Not so absurd when you factor in the amount of North Sea oil left. It'll run out long before anything in the ME and then Scotland would be fucked if that's been the only thing they got out of independance. No more subsidy from us and a no more oil. Maybe they will end up 'looking back'.CameronPoe wrote:
Well having both sounds absurd - are you sure you have that right?RicardoBlanco wrote:
They'll end up losing out financially though. I think the subsidies we give them are £30billion a year and the revenue from oil £12billion. The point is that they want both.CameronPoe wrote:
Hooray for Scotland. About time they got their act together. If they had an ounce of national pride their beautiful country would be every bit as affluent as the Republic by now.
Yes most Irish were destitute when we finally won freedom - it was a necessary cross to bear for control of our own destiny. It took 70 years to catch up in fact. The rewards are plain to see today. Revitalised pride in our own unique and native history, language, music, dancing, literature and sports along with a strong social conscience, stronger than that of the UK.Vilham wrote:
I think you will find the EU is far from a united to Europe, that claim is "Typical moronic dribble".
As to those that want independence as others have suggested most will be in bad positions like being unemployed, but seeing as how awesome RI is why dont you invite them over to live with you or send them some of that tons of money you like to go on about.
Let me get this straight - I like the 'loose unity' of the EU. I do not endorse unity of large chunks of the world because through far reaching unity you get disgruntled minorities. I would envisage a world full of small nations, each controlling their own destinies, each with power devolved as fully as possible. Loose unity for co-operative purposes between groups of these nations is fine but as soon a government/unity organisation becomes unrepresentative of the whole then the result can only be bad for the individual.
I think that's one of the silliest things I've ever heard you say. I'm shocked.CameronPoe wrote:
All money in the UK seems to be funnelled into goddamn London.
There isn't ANY money funnelled into London. London subsidises the rest of the UK by an absurd amount. The reason there's lots of money in London is because London is where the bulk (30% of GDP) of the UKs revenue is generated. Londoners subsidise the rest of the UK by more than £20 billion a year, so in fact the opposite is true: all the money is funnelled out of goddamn London.
I couldn't care less about Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish independence. If they want to be independent than that is fine, but the subsidies will and should stop then. If they are independent, then of course the oil in the North Sea belongs to Scotland and they should be able to claim the revenues it generates.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-04-26 04:41:50)
I am well aware of the Celtic roots throughout England and for the record I don't hate the English. My dad is English ('plastic paddy' is the term, he was born and raised in Britain and still has a strong London accent though if you follow my family all the way back they are full Irish on both sides ...my father made a living for many years in the UK and for that I am grateful).Toxicseagull wrote:
you both assume the english culture is simply the south east version, you are ignorant of the wealth and difference of culture in england.
Braddock, the english also have celtic background, the north of england is extremely influenced and shares the same roots. as does the south west. it is modern nationalism that blocks this out, it would be rather damaging to have the "celtic vs nasty anglo saxon" feeling gone. similar to the fact that the idea of a scot's "traditional" kilt was reintroduced and made fashionable by victorians. equally that in many famous scots battles, there were more scots on the english side than english.
cameron you have to stop with this painting the english as some nasty Borg like figure. if the scot's had been successful you dont think they would have subjugated the english? destroying our culture? we fought hundreds of years ago for our nationality and our lives, the scots lost. (with help from other scots), since the time they stopped rebelling we have done nothing but encourage their culture. the last attempt to suppress them was in the 1700's ffs.
Cameron, yes "now" it is, but the last few decades? thus when i said if scotland got independence its wealth would rely both on reversing the immigration and how much it can draw from the EU.
you base your opinions on glasgow? and then blame it on england? jesus some english city's are worse than that place. just because a city is a dump doesnt mean its englands fault. i agree london sucks a lot of money (i would know im from the north) but it also produces a lot.
in the case of scotland they rely on their own taxes (like the north) for funding. and then the barnett and other schemes. if scotland withdrew it would only be able to rely on its own money. making it a worse situation especially as other services wont be subsidised by england, hopefully the EU could help but i doubt the scot's would be happy with increased taxes etc.
from the OP's article
"A spokesman for the party said that it was "unconcerned" about the prospect of losing the Barnett Formula"
hehehe unconcerned about 30 billion a year? its a harsh fact but if they take independance they will loose 18 billion a year from that alone. (OP was right, oil = 12 billion a year).
it really is cutting of their nose to spit their face. the SNP are pulling figures out of its arse.
i do think it would be a shame if they split, we have acheived so much Together! everyone is aware that scotland has played a vital and important role in the UK's achievements throughout history, it would be a shame to split. however if they vote for it, then sure split, but dont try and take all the cake and eat it.
~edit~ btw, what does being born in scotland have to do with not hating the english?
Perhaps I shouldn't have said money. London seems to have been the primary concern for politicians in terms of where to promote investment from without and to improve infrastructure for decades. As a consequence the rest of the UK has suffered (perhaps partly the rest of the UK's fault for not making themselves more competitive though).Bertster7 wrote:
I think that's one of the silliest things I've ever heard you say. I'm shocked.CameronPoe wrote:
All money in the UK seems to be funnelled into goddamn London.
im not saying you hate the english mate but i am confused if you only refer to the irish and the scots and the welsh as celtic if your aware a significant chunk of england has the same culture.
The guy has a point there. If you went to Middlesbrough you would realise how much of a shithole that is. I was at Glasgow not long ago and it seemed that there was a lot of effort going into developing Glasgow, granted I did only see a small portion of it but it seems like a decent place when you compare it with Middlesbrough for example.Toxicseagull wrote:
you base your opinions on glasgow? and then blame it on england? jesus some english city's are worse than that place. just because a city is a dump doesnt mean its englands fault. i agree london sucks a lot of money (i would know im from the north) but it also produces a lot.
Last edited by KILLSWITCH (2007-04-26 04:48:21)
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
You can hardly blame London based MPs for trying to make their constituencies work well and succeeding. Londons success in terms of foreign investment is mostly from the financial industry. London doesn't produce much, it's all just about manipulating money. National financial centres are typically centred around a very small geographic area (Wall Street in New York, the City in London). It isn't some huge conspiracy to make London a super city, it's just that major financial industries have always been centred in London, moving them would just be strange and spreading them around the nation would be counter productive.CameronPoe wrote:
Perhaps I shouldn't have said money. London seems to have been the primary concern for politicians in terms of where to promote investment from without and to improve infrastructure for decades. As a consequence the rest of the UK has suffered (perhaps partly the rest of the UK's fault for not making themselves more competitive though).Bertster7 wrote:
I think that's one of the silliest things I've ever heard you say. I'm shocked.CameronPoe wrote:
All money in the UK seems to be funnelled into goddamn London.
A bit unfair to compare the 2 as Glasgow is an important major city while middlesbrough is not and it's dubious if we even have city status.KILLSWITCH wrote:
The guy has a point there. If you went to Middlesbrough you would realise how much of a shithole that is. I was at Glasgow not long ago and it seemed that there was a lot of effort going into developing Glasgow, granted I did only see a small portion of it but it seems like a decent place when you compare it with Middlesbrough for example.Toxicseagull wrote:
you base your opinions on glasgow? and then blame it on england? jesus some english city's are worse than that place. just because a city is a dump doesnt mean its englands fault. i agree london sucks a lot of money (i would know im from the north) but it also produces a lot.
Middlesbroughs council are trying to improve the place and throwing money around to make the place look nicer but you can't escape from the stupidity/corner cutting done in order to get the work done. Take a look at our new modern art gallery. Pity they didn't treat the metal floors outside and the reason they are that colour is that they were covered in rust before the gallery was even finished being built
Last edited by crimson_grunt (2007-04-26 06:00:47)
Of course but England is a predominantly Anglo-Saxon nation with the celtic element almost totally eradicated (esp. in the south, except for Cornwall).Toxicseagull wrote:
im not saying you hate the english mate but i am confused if you only refer to the irish and the scots and the welsh as celtic if your aware a significant chunk of england has the same culture.
Ofc it has loads of money going into it, it has over 10% of the UKs population...CameronPoe wrote:
Perhaps I shouldn't have said money. London seems to have been the primary concern for politicians in terms of where to promote investment from without and to improve infrastructure for decades. As a consequence the rest of the UK has suffered (perhaps partly the rest of the UK's fault for not making themselves more competitive though).Bertster7 wrote:
I think that's one of the silliest things I've ever heard you say. I'm shocked.CameronPoe wrote:
All money in the UK seems to be funnelled into goddamn London.
Sorry but Wiltshire, one of the largest counties in England has more neolithic and bronze age culture than most other places in the whole of the UK. Guess where that county is. In the south...CameronPoe wrote:
Of course but England is a predominantly Anglo-Saxon nation with the Celtic element almost totally eradicated (esp. in the south, except for Cornwall).Toxicseagull wrote:
im not saying you hate the english mate but i am confused if you only refer to the irish and the scots and the welsh as celtic if your aware a significant chunk of england has the same culture.
Stone Henge. Avebury circle. Silbury hill. Tens of white horses. Barbury castle, to name a few.
Just because the Saxons and Danes took control of southern areas first doesn't make their Celtic culture any less strong, if anything it just means they have more culture as they have had influences from lots of cultures.
I think you are having difficulty distinguishing Celtic culture and Celtic historical monuments.Vilham wrote:
Sorry but Wiltshire, one of the largest counties in England has more neolithic and bronze age culture than most other places in the whole of the UK. Guess where that county is. In the south...CameronPoe wrote:
Of course but England is a predominantly Anglo-Saxon nation with the Celtic element almost totally eradicated (esp. in the south, except for Cornwall).Toxicseagull wrote:
im not saying you hate the english mate but i am confused if you only refer to the irish and the scots and the welsh as celtic if your aware a significant chunk of england has the same culture.
Stone Henge. Avebury circle. Silbury hill. Tens of white horses. Barbury castle, to name a few.
Just because the Saxons and Danes took control of southern areas first doesn't make their Celtic culture any less strong, if anything it just means they have more culture as they have had influences from lots of cultures.
So please tell me where the largest Celtic druid gathering is 2x every year?
As to your so called "Celtic culture" please give me some examples. Ill just remove some for you. Kilts, not Celtic, bag pipes not Celtic, ginger hair not Celtic, "Celtic" food actually not remotely Celtic.
England may not still practice Celtic ways but neither does Ireland, Scotland or Wales.
As to your so called "Celtic culture" please give me some examples. Ill just remove some for you. Kilts, not Celtic, bag pipes not Celtic, ginger hair not Celtic, "Celtic" food actually not remotely Celtic.
England may not still practice Celtic ways but neither does Ireland, Scotland or Wales.
Last edited by Vilham (2007-04-26 08:47:38)
Funniest thing to ask most furiously independant Scotsman is who united Scotland and England!?
Answer.... James the first... A Scotsman!
Lol, theres nothing wrong with being loyal to your own country, but its stupid to think that England is the UK, the UK is the collection of states. Not vassals or England!
We are in this together, and it should take away anyones national pride. If it does then that needs to be addressed but not by turning your back on the UK.
Its like a family we are all connected and couldnt function without each other, maybe once we were just hatefull neighbours but that was then and this is now.
Answer.... James the first... A Scotsman!
Lol, theres nothing wrong with being loyal to your own country, but its stupid to think that England is the UK, the UK is the collection of states. Not vassals or England!
We are in this together, and it should take away anyones national pride. If it does then that needs to be addressed but not by turning your back on the UK.
Its like a family we are all connected and couldnt function without each other, maybe once we were just hatefull neighbours but that was then and this is now.
Cornwall holds truer to the Celtic traditions of old.
Scotland is more of a mix of Norse (an offshoot of celtic traditions), saxon and European Celtic traditions. And a huge chunk of the same christian BS that oppresed the whole of the British Isles.
But dont forget that the Celts were a collection of independant religions loosely based on similar beliefs.
Scotland is more of a mix of Norse (an offshoot of celtic traditions), saxon and European Celtic traditions. And a huge chunk of the same christian BS that oppresed the whole of the British Isles.
But dont forget that the Celts were a collection of independant religions loosely based on similar beliefs.
Last edited by goblinstomper (2007-04-26 08:59:57)
I would love to see scottish independance, in the same way i wish my homeland was unified, but i don't think at the moment that scotland is self sufficent enough to be able to survive on their own, just yet. I think England should aid the scottish in developing the country to increase its sustainability before the split, if it happens
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Thats the equivalent of splitting now and expecting England and Wales to continue to foot the bill for Scotlands development.fatherted13 wrote:
I would love to see scottish independance, in the same way i wish my homeland was unified, but i don't think at the moment that scotland is self sufficent enough to be able to survive on their own, just yet. I think England should aid the scottish in developing the country to increase its sustainability before the split, if it happens
Why cant people just accept that we are the UK. We are one nation.
I believe parts of England and/or Scotland are still, officially, 'at war'...
So, Scotland, come and get your oil if you think you're hard enough!
So, Scotland, come and get your oil if you think you're hard enough!
lol,it would be like california saying, tehy wanted to be an independant country, and they want the rets of the US to not only support em but to help pay for it all aswell.
There is nothing in Scotish history that didnt happen in other parts of the British Isles.
There is nothing in Scotish history that didnt happen in other parts of the British Isles.
Thats the dumbest argument in this tread!Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I believe parts of England and/or Scotland are still, officially, 'at war'...
So, Scotland, come and get your oil if you think you're hard enough!
I'm not too keen on the whole UK idea. Britain, yes. The UK, no. I believe Ireland should be seperate and independent (they are a seperate island after all). I also believe in devolution so the people of Scotland get a decent say in what goes on there. Independence, if they really want it, should be just that, absolute independence - with no subsidisation whatsoever. It would certainly benefit England and it may benefit Scotland or it could be a complete disaster - but if the Scottish people want it, that is their decision to make.Vilham wrote:
Thats the equivalent of splitting now and expecting England and Wales to continue to foot the bill for Scotlands development.fatherted13 wrote:
I would love to see scottish independance, in the same way i wish my homeland was unified, but i don't think at the moment that scotland is self sufficent enough to be able to survive on their own, just yet. I think England should aid the scottish in developing the country to increase its sustainability before the split, if it happens
Why cant people just accept that we are the UK. We are one nation.
I can agree with some of that.
I think they have every right to rule themselves. but becoming a fully independant country would be stupid.
Especially as we have the same monarchy.
James I of England was James VI of scotland.
So if they want to get some sense of national pride and loyalty to their true monarch they really need to open their eyes and read their own history.
I think they have every right to rule themselves. but becoming a fully independant country would be stupid.
Especially as we have the same monarchy.
James I of England was James VI of scotland.
So if they want to get some sense of national pride and loyalty to their true monarch they really need to open their eyes and read their own history.
Elizabeth I gave the Crown of England to a scotsman, so in actual fact, the Scots conquered England the Day James became king of both.
Is there not enough winking smileys for you?goblinstomper wrote:
Thats the dumbest argument in this tread!Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I believe parts of England and/or Scotland are still, officially, 'at war'...
So, Scotland, come and get your oil if you think you're hard enough!