not fight. :hippy:

    Independence would hopefully lead to less animosity between Scotland and England. Scotland would be able to take responsibility for it self which is the way things should be. From the point of view of someone in Scotland what is the point of being united when it means we get Tory governments we don't want and who have a negative impact on our lives. There's nothing to be gained in being British anymore. The country is moving further to the right and it doesn't have to be like that in Scotland. The whole political debate up here is between two centre left parties and that is very different from the UK.


    Alex Salmond is really pushing the question of a referendum for Scottish independence these days...or being pushed to push for it...and my question is would it be good for England - not for the UK or Wales or Northern Ireland but just for England.

    It depends on what you believe is good for England. From my point of view it will be bad for working English people because there is a possibility of more Tory majorities.


    My initial thoughts are mixed - for one thing it might bring an end to the vexing West Lothian Question that allows Scots MPs to vote on purely English matters.

    It won't really because you'll still have Welsh and Northern Irish MP's voting on English only issues.


    It will mean that - as a nation - Scotland would have to stand on its own feet financially and not rely on money from the taxpayers south of the border ... buy on the other hand they would get to keep oil revenues obtained from their part of the North Sea.

    We don't rely on English taxpayers. More money is raised in Scotland and sent to London than is spent in Scotland it self. Scotland would likely be financially stronger after independence than we currently are under Union. Money shouldn't be the deciding factor though. Independence will give the opportunity to build a fairer more equal society in Scotland than is possible as a part of the UK.


    I'm really not sure how the people of Scotland would vote on this and whether it would be a good thing if they did have their independence followed by Wales and Northern Ireland...leading to the eventual demise of the United Kingdom...any one have any thoughts?

    I think if there is an honest, open debate then the Scots will vote for independence. I know the Unionists parties in Scotland and as Douglas Alexander said it is their job to engender fear in the Scottish electorate of independence. That said the debate seems to be moving on and there doesn't seem to be any strong argument at all that we would be worse off if independent and the Unionists can't seem to find any positive reasons to make the Union appealing to Scottish voters.

    As for the other countries in the Union. I think it's their right to decide their own future and is none of my business.

    Yeah I guess all these issues are genuine and have done nothing to help the interests of travellers. What I would say is that before the new age travellers started to come on the scene they were still blocking off old roads (happening even in the 30's) and trying to settle the folk in council houses (50's) which a lot of our travellers hated. (I'm only talking about Scotland though) Many of our travellers settled during winter often anyway and they no longer work in the berry fields in the way they used to. The authorities seemed to think traveller children were being mistreated if they turned up at a camp and the kids were muddy or whatever and the kids could be taken away to a home. They were terrified of doctors as well which meant if they really had to go to the doctor and had left it too late they were seen to have been mistreating again. The authorities obviously didn't get where the travellers were coming from and the travellers didn't trust the authorities but I do think they wanted the travellers off the roads because they thought it was in their interests. The settled people also didn't get travellers. My gran said they used to walk about the streets with their hair down and would breast feed their kids older than we would (for obvious reasons to us) which was shocking at the time so I think they always faced a certain amount of prejudice. She said they fought a lot and used a version of gaelic which none of them could understand but they weren't bad people. When the travellers did settle often the kids had a hard time at school and the older boys could be prone to hassle from the police etc. We have settled travellers where I'm living still but there's not much trouble between the two communities. I know one traveller women had to take her kids out of the local school cause of bullying and I also know a traveller tried to con my granny and she ended up chasing him out the garden at the age of 82 but that's all I've heard about. You still see some travellers on the roads which I like actually. A lot of our old ways are dying out and I guess the traveller life is part of that.

    I say make it easy them travel. Do what we need to do to let them live on the road. Make it possible for traveller people to live their lives as travellers. The authorities have been making traveller life impossible for a few generations now and this must have some impact on relations between the travellers and settled people. Treat travellers with respect and lets hope we get it bk. The authorities can just tell travellers no you can't stay here, move on. They block off the old sites and empty roads that were once used by travelling people deliberately so they can't stay there. There's no respect or regard there for the travellers and so how can we expect it back?

    But it takes away peoples choice if there is only one form of healthcare, could the NHS really provide for everyones health needs if we had no private system. I do not like the private system personally, but it does seem to provide a better quality of care, one reason for that is because the private sector operates itself more efficently and does not have huge management and bureaucratic structures. :)

    I've heard people say that while the facilities in private hospitals are definitely much better than some NHS hospitals the actual treatments and level of care can often be just the same or not as good when it comes to it. i work for NHS Scotland and there are few nurses who are no use but by far the majority of them that I work with do their job properly.

    I don't think it's unfair or racist and it seems that it's only been an issue in the papers since fee's in England went up. Scotland wouldn't be able to afford to fund an influx of students from the rest of the UK if we provided free education for them when their own countries didn't. Equally if I want to study in England I have to pay in line with their educational system. If ministers are so concerned about free education in Scotland then they should ask the English people do they support free education in England. I agree it's unfair that Scots can vote on issues that don't affect them but nothing seems to be done about that. If there was a separate parliament in England however it would probably lead to poor people being worse with the Tories becoming much more powerful when so many people in Wales and Scotland particularly who will not vote Tory.

    I haven't seen anyone so respected be so wrong on so many levels and in so many ways fact I can't remember, he managed to insult and patronise in so many ways I thought I'd puke. Hopefully, this will put an end to his tv career, just like the author of "rivers of blood", who ruined a promising career. Good riddance.

    I don't know why he's so respected, as a historian he's completely biased in his telling of history. He's offensive when he's on Question Time most times he appears. He's fond of slagging off the Scots and now he's going further and being openly prejudice to non whites basically. I don't know why they ask him on these shows. In Glasgow terms he's a bawbag!

    My great grandfather would tun in his grave, he was killed fighting to keep this country Britain. Such a waste of lives. Why are the authorities so intent on giving Britain away, what happened to patriotism and being proud of your country?
    Worst thing is no one will do anything to stop it either.

    Everyone's past caring.

    It won't make any difference how they present it if there simply isn't enough meaningful work for people to do.

    Some people are willing to do meaningless work for a while to support themselves and others choose not to work. I mean if someone was claiming benefits but at the same time doing stuff worthwhile or taking time out because they need it I can understand. I don't like when people take the piss and the reality is a lot of us struggle to find meaningful work and you don't just walk into it if you do. It's not really a reason to refuse to work.

    I'm in favour of independence and I hope it becomes a reality. I think as an independent state it is very likely Scotland would become a fairer society without the risk of Tory governments or even New Labour, as it was.

    In the next four years I think we're going to see an unprecedented campaign from the Scots Unionists telling us we can't go it alone. It's difficult because if there is an honest debate about the realities of an independent Scotland then the scaremongering can only be proven false. Most independent investigations in the last few years suggest Scotland would either be financially stronger or pretty much the same after independence. With oil and the potential in renewables we could be quite successful. I just think the campaign against independent will be led by Scottish Labour and they are utterly void of any decency. I mean I'm left wing but I trust Cameron, no matter how much I might disagree with him, more than what I'd trust a Scottish Labour politician. In 75 Gavin McCrone, a Scottish politician did the McCrone report into North Sea oil for the Westminster government. It's findings revealed that if Scotland went independent:

    The country would tend to be in chronic surplus to a quite embarrassing degree and its currency would become the hardest in Europe, with the exception perhaps of the Norwegian kroner. Just as deposed monarchs and African leaders have in the past used the Swiss franc as a haven of security, so nowwould the Scottish pound be seen as a good hedge against inflation and devaluation and the Scottish banks could expect to find themselves inundated with a speculative inflow of foreign funds.

    The government weren't keen on the prospect of Scottish independence or the comparison with Norway, like Scotland had oil and similar population but was now fully independent of Sweden. The findings were covered up by the official secrets act for 30 years and were only revealed by a freedom of information request from an SNP MP. Even then there was little outrage or even reporting of this in the Scottish press which at that time was very anti SNP. All this makes me concerned Westminster and particularly the Labour party in Scotland won't play fair. If an honest case is made I believe the people will go for. I think most people in Scotland are more worried about could we survive independently than actually having an emotional attachment to the Union. We'll need to wait and see.

    There's a book called the Silver Bough, similar to the Golden Bough but Scottish which is about folk beliefs in Scotland. I'm not sure how reliable it is but there's some mention, I recall that the some of the old order of the druid system continued in Scotland in the form of having a bard at the royal court or something. It wasn't so much the idea of any religious continuation but more the social roles adapted. The book also talks about folk customs which could have routes from pre-Christian beliefs, in fact it's probably quite probable some would. You can't really prove it one way or another though. When a boat landed on St Kilda in the 16th century they had never heard of Jesus or King James VI etc. Customs or superstitions maybe carried on in some form, dying out in the last 200 years I dunno. Modern druids and Wiccan's maybe worship ancient Gods and Goddesses but I don't seem them as a survival of older rituals and belief. They could be influenced by what little we do know about the past and thats cool.

    Interesting thread. I've used fraped with out thinking many times. Most folk I know I think would use it boys or girls. I've never considered it to trivialise rape it self. I do know someone very close who was raped and now thinking about it disturbs me a little. Is that because I trivialised rape before hand or is it just I didn't really connect fraping and the act of rape as being related to each other. Tricky.

    National identity , I like the diversity we have in this country, to me we are like one big mixing pot full of lots of different people from all different types of life and cultures, which initself gives us an identity. Why do we need the state to interfere and tell us what identity we should conform to.

    He can get stuffed with this national identity bullshit. The fact that the makeup of the UK has always been of separate cultures makes the notion of a single national identity a nonsense. I think it's difficult enough to define what English national identity is never mind a manufactured British one. Tories, New Labour and their values go against my values and nothing is going to make me subscribe to some fantasy vision of what a UK citizen should be.

    I wasn't born until 1984 but I think a lot of us in my generation are kind stuck somewhere between the two when it comes to measurement units. I understand metres and centimetres and I understand inches. I don't understand yards but I understand feet. I understand stone and pounds but I don't understand kilograms. Mind you I was always hopeless at maths in school so maybe I'm a bit of an eejit when it comes picking things up but I feel like I'm neither here nor then when it comes to metric and imperial. When I was at uni in the states I had to do all my technical drawings and models in imperial and I found it easier than in metric now I'm home it's back to metric again. I'd rather have a better understanding of metric and less of imperial though because it's simpler to have the commonality with the other countries.

    When I was a kid if my mum took me on holiday we would go to Christian hotels or guest houses. If this couple want to discriminate because of their religion then I don't think they should be running a hotel for the general public. Their beliefs are are odds with the way most people live their lives. If they love Jesus more than profit they could consider running their hotel as for Christians so other people would know not to stay there.

    With neo-paganism I feel the bond is closer. People will talk about the pagan community in a city without specifically saying Druid or Wiccan etc and we have the Pagan Federation which brings in many different pagan faiths together. I wouldn't say paganism is a religion in the same way Christianity or Islam is but I think non pagans can get away with seeing it as being similar to a religion because of the fact the different faiths seem to have similar outlooks in ways.

    Not sure about this. It's true that Paganism isn't one religion but I wouldn't say the different strands within it are completely unconnected. At a moot or and open ritual you regularly have people from a variety of different strands working and meeting to together because they do have something in common. The local moot that I sometimes go along to has Wiccans, Witches, Druids and Heathens and who knows what else all in attendance. The neo-pagan groups do have something that we feel connected to each other by. The differences between a Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church for example would make that sort of meeting together difficult even although there are shared beliefs.

    There are some encouraging signs about the British people though. If you look at Britain as a whole and the nations that make it up there is actually a centre left consensus. Scottish and Welsh Labour, SNP, Plaid, Labour and Lib Dem all these party's are at least meant to be left of centre. (not sure about UK Labour while in government though). The fact that the majority of the people rejected the Tories makes what is happening now so much harder to bear and it makes the Lib Dem's postion more difficult. They are playing a major part in a Tory government that seems to realise it might not have that long in power and seems determined to press ahead with their ideological crusade to dismantle the welfare state. Mind you Labour were not all that much better. New Labour became the slightly lesser of two evils.

    1. Neo-Pagan (100%)
    2. Mahayana Buddhism (85%)
    3. Unitarian Universalism (80%)
    4. New Age (80%)
    5. Hinduism (70%)
    6. Liberal Quakers (68%)
    7. Jainism (63%)
    8. Reform Judaism (62%)
    9. Theravada Buddhism (61%)
    10. Sikhism (58%)
    11. Taoism (55%)
    12. New Thought (53%)
    13. Scientology (51%)
    14. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (50%)
    15. Baha'i Faith (47%)
    16. Secular Humanism (46%)
    17. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (39%)
    18. Orthodox Judaism (35%)
    19. Orthodox Quaker (33%)
    20. Islam (29%)
    21. Nontheist (23%)
    22. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (19%)
    23. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (15%)
    24. Eastern Orthodox (13%)
    25. Roman Catholic (13%)
    26. Seventh Day Adventist (9%)
    27. Jehovah's Witness (6%

    I consider them to be comparable...hence supporting decrim-ing plain old weed.
    Note, I do NOT mean skunk.

    Well I can tell you in all honesty of all the drugs I've taken alcohol has gotten me into most trouble. Weed had a negative effect on me so I don't smoke it anymore. MDMA and cocaine do not impair my judgment to the extent alcohol does and they don't leave me in the same mental mess weed did. I think it says a lot about how much knowledge you have of the other drugs that you'd choose to rate alcohol and weed as less harmful than coke or mdma. For me they are definitely worse. The worst drug for me personally was ket. The first few times I enjoyed the buzz and didn't react badly to it but the last time I took it I actually felt detached from reality and I never did or would use it again. Everyone reacts differently to different things.

    What is the point of listening/dancing to music that needs chemical enhancement to make it seem interesting?

    You don't need the chemical enhancement and you can think the music is amazing without the drugs but if you take drugs you can heighten your experience. Using anything other than drugs to enhance experience and no one would blink an eye. We do it all the time.

    Of course they are; anything which obscures reality is dangerous because it impares judgement.

    Judgement of what? If your driving don't use drugs but if your sitting in the house in a controlled environment that's different. You don't need absolutely perfect judgement and I'd question whether our judgement is ever entirely unimpaired. Regardless even if something does give you a different reality that can be an exciting experience without being harmful. When someone is having an operation we use drugs to limit the pain, which is masking the reality of how sore it would be without the drugs. I don't see what is bad about also using drugs to let us experience a skewed version of reality. It's not that big a deal.

    Of course they are; anything which obscures reality is dangerous because it impares judgement.

    Judgement of what? If your driving don't use drugs but if your sitting in the house in a controlled environment that's different. You don't need absolutely perfect judgement and I'd question whether our judgement is ever entirely unimpaired. Regardless even if something does give you a different reality that can be an exciting experience without being harmful. When someone is having an operation we use drugs to limit the pain, which is masking the reality of how sore it would be without the drugs. I don't see what is bad about also using drugs to let us experience a skewed version of reality. It's not that big a deal.

    The food isnt inherently dangerous to driving (the practice eating of it is). The drugs are inherently dangerous because they ALL skew the perceptions.

    So what about taking drugs around children?

    Skewed perceptions are not, by default, dangerous.

    A lot of drugs have the potential to be harmful to children in a way they simply aren't to adults. You also need to consider the fact that if drugs change the way you act around your children it could make them feel insecure. I used to get freaked when my dad was drunk because he was different. While drugs might not be a good idea around kids that doesn't mean that they are highly dangerous to adults.