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.

 

Trudeau, Sturgeon Respond To Refugee Ban: Refugees #WelcomeToCanada and Scotland!

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 03:50 AM
link   
they're fitting in great here because we're not crazy racists




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 03:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Splitting hairs a little don't you think? They were both heroic, so let's not turn that into who's braver than who...they both weighed in, when both of their lives could have been forfeit...that's heroic whichever way you look at it.

Smeaton later said: “This is Glasgow”, he said. “We’ll set about you.” And he wasn't kidding.




Ask Mick how he feels about the "Bold Smeato".. Glasgow is no tougher a city than any other city world wide. More myth. The Glasgow hard man tag all stems from a 1930's book called No mean City.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 05:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: 711117
they're fitting in great here because we're not crazy racists


Sane racists then?

Or are you claiming insane people are racist, or one has to be insane to be one?



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 05:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

You ever been to Glasgow Soloprotocol?

Ever wondered why the Roman empire conquered half the world, including what is now England and Wales, but gave up and built a massive wall to partition off Scotland?

It wasn't because the Scots are soft.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 05:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Soloprotocol

You ever been to Glasgow Soloprotocol?

Ever wondered why the Roman empire conquered half the world, including what is now England and Wales, but gave up and built a massive wall to partition off Scotland?

It wasn't because the Scots are soft.


I live on the outskirts of Glasgow mate. For Roman conquest of Scotland see Mons Graupius..The phrase veni vidi vici springs to mind. The Romans pulled out of Scotland because i simply wasn't worth the #ing hassle.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 05:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

But the rest of their conquests were worth the hassle?

Come on mate...'hassle' is a euphemism for too frigging hard.

I would have thought living where you do, you'd be more receptive to the idea of a historically strong Scotland and a tough, no nonsense point of view from the weather worn people?


edit on 29 1 2017 by MysterX because: typo



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 05:49 AM
link   
I am really not too worried about it. Unlike europe, canada is not a disarmed population. Contrary to what some city slickers may think, us canadians can even own "assault rifles"(liberal definition, not actual select automatic rifles)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 06:07 AM
link   
I support helping vulnerable people of course but immigration is not a devolved issue, it is under the authority of the UK government.

Basically Sturgeon can go # herself and her irrelevant tweets.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 06:11 AM
link   
The Roman conquest of Scotland was called off as a combination of two things:

1) Scotland did not have much in the way of natural resources the Romans wanted, unlike all the silver in England and Wales. Poor agriculture. No wine. Terrible climate.

2) The costs were disproportionate. The unruly tribes living in Scotland at the time would cost too much to subdue for what they'd get out of the country.


So yes, the Scottish tribes were too unruly for them, but also they were never terribly serious about conquering Scotland because it wasn't worth it. So both statements are, I think, correct.

I think if the Romans had really wanted to conquer and occupy Scotland, like if we had a lot of rich natural resources they wanted, I'm quite certain they would have.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
But the rest of their conquests were worth the hassle?


Well, yes they were. England and Wales were rich in gold, copper and silver. The land was fertile and agriculture flourished. Scotland was a bit too cold and pointless, with nothing that the Roman's wanted, so it was truly not "worth the hassle".

That aside, and back to the OP. Nice for Sturgeon to have an opinion, but she has no jurisdiction over foreign affairs. She needs to concentrate on poor Scottish education, health and the class divide that are all worse than the result of the UK even though they have more money to spend! She also needs to take into account that polls show the Scots, like the rest of the UK, want controls on immigration, so taking on more refugees than can be integrated is a recipe for future woes.

EDIT to add that Painterz (above) got in ahead of me on the economic undesirability of area (now mostly referred to as Scotland) to the Romans.
edit on 29/1/2017 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Painterz
The Roman conquest of Scotland was called off as a combination of two things:

1) Scotland did not have much in the way of natural resources the Romans wanted, unlike all the silver in England and Wales. Poor agriculture. No wine. Terrible climate.

2) The costs were disproportionate. The unruly tribes living in Scotland at the time would cost too much to subdue for what they'd get out of the country.


So yes, the Scottish tribes were too unruly for them, but also they were never terribly serious about conquering Scotland because it wasn't worth it. So both statements are, I think, correct.

I think if the Romans had really wanted to conquer and occupy Scotland, like if we had a lot of rich natural resources they wanted, I'm quite certain they would have.


It is an often repeated inaccuracy that some Scots like to kid themselves as being actually true, that the Pictish tribes, which none of them are actually descended from, defeated the Romans in battle. There are those where I grew up who say the same inaccurate thing because the Romans never any established any major fortresses west of Exeter. Still if the people of Scotland are happy to let all and sundry flood into their country that is their choice, but, if so, we should rebuild and re-garrison the wall that a Roman Trump built.
edit on 29-1-2017 by CulturalResilience because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: CulturalResilience

Behave, everyone knows it was because the M5 motorway stops at Exeter!
:p



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: CulturalResilience

Behave, everyone knows it was because the M5 motorway stops at Exeter!
:p


That's right. The Romans didn't build any Service Stations south of Granada.
edit on 29-1-2017 by CulturalResilience because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
Still if the people of Scotland are happy to let all and sundry flood into their country that is their choice, but, if so, we should rebuild and re-garrison the wall that a Roman Trump built.


The people of Scotland share similar sentiments on immigration as the rest of the UK. It's crass politics by the nationalists to take a contrary position to the UK government on practically every issue - it's called to politics of division.

The fact is that most of the immigrants to Scotland would end up going into England anyway, as there is more economic opportunity down south and pre-existing communities for them to join.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Good luck with that canada and scotland!



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
of course Canada will accept as many as the middle east can send because they know that most of them won`t stay in Canada,they illegally come into the U.S. after they get to Canada.


That is basically what germany did to europe and caused the Brexit.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
Still if the people of Scotland are happy to let all and sundry flood into their country that is their choice, but, if so, we should rebuild and re-garrison the wall that a Roman Trump built.


The people of Scotland share similar sentiments on immigration as the rest of the UK. It's crass politics by the nationalists to take a contrary position to the UK government on practically every issue - it's called to politics of division.

The fact is that most of the immigrants to Scotland would end up going into England anyway, as there is more economic opportunity down south and pre-existing communities for them to join.


Quite. These bloody politicians always forget that they are supposed to serve the people that elected them when they get into power and revert to the globalist, open border agenda. I think this is because they, with a very few exceptions, have absolutely no understanding of the everyday, and very real concerns of ordinary working people.
edit on 29-1-2017 by CulturalResilience because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-1-2017 by CulturalResilience because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: infolurker

Good. This is a real world experiment. Let's see the results.


Yo only need to look at europe to see the result. have a gander at the vid i posted a little bit above this one. Also in the last 2 years europe has seen 1 major islamic terror attack every other month.


edit on America/ChicagovAmerica/ChicagoSun, 29 Jan 2017 07:21:34 -06001720171America/Chicago by everyone because: typo



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: everyone

originally posted by: Tardacus
of course Canada will accept as many as the middle east can send because they know that most of them won`t stay in Canada,they illegally come into the U.S. after they get to Canada.


That is basically what germany did to europe and caused the Brexit.


It still amazes me that there are those that cannot or will not accept the reality of this and naively parrot the globalist call for open borders.
edit on 29-1-2017 by CulturalResilience because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
of course Canada will accept as many as the middle east can send because they know that most of them won`t stay in Canada,they illegally come into the U.S. after they get to Canada.


Have a source for this I can read? I'd love to read it.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join