55
   

THE BRITISH THREAD II

 
 
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2014 01:43 am
@McTag,
McTag wrote:
That But you should consider where that attitude came from. The Scots ("We're a' Jock Tamson's bairns") as a nation tend to love everybody, unless they are a shower of supercilious, patronising, arrogant bastards.


So you do hate us. At least you're finally being honest. Despite this, you choose to live in Manchester. I'm happy to stay south of the border.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2014 04:54 am
bump
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2014 04:54 am
Bump
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2014 04:54 am
bump
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2014 04:56 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
If anyone wants to start trouble with us or the UK, they should first stop and calculate what half-a-megaton will do to a population center.
I doubt that the (then) rUK will start a nuclear war with (then) Scotland.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2014 05:06 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
oralloy wrote:
If anyone wants to start trouble with us or the UK, they should first stop and calculate what half-a-megaton will do to a population center.

I doubt that the (then) rUK will start a nuclear war with (then) Scotland.

I too doubt that. But the scenario that Farmerman was suggesting wasn't about war between the UK and Scotland.

I presume that "rUK" is some way of referring to the UK without Scotland???
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2014 05:09 am
@izzythepush,

Quote:
So you do hate us. At least you're finally being honest.


Don't be so ******* silly.

Please attempt at least to separate the obviously jocular (hey, see what I did there?) from the rest.
Lordyaswas
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2014 05:15 am
@McTag,
McTag wrote:


Quote:
I think that the constant stream of Scottish whingeing over the past century has finally got to us


How rude.
I think what is getting to the Scots is, that then now see an opportunity to stop having to petition a government in Westminster which they didn't vote for.
As far as whinging is concerned today, it's Westminster which is screaming blue murder...at the realisation of what they have brought about.
They deliberately dropped Devo Max as an option, thinking the Scots will never vote for separation, and the whole thing could be kicked into the long grass. What now?


How rude? Coming from your previous post re. "The Scots ("We're a' Jock Tamson's bairns") as a nation tend to love everybody, unless they are a shower of supercilious, patronising, arrogant bastards.".....I reckon being called a bunch of whingers in reply would be viewed as quite kind, myself.

I see the arch whinger Salmond is comparing the present independence campaign as similar to the struggle of South Africans against apartheid.

Unbe - bleedin -lievable!

0 Replies
 
Lordyaswas
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2014 05:19 am
@farmerman,
Farmerman, you're a geologist, aren't you?

I have a couple of questions.....

1. Is it true that the Scottish landmass actually originated over there in what is now the Americas, and drifted over here before slamming into England?


2. If so, is there any way that it could be towed back there again? Maybe not all the way. Just out of earshot, maybe?


Please say yes.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2014 05:25 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
I presume that "rUK" is some way of referring to the UK without Scotland???
As it'ss in the papers "rest of UK"
izzythepush
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2014 05:29 am
@McTag,
McTag wrote:
Please attempt at least to separate the obviously jocular (hey, see what I did there?) from the rest.


I don't think the phrase shower of supercilious, patronising, arrogant bastards is remotely jocular. It's insulting like all the invective coming from Scotland. Compare the rhetoric coming from north of the border with the conciliatory, downright arselicking language coming from Westminster.

Do you let your neighbours know you think them a shower of supercilious, patronising, arrogant bastards?

I know it's tantamount to blasphemy, but we don't consider Alex Salmond to be a living god, we think he's a nasty piece of work.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2014 05:31 am
@Lordyaswas,
Lordyaswas wrote:
2. If so, is there any way that it could be towed back there again? Maybe not all the way. Just out of earshot, maybe?


Don't be surprised if Scotland applies to become the 51st State in the near future, once everything goes tits up.
0 Replies
 
Lordyaswas
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2014 05:39 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Speaking of what's in the papers......

It looks like at least someone is speaking his mind, even though it is Simon Heffer.



"Alex Salmond's offensive comparison of Scots voting for independence to the ending of apartheid and blacks being given the vote in South Africa took the rank dishonesty of the nationalists’ campaign to a new low yesterday.
Mandela went to prison for his beliefs, something that doesn’t appear to have happened to any Scottish Nationalists.
And, far from being victims of a cruel and unjust system, they have been encouraged to participate in the political process, and to live in a Union replete with opportunities — unlike millions in South Africa who were excluded from politics and advancement simply because they were the wrong race.

It was equally offensive to see Mr Salmond embracing immigrants from Eastern Europe and telling them that their intention to vote ‘Yes’ would be the culmination of their own long walk to freedom.
They chose to come to Scotland not because independence promises an extra layer of liberty, but because of the hard won, wide-ranging freedoms already available throughout the UK, and bestowed upon the Scots as they are bestowed upon every other Briton.
Enough, frankly, is enough. We have long tolerated Mr Salmond’s mendacity, and his twisted loathing of the English, largely because many felt he would be the loser of this fight and should be indulged.

So when he dropped hints that the NHS would be privatised if there wasn’t a ‘Yes’ vote, or made up the rules about Scotland’s continuing membership of the EU as he went along, or exaggerated the wealth from Scottish oil revenues, we felt slightly patronising towards the old rogue, assuring ourselves of his inevitable humiliation in the September 18 vote.
Now that humiliation appears less certain, and the arrogant dishonesty is so overwhelming, it is time to tell him what some of us really think.

First, this referendum has been a democratic disgrace from the outset. Not only were innumerable expatriate Scots in the rest of the Kingdom not allowed a vote on the Union that has benefited them all so practically, but the English — who subsidise Scotland to the tune of £17.6 billion a year according to the most recent Treasury figures — were not allowed a say either, as if the Union were about Scotland alone.
The sight of English politicians — and Scottish Unionist ones — bending over backwards to encourage the Scots to stay in the UK is as pitiful as it is outrageous. And it has inevitably proven counter-productive.
The Scots absurdly misrepresent us as oppressors and leeches who have taken ‘their’ oil money since the 1970s, when the opposite is largely true.
Scotland has boomed under the Union, Scots have thrived in the land of opportunity that is England, and much of the North Sea’s oil was extracted only because of English investment.
So why the need for further bribes? Couldn’t a perfectly sober, rational case be made about the massive mutual benefits for both parties — and shouldn’t our politicians, now in a demeaning state of 11th-hour panic, have been making it from the moment the devolved assembly opened in 1999?
They should — but their failure to do so emboldened grasping SNP politicians to push for independence. It says much for the stupidity and complacency of our political class that none appeared to have seen this coming.
The English, especially, will wonder why our leaders feel the need to suck up to a nation that sponged off our largesse consistently over the past 307 years, yet is still not satisfied
I don’t know whether Scotland will vote to become independent. I’m pretty sure that if it doesn’t the ‘No’ campaign’s victory will be narrow, another plebiscite will be held within five or ten years, and there will be further self-serving mischief, strife and instability until the separatists get their way.
Instead of telling Mr Salmond where to get off after his grotesque misrepresentation of life under the Union, our politicians have responded with the pathetic stunt of cancelling Prime Minister’s Questions today so they can campaign in Scotland for the Union.
Worse, we have had the spectacle of Ed Miliband gurning in front of TV cameras and demanding that English town halls fly the Saltire to show their love for Scotland — I trust most English town halls won’t waste ratepayers’ money on a flag they would never normally fly from one decade to the next.
But I suspect that this supine response to Salmond’s lies will be the final straw for most English, Welsh and Northern Irish voters.
The English, especially, will wonder why our leaders feel the need to suck up to a nation that sponged off our largesse consistently over the past 307 years, yet is still not satisfied.
Hard-pressed English taxpayers today see Scottish families enjoying free tuition in higher education (worth £9,000 a year), widespread exemptions from prescription charges and state-funded care for the elderly, and wonder why they don’t get the same benefits, even though they contribute to Scotland’s.

And only two years ago, the British taxpayer had to bail out two Scottish banks on the verge of collapse.
The tragedy is that Scotland’s enterprise and energy, underpinned by a ferocious Protestant work ethic and an education system far superior to England’s, enabled the Scots to be hugely successful in British life — another fact that makes a mockery of Mr Salmond’s whingeing victimhood.
Scotland provided England’s monarchs (our Queen is of Stuart descent) and numerous prime ministers — Gladstone, Rosebery, Campbell-Bannerman, Balfour, Bonar Law, Ramsay MacDonald, Macmillan, Douglas-Home, Blair and Brown were all either Scottish or of Scots heritage.
The list of great Scots is endless: the inventor of the telephone Alexander Graham Bell, the discoverer of penicillin Alexander Fleming, the inventor of television John Logie Baird, inventor of the steam engine James Watt, historian Thomas Carlyle, philosopher David Hume and economist Adam Smith are just the tip of the iceberg of Scots talent.
Alex Salmond's offensive comparison of Scots voting for independence to the ending of apartheid and blacks being given the vote in South Africa took the rank dishonesty of the nationalists’ campaign to a new low yesterday
Countless unsung Scottish pioneers built large stretches of the Empire, notably Canada, New Zealand and southern Africa, and Scotsmen made a disproportionately large sacrifice in two world wars.
Yet now England and Scotland are not merely two different nations, but two different cultures. The old Scotland was washed away by the tide of post-1945 welfarism even more than England was.
The difference was that England threw off socialism in 1979 and, under Margaret Thatcher, engaged in radical economic reforms.
Those were never accepted by post-industrial Scotland, whose people in too many cases preferred to live off the efforts of others, and came to regard Mrs Thatcher as a symbol of foreign oppression and themselves as her tragic victims.
That gulf is wider today than ever, and it won’t be bridged by a few patronising Englishmen flying Saltires or engaging in a rampantly insincere group hug with the Scottish people. Our two countries now have little in common, with Scotland now exhibiting the most appalling mentality of dependence.
I am of a generation of English who grew up considering ourselves British, and seeing no great difference between the English and the Scots, for whom we had great affection and admiration. But that has changed over the past two decades with growing hostility towards the English dripping out of Scotland.
Enough, I say again, is enough. As an Englishman, I feel my country has done all it can for Scotland and the Scots, sharing our country and wealth in the most open-handed way, while being branded as exploiters in return by a people for whom a vindictive ingratitude now seems to be a way of life.
As far as I’m concerned, the Scots are welcome to believe the untruths, distortions and downright lies Mr Salmond and his pals have decided to tell about the Union so they can get their hands on complete power.
If they really do feel the English are so toxic for them, there is nothing left to say except: clear off, good riddance and tell us where to send the bill for more than 300 years of subsidy.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2750071/Why-don-t-tell-Scots-shove-In-personal-view-Mail-disagrees-SIMON-HEFFER-says-fear-English-people-think.html


izzythepush
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2014 05:47 am
@Lordyaswas,
Money talks.

Quote:
Standard Life's chief executive, David Nish, has written to the Scottish money manager's customers explaining how it will protect their interests in the event of Scots voting for independence.

He says that it could transfer pensions, investments and other long-term savings held by UK customers to new regulated companies set up in England.

The aim would be to ensure that all transactions with customers outside of Scotland could continue to be in sterling, that the Westminster tax regime would apply to them, and that they would be subject to regulation and protection by City regulators and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

I am told this is a precautionary statement by Standard Life, and that it has not seen a surge in withdrawals of funds or inquiries since opinion polls showed a growing prospect of Scots' voting for separation from the rest of the UK.


Yeah right.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2014 05:49 am
@Lordyaswas,
What I don't understand is
a) why is such and similar said/written, since Scotland was - and still is - part of the UK (which, however, often seems to Greater London only),
b) so the UK-government is giving Scotland some extra sweets plus cuddling from both the UK-governmental as well as opposition parties. NOW., days before voting. Unbelievable ...
Lordyaswas
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2014 06:49 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

What I don't understand is
a) why is such and similar said/written, since Scotland was - and still is - part of the UK (which, however, often seems to Greater London only),
b) so the UK-government is giving Scotland some extra sweets plus cuddling from both the UK-governmental as well as opposition parties. NOW., days before voting. Unbelievable ...


What you must understand is that everyone outside Scotland underestimated just how gullible and prone to zenophobia the seeming majority of the Scots population seems to be.
Everyone outside Scotland also underestimated the quality and effectiveness of the superb lie campaign that Salmond has managed to build.

Put a power hungry lying, intimidating politician in amongst a population of easily infuenced chestbeating zenophobes, and you don't need to debate anymore, just spin and work everyone up into a frenzy. Reality goes out of the window, and any opponents very quickly encouraged to shut up.

I wouldn't for one minute try to equate what he's doing with an infamous Austrian you may have heard about, but I wouldn't be surprised if some campaign tactics came out of the same instruction manual.

As for why we are bothering to pander to all of this at the last minute, I don't have a clue, as it is pointless because of the above.
If you are a No Scot, then their campaign is geared to denounce you as a Unionist Scot, which is almost as bad as being English, which is almost as bad as being Tory.

Salmond and his cronies have every angle stitched up, and the last minute appeals from anyone remotely related to the No campaign will now not only be treated with contempt, they will give Salmond extra gloat factor and fuel for his propaganda machine.

The No campaign has been outmanouvred with lies and drumbeating. Scotland's own government figures for last year showed that after all their income from oil and god knows what, they still required over £17billion from the rest of the UK to balance their books. Yet they bang on about how we're stealing their oil money, and their gullible followers believe it.

Oil money, incidentally, that was brought about by billions and billions of pounds of initial investment by the UK (which is 91% non Scottish).


The 'Braveheart' element massively comes into play as well. If you told a Scot that his face was in actual fact English, there is a probability that he would feel a distinct desire to cut off his nose just to spite it.
Like the French, because we have trounced them time and time again in the dim and distant past, a good proportion resent us to the point of obsession.
Salmond has fed into this quite easily.


And finally, it is natural for a small fish in a big pond to want to reverse the situation, even if it means the risk of bankruptcy.

The Scots have asked for all this, and it is now the Scots who will decide....well, the Scots who Salmond will allow to vote, that is.

If they leave, then England, Wales and N.Ireland will go through substantial upheaval with moderate damage to our economic health, but we would soon get through that and with a few changes, we'll be plodding on as usual in a year or two.
This upheaval and damage will be brought about by the Scots, and do not think for one minute that this will be forgotten when it comes to our divorce arrangements regarding assets. By then it won't matter if we're nice to them anymore.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2014 07:23 am
@Lordyaswas,
Lordyaswas wrote:
The Scots have asked for all this, and it is now the Scots who will decide....well, the Scots who Salmond will allow to vote, that is.
What do you mean by the last part of the sentence above? (As far as I could get the informations - it's a referendum like it ... well, should be. I can't see that anyone is excluded - it would be the very same here.)
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2014 07:35 am
Some interesting graphics are in the Independent-report: Are the Scots really sucking up a massive subsidy?

Quote:
... ... ...
http://i58.tinypic.com/34e51y0.jpg
http://i59.tinypic.com/2ypfd5x.jpg
http://i57.tinypic.com/xli1pf.jpg
... ... ...
izzythepush
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2014 07:55 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Scots who are not resident in Scotland don't get a vote.
0 Replies
 
Lordyaswas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2014 07:58 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Lordyaswas wrote:
The Scots have asked for all this, and it is now the Scots who will decide....well, the Scots who Salmond will allow to vote, that is.
What do you mean by the last part of the sentence above? (As far as I could get the informations - it's a referendum like it ... well, should be. I can't see that anyone is excluded - it would be the very same here.)


The Scots who don't reside in Scotland cannot vote. Non Scots who reside in Scotland can.
I'm sure that Salmond and co had already researched this and found that they were more likely to get a Braveheart yes from the resident Scots, and possibly a majority no from those who live elsewhere.
They have also allowed 16 and 17 year olds to vote. I wonder why?

 

Related Topics

FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION - Discussion by Mapleleaf
The United Kingdom's bye bye to Europe - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
Sinti and Roma: History repeating - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
[B]THE RED ROSE COUNTY[/B] - Discussion by Mathos
Leaving today for Europe - Discussion by cicerone imposter
So you think you know Europe? - Discussion by nimh
 
  1. Forums
  2. » THE BRITISH THREAD II
  3. » Page 742
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 02/26/2025 at 09:19:43