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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: MysterX
But the rest of their conquests were worth the hassle?
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.
originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: CulturalResilience
Behave, everyone knows it was because the M5 motorway stops at Exeter!
:p
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: infolurker
Good. This is a real world experiment. Let's see the results.
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.
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.