It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scottish Independance & Possible Huge Oil Discovery

page: 15
14
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 04:22 AM
link   
I dont care for who we were, what stock we are of, whether we are Anglo, Spanish. African etc.. i care for what we will be for our future, our children's future.

Grow a pair and Vote Yes... when since did we # out pants in the face of adversity... we wear Kilts because Balls like ours dont fit in trousers.




posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

What happened to your balls in the 15th century to require the wearing of skirts? It seems that up to that point, trousers were fine!

Was it midge related? Or perhaps it's like the Klingons in Star Trek were at some point, they all got bumpy heads and now "don't like to talk about it"?



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Glad to see this thread has reached a new height of intellectual vigour. Testical sIze and Star trek... Awesome just awesome.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason
Yes, but i'm pretty sure the trousers had a bit of..eh, Leg room if you know what i mean. just ask the Romans, we used to fight them in the Buff. see Mons Graupius. ok they battered us at that one.




posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Glad to see this thread has reached a new height of intellectual vigour. Testical sIze and Star trek... Awesome just awesome.


You're a grumpy one....

Just a bit of banter to lighten the mood, we don't have to be arguing all the time



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kester
a reply to: Britguy

In the early 80's I hitch hiked from Scotland to London. I got a lift all the way from an interesting gentleman who told me he'd been in Aberdeen selling ocaine to the oil rig workers. Ocaine was expensive back then so the workers must have been getting a fair wage. Sounds like the money gave them the opportunity to mess up their lives. Oil money, it's a curse.

I know coc aine is a dangerous drug but the vast majority that use drugs don't ruin their lives. Most can use recreationally, have a good time on it and leave it at that.

Regarding Scotland, I think they'd be a successful small country like the Scandinavian countries or Ireland if they vote yes, but I doubt it will happen. As an outsider looking in, the biggest problem I see is that people are basing their opinions on the people involved and whether they like them or not, particularly Salmond. At the end of the day, in a few decades time the politicians will be dead but this decision will have long lasting effects. I believe its good for a country and its people to follow its own path and make its own decisions, particularly as there seems to be something of a disconnect between the Scots and the rest of the UK if you look at voting patterns.

Regarding the EU, they'd be stupid not to allow Scotland in. For a start Scotland is already in the EU and meet all EU standards and regulations, in effect they'd be removing people from the union. When you consider that they're expanding into Eastern European countries nearly before they're ready (and putting pressure on Iceland) it would seem like madness to leave Scotland out.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: MortlitantiFMMJ

Ireland - successful?

And the Scandinavians aren't exactly rolling in it either, you know. The nice myth the SNP like to pump about with regards to Norway's Oil Fund completely neglects to realise that offsetting that huge pile of cash in said fund is an even bigger pile of liabilities (pension, foreign debt etc)...



First, the oil fund is a mathematical artifice. At three-quarters of a trillion dollars, the Norwegian Oil Fund appears to provide plenty for a country with scarcely 5 million citizens. Yet the country has accumulated a foreign debt that, at $657 billion, is almost as massive. Subtracting the debt from the fund’s $740 billion leaves a balance of only $83 billion. In other words, there is a treasure chest, but it is almost empty: Njord’s prize for future generations is only a little more than 10 percent of its putative value.

Even if we take the fund’s worth at face value, its future is not guaranteed. In a 2011 analysis, “What Does Norway Get Out Of Its Oil Fund, if Not More Strategic Infrastructure Investment?” University of Missouri economist and Wall Street financial analyst Michael Hudson offered a stark assessment: The Norwegian oil monies are invested mainly in the unstable economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China, or in volatile real estate in the West.

Link


As for Sweden or Denmark... Not much to write home about and certainly in far worse shape than the UK economy.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason
As opposed to the UK which has all the debts and no fund to pay them. Hmmm who is in the better position?



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: MortlitantiFMMJ



I believe its good for a country and its people to follow its own path and make its own decisions,.....


I don't think anyone is denying that people should make the key decisions about the important things that affect them, hence the referendum.
Scotland and Scotland only will decide its own path.

I wonder if we will ever see similar referendums in other 'unions'?



......particularly as there seems to be something of a disconnect between the Scots and the rest of the UK if you look at voting patterns.


Not really.
If you compare voting patterns in Scotland with regions like North East England, North West England, Yorkshire, Wales etc.

All that matters is one key issue - does Scotland believe it can have a better future by being an independent country than if it remains in the Union - everything else is simply smoke in mirrors.



Regarding the EU, they'd be stupid not to allow Scotland in.


The implications could be very damaging to other existing nations within the EU.
That is why when they do admit Scotland into the EU they will exact a very, very high price.

And it seems there is at least a significant number of Scots, of various political persuasions, who have no desire to enter the EU - exactly the same as rUK.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: MortlitantiFMMJ

The general population follow the mainstream media...and there is a bias. Salmond is not offering enough to make independence attractive enough to overcome the fear campaign.

I don't think it is all about liking Salmond after all no one likes Darling and Salmond has been elected. The SNP haven't been unpopular in Scotland. In fact although we have a large labour voting population they have a mountain to climb after Blair and Brown and now Miliband.

The EU will of course sign us up...not a path I fancy myself. I like the idea of taking the best of the Scandinavian models suitable for our economy.

I doubt it will happen too.



edit on 13-8-2014 by midicon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Glad to see this thread has reached a new height of intellectual vigour. Testical sIze and Star trek... Awesome just awesome.


You're a grumpy one....

Just a bit of banter to lighten the mood, we don't have to be arguing all the time

Grumpy? Damn was going for condecending. Still you are right nothing wrong with friendly banter. Mind you if you two really want to talk ba size and men in skirts there might be a more specialised forum for that !



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn





The implications could be very damaging to other existing nations within the EU.
That is why when they do admit Scotland into the EU they will exact a very, very high price.



I think they will be dragging us in Freeborn. We may exact the high price. The EU has everything to gain, another country to add to the fold. They love it...



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: stumason
As opposed to the UK which has all the debts and no fund to pay them. Hmmm who is in the better position?



We do have money to pay them, which is why, in all of it's history, the UK/England has never failed to pay it's debts - few nations can claim that - not one single default on any bond, whatsoever. Even during the Wars, we paid our debts.

Also, as pointed out in that article, that fund is largely invested in volatile markets and could quite easily be wiped out overnight - a 10% margin on the Fund vs liabilities does not leave much room for wiggle.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason
No the the UK has income to pay them. It is like having a good job, high credit card bills and no savings. Norway has the job and the savings.
Pendant in me has to point out that comparing countries to people or firms Is generally bad practise so apologise for the simplified analogy.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: midicon



I think they will be dragging us in Freeborn. We may exact the high price. The EU has everything to gain, another country to add to the fold. They love it...


Indeed.
And just how 'independent' will Scotland be then?

The UK alone has remained resolute against the EU's push towards full European political union with centralised power on the continent.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: MortlitantiFMMJ

Ireland - successful?

And the Scandinavians aren't exactly rolling in it either, you know. The nice myth the SNP like to pump about with regards to Norway's Oil Fund completely neglects to realise that offsetting that huge pile of cash in said fund is an even bigger pile of liabilities (pension, foreign debt etc)...



First, the oil fund is a mathematical artifice. At three-quarters of a trillion dollars, the Norwegian Oil Fund appears to provide plenty for a country with scarcely 5 million citizens. Yet the country has accumulated a foreign debt that, at $657 billion, is almost as massive. Subtracting the debt from the fund’s $740 billion leaves a balance of only $83 billion. In other words, there is a treasure chest, but it is almost empty: Njord’s prize for future generations is only a little more than 10 percent of its putative value.

Even if we take the fund’s worth at face value, its future is not guaranteed. In a 2011 analysis, “What Does Norway Get Out Of Its Oil Fund, if Not More Strategic Infrastructure Investment?” University of Missouri economist and Wall Street financial analyst Michael Hudson offered a stark assessment: The Norwegian oil monies are invested mainly in the unstable economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China, or in volatile real estate in the West.

Link


As for Sweden or Denmark... Not much to write home about and certainly in far worse shape than the UK economy.


Are you totally ignorant of the world? The Scandinavian countries are consistently ranked amongst the best countries in the world by various metrics, from health, wealth, happiness, education, safety etc. Saying their economies are in far worse shape than the UK is laughable considering they both have a higher GDP per capita. But everything isn't measured in just wealth.

Where to be born/ Quality of Life index:
3. Norway
4. Sweden
5. Denmark
12. Ireland
.
.
27. UK

Human Development Index
1. Norway
10. Denmark
11. Ireland
12. Sweden
14. UK

Forbes Happiest Countries
1. Norway
4. Sweden
6. Denmark
12. Ireland
16. UK

Any country doing as well as the Scandinavian countries would be doing well for itself



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: stumason
As opposed to the UK which has all the debts and no fund to pay them. Hmmm who is in the better position?



We do have money to pay them, which is why, in all of it's history, the UK/England has never failed to pay it's debts - few nations can claim that - not one single default on any bond, whatsoever. Even during the Wars, we paid our debts.

Also, as pointed out in that article, that fund is largely invested in volatile markets and could quite easily be wiped out overnight - a 10% margin on the Fund vs liabilities does not leave much room for wiggle.


The UK defaulted on its debt to the US in 1932



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn

I don't want to be part of that set up either.

We won't have the Euro though...although maybe that's why Salmond wants currency union.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: MortlitantiFMMJ

And massive taxation levels to boot - something you conveniently missed out there. Not to mention the prices for many things is so much higher than in the UK.

The UK could have those same levels, but it would require an enormous amount of spending with equally enormous tax hikes. As it stands, the UK isn't actually that far behind any of them and I'd rather decide how to spend my money myself, than have the Government take it off me before I've even had the chance.

It's a bit misleading to hold these countries up as some sort of shining beacon - they are not - it is simply the result of a population willing to accept extremely high taxation in return for those services. There is no appetite in the UK for those levels of taxation, regardless of any benefits it might bring.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: MortlitantiFMMJ
The UK defaulted on its debt to the US in 1932


That was an entirely different situation than a standard bond default - the UK linked this debt to German reparations, the Germans stopped paying and as a result, the UK didn't pay. Technically, the Germans were in default, not the UK and the US let it go.




top topics



 
14
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join