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.

 

Deputy Leader of UK calls Scots Extremists

page: 33
18
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 


Your assuming they were put there to kill more Scots than English that is what I meant. They were probably put there for a really good reason. Lochs are great places to hide away subs from a Russian naval fleet especially being situated on the western side of Scotland. If we put it on the eastern side of Scotland it would of been badly exposed to anything coming out of the Baltic or White Sea.




posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 


My wife's Scottish so that makes my children half Scottish so yeah I would associate myself with you guys. Im no racist especially not to my wife and 3 children thank you very much.

edit on 15/1/12 by Ezappa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 


Salmond believes, if independence fails, he can return to the Union - I've been told by those in Whitehall that independence will mean independence for life.

Since 2006, many have questioned whether or not the SNP want independence or just 'devolution max'; yet the the SNP have created a major constitutional problem - majority of England (in today's Telegraph poll) favour Scottish independence by a significant margin. In Scotland, the difference is just 3 points; well in the margin of error.

SNP thought it you infuriated the English enough then Scottish voters would have no choice but to leave the Union. But the Euro crisis makes them nervous, yet the English have had enough.

An even bigger problem for the SNP.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ezappa
reply to post by christina-66
 


Your assuming they were put there to kill more Scots than English that is what I meant. They were probably put there for a really good reason. Lochs are great places to hide away subs from a Russian naval fleet especially being situated on the western side of Scotland. If we put it on the eastern side of Scotland it would of been badly exposed to anything coming out of the Baltic or White Sea.



LOL....
Ssssssh - Location of Scotland's Nukes...don't tell the Russians

I dunno - given the current location I'd say that it's pretty certain that Scotland would lose more people than England should they be targeted.

Once again you go to the bottom of class for reading comprehension. I did not say they were put here because they would kill more Scots than English....what I actually said was that Scotland is less densely populated than England and therefore less of the UK population would die if attacked.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
reply to post by christina-66
 


Salmond believes, if independence fails, he can return to the Union - I've been told by those in Whitehall that independence will mean independence for life.

Since 2006, many have questioned whether or not the SNP want independence or just 'devolution max'; yet the the SNP have created a major constitutional problem - majority of England (in today's Telegraph poll) favour Scottish independence by a significant margin. In Scotland, the difference is just 3 points; well in the margin of error.

SNP thought it you infuriated the English enough then Scottish voters would have no choice but to leave the Union. But the Euro crisis makes them nervous, yet the English have had enough.

An even bigger problem for the SNP.


Since you have the ear of whitehall, can you ask them " why am i working till i drop and all the rich tory type dudes who gambled and lost all the banking money arent in jail or why they arent paying back the deficit?"
I expect youl be on the phone for a while so i will wait till tomorrow till you've had a word.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by clanger
 


Hate to break it to you, the Conservatives were not in power during the market crash of 2008 and it was a Labour Treasury who dismissed fears of light regulation of the banking system. Popular to contrary belief, majority of UK investment banks did buy mortgage backed derivatives; it was loans to the American investment institutions themselves, not the product.

Also, FYI, Google "The Great American Mortgage Challenge" from 2002, sub prime was created by the US Federal Government, not investment banks. And they bonds were sold to the market via Fannie and Freddie Mac - government bodies.

Sorry.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
reply to post by clanger
 


Hate to break it to you, the Conservatives were not in power during the market crash of 2008 and it was a Labour Treasury who dismissed fears of light regulation of the banking system. Popular to contrary belief, majority of UK investment banks did buy mortgage backed derivatives; it was loans to the American investment institutions themselves, not the product.

Also, FYI, Google "The Great American Mortgage Challenge" from 2002, sub prime was created by the US Federal Government, not investment banks. And they bonds were sold to the market via Fannie and Freddie Mac - government bodies.

and by the way it was maggie who de regulated the banks which allowed they to gamble un hindered.

Sorry.


Banks reaped the rewards when they where making million/billions in profit as did the share holders,i don't recall them saying"heres some extra tax revenue as we are rolling in it"
They gambled and lost ....they pay the price not the the tax payers no matter who was in power it was the directors.owners.share holders who took the decisions to gamble....................they lost. Not me

edit on 15-1-2012 by clanger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laurauk
reply to post by selfharmonise
 


One thing though, if push comes to shove, the Scottish Government could re nationalize the Oil Industry.



I am amazed by this statement. When was the oil industry ever nationalised?

This is exactly the kind of romantic attitude that will send the future Scotland to hell in a handcart.

The Scots need to step outside and get a real idea of how they stand in a global commercial marketplace.

I hear a lot of vision, want and hope, but none of you can make the sums add up.

Scotland cannot support itself financially.

I hope everyone of you who votes for an independent Scotland doesnt even think about complaining when your personal tax bills escalate.

I - personally - will be living in another country.

I wont be paying for Salmond's mistakes and the rest of the population's romantic ideals.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Scottish independence would make the welfare and health budget more sustainable for any Westminster government; living standards between England and Scotland are enormous. Parts of Glasgow have life expectation levels worse than the Gaza Strip (East Glasgow, I believe).

Under the Barnett Formula, Scotland receives £8,623 (per person) - which equates to roughly £40 billion in total. The Scottish Office of the United Kingdom government gets an annual budget of £15 - 20 billion. So the Treasury would save £60 billion in the short term; this does not take into account the savings from welfare and health.

Currently, Scottish Executive welfare budget is in a surplus, but it is due to the Barnett formula. Remove Westminster from the maths and a deficit occurs.

Could oil revenues pay for free health care, university education, welfare and finance the national debt? England would take at least 10 - 20% of the oil revenue. Scotland would have to take its share of the the overall national debt; Scottish economy is only worth £220 billion. A debt to GDP ratio of over 60% would make Scotland unable to meet EU membership criteria, too. Whitehall plans have Scotland taking roughly £100 - 200 billion of the overall UK national debt. RBS debt-related specifically to Scotland-would be passed over, too.

Basic workings would calculate debt of 300+% of GDP post-independence Scotland.

In the medium to long term, England is financially better off. SNP have this odd opinion of independence, in which the English subsidise the army and currency. As Osborne rightly said, if Scotland wants independence then it will be given FULL independence - without any English support*

*Without sounding facetious, Scotland would be very high on the English foreign aid list.


The most sense I've read so far on this thread.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Not saying I agree or disagree, but an interesting article on Scottish independance irrelevant of viewpoint.

www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by selfharmonise

Originally posted by infinite
Scottish independence would make the welfare and health budget more sustainable for any Westminster government; living standards between England and Scotland are enormous. Parts of Glasgow have life expectation levels worse than the Gaza Strip (East Glasgow, I believe).

Under the Barnett Formula, Scotland receives £8,623 (per person) - which equates to roughly £40 billion in total. The Scottish Office of the United Kingdom government gets an annual budget of £15 - 20 billion. So the Treasury would save £60 billion in the short term; this does not take into account the savings from welfare and health.

Currently, Scottish Executive welfare budget is in a surplus, but it is due to the Barnett formula. Remove Westminster from the maths and a deficit occurs.

Could oil revenues pay for free health care, university education, welfare and finance the national debt? England would take at least 10 - 20% of the oil revenue. Scotland would have to take its share of the the overall national debt; Scottish economy is only worth £220 billion. A debt to GDP ratio of over 60% would make Scotland unable to meet EU membership criteria, too. Whitehall plans have Scotland taking roughly £100 - 200 billion of the overall UK national debt. RBS debt-related specifically to Scotland-would be passed over, too.

Basic workings would calculate debt of 300+% of GDP post-independence Scotland.

In the medium to long term, England is financially better off. SNP have this odd opinion of independence, in which the English subsidise the army and currency. As Osborne rightly said, if Scotland wants independence then it will be given FULL independence - without any English support*

*Without sounding facetious, Scotland would be very high on the English foreign aid list.


The most sense I've read so far on this thread.


figures you wish to believe,
i dare say there will be numerous other accountancy types coming up with
" we will be skint"
"we will be rich"
until everything is divided up no one knows the facts and figures its all guess work.
The real question is
"Why do the Torys want to keep us if as you believe we are being kept? why ?
The torys are hard money,money, profit men,everything is for sale privatization anything they can fill their bank accounts with and they dont mind how they do it!!










posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by selfharmonise
 


Nationalisation costs money, which will be in limited supply. Plus, North Sea oil production has already passed its peak. Nobody discusses the vulnerability of the fluctuation of the price of oil on domestic economies.

Scotland is small enough to sustain itself on renewable energies. Tide and wind power is the future, not oil.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by selfharmonise
 



I hope everyone of you who votes for an independent Scotland doesnt even think about complaining when your personal tax bills escalate.

I - personally - will be living in another country.

I wont be paying for Salmond's mistakes and the rest of the population's romantic ideals.


If my personal tax bill gets any higher than its current level (incl. national insurance, council tax, VAT and fuel duty) the government will be receiving more of my wage packet than I do. It's already at an unacceptable level.

I'm no fan of the tories - Scottish or otherwise - but Anabelle Goldie did recently describe Scotland as a 'statist little nation' and I concur.

If we do vote for independence I'll be on the seat beside you on the first p[lane out of here.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by clanger
 


You're saying nothing to make me think any different.

You may be willing to take the risk without doing any of the sums, but I certainly am not.

The country needs to do some realistic scenario planning before running headlong into this. Independence is not something you can 'suck it and see'.

Yep - and it looks like the English are as fed up with the Scots as I am.

They'd be better off without us financially.

In my early 20s, I was an ardent nationalist and supporter of independence.

I left Scotland, lived in london, the far east, Spain and France and began to realise just how small Scotland is. I began to realise just how 'small' the Scottish attitude is.

If someone could prove to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that Scotland could support itself financially, then yep..let's go for it.

But...they cannot.

I am rational and not driven by optimism.

Here's the planned wording for the new signage at all Scottish airports post independence.

"Welcome to an Independent Scotland. Welcome to Europe's new Greece!
Please buy some shortbread as you leave the terminal, we're using it to fund our Health Service!"

edit on 15-1-2012 by selfharmonise because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by selfharmonise
 


Why do you fear that Scotland, of all the nations of the world, is the one and only which can't support itself ?

Some Scottish friends mention to me "the Scottish Cringe" ... whereby Scots have been so on their knees in front of the English, and for so long, that it has neutralised their logical thought processes.

They see their nation as enfeebled, incapable, impoverished even though that won't ever be the case.

I think you've got a touch of the Cringe yourself, my friend.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by selfharmonise
reply to post by clanger
 


You're saying nothing to make me think any different.

You may be willing to take the risk without doing any of the sums, but I certainly am not.

The country needs to do some realistic scenario planning before running headlong into this. Independence is not something you can 'suck it and see'.

Yep - and it looks like the English are as fed up with the Scots as I am.

They'd be better off without us financially.

In my early 20s, I was an ardent nationalist and supporter of independence.

I left Scotland, lived in london, the far east, Spain and France and began to realise just how small Scotland is. I began to realise just how 'small' the Scottish attitude is.

If someone could prove to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that Scotland could support itself financially, then yep..let's go for it.

But...they cannot.

I am rational and not driven by optimism.

Here's the planned wording for the new signage at all Scottish airports post independence.

"Welcome to an Independent Scotland. Welcome to Europe's new Greece!
Please buy some shortbread as you leave the terminal, we're using it to fund our Health Service!"

edit on 15-1-2012 by selfharmonise because: (no reason given)





If someone could prove to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that Scotland could support itself financially, then yep..let's go for it.

But...they cannot.

I am rational and not driven by optimism.

You could of course reverse that and say can someone prove i am better off staying in the uk? if you cant then im off?

pessimism rules then.









posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
reply to post by selfharmonise
 


Why do you fear that Scotland, of all the nations of the world, is the one and only which can't support itself ?

Some Scottish friends mention to me "the Scottish Cringe" ... whereby Scots have been so on their knees in front of the English, and for so long, that it has neutralised their logical thought processes.

They see their nation as enfeebled, incapable, impoverished even though that won't ever be the case.

I think you've got a touch of the Cringe yourself, my friend.


I am not your friend, so don't seek to insult me then patronise me by adding this onto the end of your text.

I am a rational, commercial individual who wants to see the numbers stack up before I support any move forward with Independence.

They dont.

Give me an argument that has solid financial evidence, rather than emotional twaddle and I will be swayed.

Being scottish, I have heard most of the arguments, the Scottish Cringe...the "it's what they dont teach the Scots in school that's important"...and even at one point was ardently anti-English.

I got a job, I travelled...I learned.

All I hear is emotional, irrational arguments. I hear nothing about how it would successfully work.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by clanger
 


Why would I need someone to prove that the status quo works for me, when I can accurately state from my current experience that it does?



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by selfharmonise
 


Spare me the contrived hostility, please.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
reply to post by selfharmonise
 


Spare me the contrived hostility, please.


Spare me your contrived politeness. It's well within your capability to choose not to respond.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join