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.

 

Scotland Vote No In Referendum – Selfish, Scared People, Well Done!

page: 33
42
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: yeti101
Agreed, but off-topic from the recent vote which Scottish residents made to remain in the UK so it would be questionable for us to go off on an EU tangent in this discussion.

...hopefully someone will start a thread lamely blaming the English for wanting a vote on EU membership as I'd be happy to contribute further there, even if I am Welsh lol.

*Edit*
Oh and to the people who still insist on using it, is 'rUK' and 'iScotland' really still appropriate now the vote has been cast?
I find it mildly annoying, although I'm not crying tears about it, but it is now confirmed as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the UK after the referendum, so why continue using the divisive terms?
edit on 4Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:19:50 -0500pm19102014f50pm10 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 21 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: yeti101


You don't say

Little Englanders at their best.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: bigyin

i'm scottish though :p



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 06:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: yeti101
a reply to: bigyin

i'm scottish though :p





Hmmn.... A very wise Scot I'm thinking



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: yeti101

OK so can you explain why the arguments for staying in UK union as put by better together, such as maintaining open borders, no trade barriers, maintain large customer base, security issues at home and abroad, don't also apply when speaking about the European Union.



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: bigyin
Quick answer from me, roughly quarter of a million Europeans moving here each year (that is a net figure after including Brits who move overseas), no reciprocal/standardised benefits system between countries, so it is far more beneficial for an Eastern European to have their kids born here - Child Tax Credit, Child benefit, etc, an NHS which is far superior to poorer EU contries...

The UK is a single internationally recognised nation, so the movement of Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, and English citizens around these islands makes no extra drain to our economy - The EU clearly does, and it costs us billions on top to be members of it - Apples and oranges I'd say, but perhaps you see it differently?



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand

So it is far more beneficial for an Eastern European to have their kids born here - Child Tax Credit, Child benefit, etc.




Apparently they don't even need to be born here or even live here, to receive

the child benefits??



posted on Oct, 23 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

I'm not disagreeing with you but the same arguments can be used for Scotland getting out of the UK Union.

It costs Scotland billions to remain in the Union whilst those living in SE England enjoy mush higher standards of living, lower costs, better facilities and infra structure, higher life expectancy, better standards of health.

Regarding the benefits system if Scotland was separate to England I believe we could afford higher benefits and pensions and better health and education systems.

It costs Scots dear to be part of UK



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigyin
a reply to: grainofsand

I'm not disagreeing with you but the same arguments can be used for Scotland getting out of the UK Union.
It appears that 55% of voters in Scotland decided otherwise though.


It costs Scotland billions to remain in the Union
Do you have a reliable source for that claim please? I've seen figures banded about by economists on both sides and as far as I see it there is little evidence to support such a bold claim.


whilst those living in SE England enjoy mush higher standards of living, lower costs, better facilities and infra structure, higher life expectancy, better standards of health.
Are you ignoring the homelessness, poverty and council estates commonly found in the SE?!! And what higher standards of living are you referring to? They pay for prescriptions in the SE, they pay for higher education, plenty of food banks and the like, you ignoring that as well?

As far as health is concerned, it has been a devolved resposibility for many years now so you can only blame your Scottish politicians if they have failed at the job, especially when due to the Barnett Formula UK public spending per head is around 20% higher in Scotland than in England. Last year, Scotland got £10,152 per head, and England got £8,529.
Scotland is awash with public money compared to England so if your devolved government still can't get things right perhaps you would be better served tackling them instead of blaming England?


Regarding the benefits system if Scotland was separate to England I believe we could afford higher benefits and pensions and better health and education systems.

It costs Scots dear to be part of UK
Not too many real economists around thinking the same as you though, and either way it's sort of irrelevant now Scotland has voted to remain a part of the UK.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Pleasure North Sea Oil Revenues

This amount of money sent from Scotland to London pretty much destroys the rest of your mumbo jumbo
edit on b148141410 by bigyin because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: bigyin
Mumbo Jumbo eh?
From your own source:


the tax take on these hydrocarbon riches goes at present to the Treasury in London to the tune of £4.7bn in 2013-14


Not a huge amount compared to the £60 Billion+ spent each year by Scotland, perhaps this helps make things a little clearer:
www.bbc.co.uk...


In 2012/13 total public spending in Scotland was estimated to be £65.2bn, or 9.3% of total UK spending, with a population of 8.3%.

This figure takes into account a share of spending by UK government departments, including benefits payments, as well as a population-based slice of interest payments on the UK national debt.

So, even by the most generous measure, Scotland raised £53.1bn in 2012/13 and spent £65.2bn, leaving the country £12.1bn short.


Perhaps you will now claim the BBC is biased and it's all lies or something equally silly...that is always the risk when one is bewitched by the wild claims of the 'Yes' camp. But if you have some figures to counter my suggestions here, please do provide them and we can all better educate ourselves about this issue.

One thing is absolutely sure though, your claim that 'Being in the UK costs Scotland billions' is simply ridiculous.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: bigman88

Mostly yes. Empires do not concern themselves with rights, and can do whatever they want. They're just spheres of collective influence. I don't concern myself with which people this empire or that empire gobbles up or spits out. I concern myself that what they do is at least good in the end. The British is a rather fine example. Started out no different than any other European colonizer, ended up being basically the first to get rid of slavery, reform labor laws, establish functional governments, and leave the colonies a better place. So I'm all for the Empire of Britain, because they've done better in basically every example, and in basically every example, nations that stay with Britain end up better than those that don't.

Hell, I honestly think America would be a much better place if it never left the crown.



posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Gorman91

Crap I did not know this thread was still rolling

You and me operate on two different plains of reality, my friend.

Better place how? There is an assumption that south America and Africa will be nothing without colonization of the British and other nations. Based on what? "There was disease and they were fighting with one another, and they were backwards!" What disease? And point out which inch of the planet earth did not have it's inhabitants warring with each other? "They did not have roads!" So what? Dirt path works fine. Who says they wouldn't build there own roads later on? "They were all tribal and savage like!" And the Huguenots and Francs were not tribes themselves, hacking each other in two, beheading, and torture? For the same thing those savages were fighting one another for, resources and dick measuring.

Who says those tribes were not organized and carried on small scale civilization? Who says they would not have developed towards large scale civilization?

Slavery was abolished in place of imposed poverty and chaos. Ever take a look at those colonies now? Crime, drugs, poverty. Who says these people will not develop themselves, just like Europe, and run things on their own?

If you think the British empire was looking out for the well being of these nations, then you are sorely mistaken.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: bigman88

You somehow made up an entire imaginary conversation with me and answered it. Are you that delusional?

What point do I have in countering you if you'll pretend a conversation instead?



posted on Dec, 22 2014 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Gorman91

Point out where exactly that my responses are not pertinent and in response to what you posted to me, and I won't think of you as delusional.

In what way is my response to you not related to what you posted?



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: bigman88

Namely, I don't view such people as backwards or uncivilized. I simply view them as unwesternized.

There's a difference. I don't view their cultures as less rich, I simply view their cultures as incorrect. One can have a very complex and deep view of reality, and still be incorrect.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Gorman91

You wimped out of that one.

You said I made a conversation and posted things in response to things you did not speak of. Now you are saying that you do not agree with my views on yours thoughts that came out of your post.

It's either I posted unrelated things, or you don't agree with my views on your thoughts. Which one?

And it depends on what aspect of their culture that you find unwestern'ly that matters. The thing is, people of your mindset find that everything must be like the kingdom.

Well congrats. My Trinidadian grandma thinks that everything good and proper came from England and the queen.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: bigman88

I'm ok with your grandmother's views. I'd probably agree. But you did reply to my views...at first. Then you assumed how I would answer your assumptions. That's where you went wrong.

Fact is, I view some cultures as untrue, and some as even inferior. Depends. But mostly I view them as untrue. There's no reason supporting baseless mystic nonsense when there are better views with better backing.



posted on Jan, 18 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Gorman91

Your admission that most other cultures are inferior tells me a lot about you, but that's your arrogance and nationalism that you are going to have to deal with.

I will side with you in the mysticism thing, but not from your anglo-superiority perspective. Mysticism is no joke; through certain incantations, rituals, and altered states of the mind, you can interact with spiritual beings in other realms. But this goes against the laws of God. Plenty of indigenous religion and culture is straight up pagan, and Is backwards.

But what you sound like you are saying is that everybody needs to dress, talk, and carry themselves like England, and not retain there own unique customs and aesthetic uniqueness, and way of life, as long as it is in accordance with God.

So for you, Arabs living in the desert, or Nigerian's living in the countryside are beneath English standards. Or something like that.

My "assumptions", if I made any, came from your already stated views. I didn't make them up.



posted on Jan, 18 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigman88
Well congrats. My Trinidadian grandma thinks that everything good and proper came from England and the queen.



You may be should take more notice of your
Trinidadian grandma ... she will have lived through much
more than you have, and has worked out where she is
better off!



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join