Lol, sorry dude, i forgot the ones on my reply.
RicardoBlanco wrote:
Bring it on.
lolRicardoBlanco wrote:
What the fuck happened to diplomacy?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Hmm, cunningly quoting sentences out of context from two completely different threads to amuse oneself?!Kmarion wrote:
RicardoBlanco wrote:
Bring it on.lolRicardoBlanco wrote:
What the fuck happened to diplomacy?
Alarming!
"Bring it on" was a nonchalant, hypothetical gesture, from and to a friendly country, highlighting the fact that if Scotland did seek independence and control of oil revenue, they'd lose out. If they want to have it let them I say, we'll just have back that £30 billion in subsidy, which also includes services. like I said bring it on; I for one as a taxpayer will be most delighted.
Iran, on the other hand, faces international isolation at the hands of a US led cabal hell bent on their own agenda and determined to convince the world that Iran is an imminent threat. The reality is Iran is far from having the capability of which this cabal implies and the likelihood is it won't for at least 8-10 years. That little situation right there Kamarion does deserve diplomacy!
I'll take care of your what the fuck happened to diplomacy in the proper thread. Those two statements were amusing given the fact one was confrontational and one was open minded. That's all..RicardoBlanco wrote:
Hmm, cunningly quoting sentences out of context from two completely different threads to amuse oneself?!Kmarion wrote:
RicardoBlanco wrote:
Bring it on.lolRicardoBlanco wrote:
What the fuck happened to diplomacy?
Alarming!
"Bring it on" was a nonchalant, hypothetical gesture, from and to a friendly country, highlighting the fact that if Scotland did seek independence and control of oil revenue, they'd lose out. If they want to have it let them I say, we'll just have back that £30 billion in subsidy, which also includes services. like I said bring it on; I for one as a taxpayer will be most delighted.
Iran, on the other hand, faces international isolation at the hands of a US led cabal hell bent on their own agenda and determined to convince the world that Iran is an imminent threat. The reality is Iran is far from having the capability of which this cabal implies and the likelihood is it won't for at least 8-10 years. That little situation right there Kamarion does deserve diplomacy!
Xbone Stormsurgezz
We English have this wonderful word which has done us proud over the years.Kmarion wrote:
I'll take care of your what the fuck happened to diplomacy in the proper thread. Those two statements were amusing given the fact one was confrontational and one was open minded. That's all..RicardoBlanco wrote:
Hmm, cunningly quoting sentences out of context from two completely different threads to amuse oneself?!Kmarion wrote:
lol
Alarming!
"Bring it on" was a nonchalant, hypothetical gesture, from and to a friendly country, highlighting the fact that if Scotland did seek independence and control of oil revenue, they'd lose out. If they want to have it let them I say, we'll just have back that £30 billion in subsidy, which also includes services. like I said bring it on; I for one as a taxpayer will be most delighted.
Iran, on the other hand, faces international isolation at the hands of a US led cabal hell bent on their own agenda and determined to convince the world that Iran is an imminent threat. The reality is Iran is far from having the capability of which this cabal implies and the likelihood is it won't for at least 8-10 years. That little situation right there Kamarion does deserve diplomacy!
Interesting, here is your context. I said it was amusing to watch you go from one side of the scale to the other. Apparently nonchalant hypothetical confrontation is only appropriate when it benefits oneself.RicardoBlanco wrote:
We English have this wonderful word which has done us proud over the years.Kmarion wrote:
I'll take care of your what the fuck happened to diplomacy in the proper thread. Those two statements were amusing given the fact one was confrontational and one was open minded. That's all..RicardoBlanco wrote:
Hmm, cunningly quoting sentences out of context from two completely different threads to amuse oneself?!
Alarming!
"Bring it on" was a nonchalant, hypothetical gesture, from and to a friendly country, highlighting the fact that if Scotland did seek independence and control of oil revenue, they'd lose out. If they want to have it let them I say, we'll just have back that £30 billion in subsidy, which also includes services. like I said bring it on; I for one as a taxpayer will be most delighted.
Iran, on the other hand, faces international isolation at the hands of a US led cabal hell bent on their own agenda and determined to convince the world that Iran is an imminent threat. The reality is Iran is far from having the capability of which this cabal implies and the likelihood is it won't for at least 8-10 years. That little situation right there Kamarion does deserve diplomacy!
Xbone Stormsurgezz
You're going off topic. Anyway, isn't 'hypothetical' pretty fundamental to a debate? Most would say yes.Kmarion wrote:
Interesting, here is your context. I said it was amusing to watch you go from one side of the scale to the other. Apparently nonchalant hypothetical confrontation is only appropriate when it benefits oneself.
You still don't get the concept of context either do you? My Scotland thread and the one on Iran are completely different situations.
Cameron, naturally. but it can also be argued that most of scotland apart from the extreme highlands, and most of wales has been filtered as well.
just as the north of england has, i would consider most of scotland has lost its traditional celtic culture, along with the north of england and wales we have been together for centurys the natural flow of populance taking its toll even in the 1700's before the great rush of scot's to england, a large majority of the lowlands had distinctly english, none celtic bloodlines especially in industrial centres, like city's.
The new resurgence of "celtic" (last 20 years for scotland) as with your "own" nation (born in scotland, overbearingly irish? ) the resurgence of culture has only been made quite recently (Gaelic sports association early 1900's).
only brought about when the political atmosphere suited it, over emphasised and recycled. whilst Ireland does not share the border so the mix has happened to a much lesser extent, Scotland is another matter, as is wales.
just as the north of england has, i would consider most of scotland has lost its traditional celtic culture, along with the north of england and wales we have been together for centurys the natural flow of populance taking its toll even in the 1700's before the great rush of scot's to england, a large majority of the lowlands had distinctly english, none celtic bloodlines especially in industrial centres, like city's.
The new resurgence of "celtic" (last 20 years for scotland) as with your "own" nation (born in scotland, overbearingly irish? ) the resurgence of culture has only been made quite recently (Gaelic sports association early 1900's).
only brought about when the political atmosphere suited it, over emphasised and recycled. whilst Ireland does not share the border so the mix has happened to a much lesser extent, Scotland is another matter, as is wales.
The thing that preserved pure Gaelic Irish genetic lineage and associated culture/traditions/mythology more than anything else was, sadly for me as an atheist, religion. The same I suppose cannot be said for Scotland who intermixed and intermarried with the English to a gigantic extent compared against the Irish (who in fact protestants were banned from marrying). By banning Catholicism and seeking to sideline/eliminate the Irish rather than integrating them the English lost their hold on their Irish colony. Scotland does differ in that it has a Britishness about it that the Irish never had. The Scottish were given some parity of esteem unlike the Irish who were subjugated and treated as second class citizens. My argument is however that it has ended up not being in the best interests of the Scottish as a fairly distinct gene pool of people sharing the same language and unique/distinct customs.
PS I may have been born in Scotland but I'm actually Irish. It's like if your family emigrated to Nigeria and you were born there - you wouldn't really be Nigerian now would you....?
PS I may have been born in Scotland but I'm actually Irish. It's like if your family emigrated to Nigeria and you were born there - you wouldn't really be Nigerian now would you....?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-04-26 16:07:14)
As opposed to the Irish who's bloodline is watered down with French and Spanish and English blood....
Check yer facts man.
Check yer facts man.
There is a significant norse element - the Fitzgeralds, Fitzwilliams, etc. (assimilated successfully into the Irish gene pool) - a very minor Spanish element - traders and Spanish Armada shipwrecks (harldy a trace of them left) and the English blood has been limited to say the least: I mean how much mingling can you do when for centuries it was forbidden to intermarry???goblinstomper wrote:
As opposed to the Irish who's bloodline is watered down with French and Spanish and English blood....
Check yer facts man.
The whole of northern Europe is one big gene pool. Its stupid to think that geographical elements have ever stopped that.
Personally i dont give a fuck, im from Sweden
Personally i dont give a fuck, im from Sweden
The UK owns all you dress wearing, red headed, girly boyz. You know why, mister I am afraid of guns.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.
America kicked 'em to the curb, I guess it takes a Brit. to beat Brit.
Care to elaborate? You're not making very much sense.Major_Spittle wrote:
The UK owns all you dress wearing, red headed, girly boyz. You know why, mister I am afraid of guns.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.
America kicked 'em to the curb, I guess it takes a Brit. to beat Brit.
That's what I thought.CameronPoe wrote:
Care to elaborate? You're not making very much sense.Major_Spittle wrote:
The UK owns all you dress wearing, red headed, girly boyz. You know why, mister I am afraid of guns.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.
America kicked 'em to the curb, I guess it takes a Brit. to beat Brit.
I'm confused now....
I just did some reading on the finances relating to this issue and the Scots would lose out big time. They're not in the same position either to emulate the "Celtic tiger" that is Ireland but I'll go onto that later.
Since the finances of the two nations are so entangled, I found it's hard to get at the true figures. Probably the best guide to them are the reports by the Scottish Executive called GERS (Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland). http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/upload … 202006.pdf
The latest GERS report suggests that Scottish public spending in 2004-05 amounted to £47.7bn - equivalent to 51% of Scotland's GDP. Yet the tax revenue for Scotland, excluding North Sea Oil, was just £36.4bn, or 38.9% of GDP, leaving a fiscal deficit of £11.2bn (or 12% of GDP). That's a bit deficit for a country the size of Scotland. Even if Scotland were awarded the total proceeds from North Sea taxation for 2004-05 and all North Sea output counted towards it's GDP, GERS shows it would still be left with a £6bn fiscal deficit, or just under 5% of GDP.
So why couldn't they go the same way as Ireland? Well, the SNP have pledged to reduce corp. tax by 20%, lower business rates and generally cut red tape all round - policies all designed to attract inward investment and enable Scotland to attain growth of at least 4% instead of the current 1.7%. Unfortunately all these factors which worked wonderfully for Ireland are unlikely to have the same effect in Scotland. We must remember Ireland entered the Eurozone at a very favourable rate and Scotland's industrial economy is a lot more mature with the added disadvantage of having top-heavy public sector and it's associated dependency culture. This will all come as a shock to a nation who's public spending per head has been kept artificially high for the last 30 years by measures such as the Barnett formula. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Formula
Like I said Scotland, bring it on.
Since the finances of the two nations are so entangled, I found it's hard to get at the true figures. Probably the best guide to them are the reports by the Scottish Executive called GERS (Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland). http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/upload … 202006.pdf
The latest GERS report suggests that Scottish public spending in 2004-05 amounted to £47.7bn - equivalent to 51% of Scotland's GDP. Yet the tax revenue for Scotland, excluding North Sea Oil, was just £36.4bn, or 38.9% of GDP, leaving a fiscal deficit of £11.2bn (or 12% of GDP). That's a bit deficit for a country the size of Scotland. Even if Scotland were awarded the total proceeds from North Sea taxation for 2004-05 and all North Sea output counted towards it's GDP, GERS shows it would still be left with a £6bn fiscal deficit, or just under 5% of GDP.
So why couldn't they go the same way as Ireland? Well, the SNP have pledged to reduce corp. tax by 20%, lower business rates and generally cut red tape all round - policies all designed to attract inward investment and enable Scotland to attain growth of at least 4% instead of the current 1.7%. Unfortunately all these factors which worked wonderfully for Ireland are unlikely to have the same effect in Scotland. We must remember Ireland entered the Eurozone at a very favourable rate and Scotland's industrial economy is a lot more mature with the added disadvantage of having top-heavy public sector and it's associated dependency culture. This will all come as a shock to a nation who's public spending per head has been kept artificially high for the last 30 years by measures such as the Barnett formula. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Formula
Like I said Scotland, bring it on.
I'm pretty sure they would also recieve additional EU subsidies. Which would take a bite out of that £5bn deficit. Not a big enough bite though.RicardoBlanco wrote:
I just did some reading on the finances relating to this issue and the Scots would lose out big time. They're not in the same position either to emulate the "Celtic tiger" that is Ireland but I'll go onto that later.
Since the finances of the two nations are so entangled, I found it's hard to get at the true figures. Probably the best guide to them are the reports by the Scottish Executive called GERS (Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland). http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/upload … 202006.pdf
The latest GERS report suggests that Scottish public spending in 2004-05 amounted to £47.7bn - equivalent to 51% of Scotland's GDP. Yet the tax revenue for Scotland, excluding North Sea Oil, was just £36.4bn, or 38.9% of GDP, leaving a fiscal deficit of £11.2bn (or 12% of GDP). That's a bit deficit for a country the size of Scotland. Even if Scotland were awarded the total proceeds from North Sea taxation for 2004-05 and all North Sea output counted towards it's GDP, GERS shows it would still be left with a £6bn fiscal deficit, or just under 5% of GDP.
So why couldn't they go the same way as Ireland? Well, the SNP have pledged to reduce corp. tax by 20%, lower business rates and generally cut red tape all round - policies all designed to attract inward investment and enable Scotland to attain growth of at least 4% instead of the current 1.7%. Unfortunately all these factors which worked wonderfully for Ireland are unlikely to have the same effect in Scotland. We must remember Ireland entered the Eurozone at a very favourable rate and Scotland's industrial economy is a lot more mature with the added disadvantage of having top-heavy public sector and it's associated dependency culture. This will all come as a shock to a nation who's public spending per head has been kept artificially high for the last 30 years by measures such as the Barnett formula. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Formula
Like I said Scotland, bring it on.
True, and to be fair they do have overheads associated with being in the union such as Trident, Iraq, their imputed share of the national debt (about £8bn) and it could also reduce its military spending to levels similar to Ireland (about £600m a year).Bertster7 wrote:
I'm pretty sure they would also recieve additional EU subsidies. Which would take a bite out of that £5bn deficit. Not a big enough bite though.
The problem is that the SNP are basing a lot of their economic forecasts on North Sea Oil. It's a diminishing resource and and increasingly difficult and expensive to extract. Production peaked in 1999 at a decent 3.5m barrels a day but is now down to half that and falling. More importantly, oil receipts are at the mercy of the notoriously volatile fluctuations in the world oil prices. Independence built on SNP expectations of of an oil bonanza would carry huge risks.
It's like this. The Scots would have to take a hit to get independence. The benefits would arrive in I'd say about 25-30 years at which point they would go from strength to strength after a long period of austerity.RicardoBlanco wrote:
True, and to be fair they do have overheads associated with being in the union such as Trident, Iraq, their imputed share of the national debt (about £8bn) and it could also reduce its military spending to levels similar to Ireland (about £600m a year).Bertster7 wrote:
I'm pretty sure they would also recieve additional EU subsidies. Which would take a bite out of that £5bn deficit. Not a big enough bite though.
The problem is that the SNP are basing a lot of their economic forecasts on North Sea Oil. It's a diminishing resource and and increasingly difficult and expensive to extract. Production peaked in 1999 at a decent 3.5m barrels a day but is now down to half that and falling. More importantly, oil receipts are at the mercy of the notoriously volatile fluctuations in the world oil prices. Independence built on SNP expectations of of an oil bonanza would carry huge risks.
I'd have thought the period of austerity will be in precisely 25-30 years, exactly when the oil runs out or becomes prohibitively expensive to extract. The years up to then will be the golden ones and unless they adapt their economic model they're going to be in serious financial difficulty. They should follow Norway's example and invest in a fund for health, pensions etc, derived completely from their oil revenue. Call it a nest egg if you will.CameronPoe wrote:
It's like this. The Scots would have to take a hit to get independence. The benefits would arrive in I'd say about 25-30 years at which point they would go from strength to strength after a long period of austerity.
Really that's all speculation though. It could go either way. There are too many unpredictable factors to estimate with any accuracy what will happen over that sort of time period. Who knows. It could work out well for them, which would be good.CameronPoe wrote:
It's like this. The Scots would have to take a hit to get independence. The benefits would arrive in I'd say about 25-30 years at which point they would go from strength to strength after a long period of austerity.RicardoBlanco wrote:
True, and to be fair they do have overheads associated with being in the union such as Trident, Iraq, their imputed share of the national debt (about £8bn) and it could also reduce its military spending to levels similar to Ireland (about £600m a year).Bertster7 wrote:
I'm pretty sure they would also recieve additional EU subsidies. Which would take a bite out of that £5bn deficit. Not a big enough bite though.
The problem is that the SNP are basing a lot of their economic forecasts on North Sea Oil. It's a diminishing resource and and increasingly difficult and expensive to extract. Production peaked in 1999 at a decent 3.5m barrels a day but is now down to half that and falling. More importantly, oil receipts are at the mercy of the notoriously volatile fluctuations in the world oil prices. Independence built on SNP expectations of of an oil bonanza would carry huge risks.
Ultimately the people who will benefit the most from Scottish independence, in the short term, will be the English and the Welsh, probably mostly the Welsh. They get all the good deals, like free medication.
Speculation, quite, and what a thing to base Scotish independance on. I'm sure they'll reconsider when they've thought it through.
The thing about humans is that they are like sheep. Stick Braveheart on TV the day before a referendum and you'll have an independent Scotland....RicardoBlanco wrote:
Speculation, quite, and what a thing to base Scotish independance on. I'm sure they'll reconsider when they've thought it through.
The Brits are the strongest group of people on the planet. Look at what they did when they formed America, they made a super-naturally strong colony that not even they could control. These aren't your ordinary girly boy Europeans we are talking about. What have the Scottish and Irish done, yep they have ran around in dresses being cannon fodder. This is their history, never been a great empire, just cannon fodder. I can respect the Germans, they were misguided and all but that tiny ass country took on the world 2 times and about kicked its arse. The Japanesse are that way too. France, Spain, and Rome had their days in the sun, but somehow lost their appetite for greatness and decided to become the world cry-asses/wellfare countries for the past 3 centuries. Russia tried for greatness, but as soon as they used up the German scientists and couldn't steal any more technology from other countries they became the same old "proud, but don't know why" country they have always been. Asia and Africa are too disorganised to be great, they could use a lesson from Japan. The Middle east is just a bunch of camel jockey tribes more interested in killing their neighbor and beating their wives than inventing something or being great. Once the oil is gone they will crawl back under their rocks. Israel is great, but too small. Maybe if they had a real country that wasn't in the ghetto of the world. They are like a smart, white, middle class family that moved into the projects on the south side of Chicago. Autraila could be great, but it would ruin them. Them and Canada just seem to have found their nitche in being perpetual "I don't care" type party countries. South America and Mexico doesn't even warrent commenting on, would anyone miss these countries if they disappeared? I wouldn't even notice, not so unlike if Scottland and Ireland disappeared.Bertster7 wrote:
That's what I thought.CameronPoe wrote:
Care to elaborate? You're not making very much sense.Major_Spittle wrote:
The UK owns all you dress wearing, red headed, girly boyz. You know why, mister I am afraid of guns.
America kicked 'em to the curb, I guess it takes a Brit. to beat Brit.
I'm confused now....
I hope this clears it up for you.