# Scottish independence



## Vikrant

"Britain is for the rich. Scotland can be ours."

That is a nice slogan. That apart, the article below counts five reasons that may make Scottish independence a possibility. 

---

None of this is supposed to be happening at all. Better Together is supported by every major media outlet in Scotland as well as in London. It has the full research resources of the British government and the backing of big business. Yet there now seems to be an irresistible momentum towards yes.

This week saw polls showing a massive eight-point swing to yes in the last month alone, with women and Labour voters leading the way. Photos of people queueing up to register to vote in Glasgow have been circulating. Maybe they were people queueing up to defend the union? Aye, right.

...

Scottish independence 5 reasons yes is winning Mike Small Comment is free theguardian.com


----------



## ScienceRocks

Would be like the south voting for their independence from the US. We all know how that worked out...


----------



## Vikrant

Matthew said:


> Would be like the south voting for their independence from the US. We all know how that worked out...



Are you saying there will be war between England and Scotland?


----------



## Tom Sweetnam

Matthew said:


> Would be like the south voting for their independence from the US. We all know how that worked out...



Right. Like Ukraine voting for independence from their "progressive" neighbors. That could have gone better, but all in all it's progressed OK. I'd like to see Scotland gain independence. To hell with England. They hate the US and they've made life miserable on the Irish and Scots. The English are a smug irrelevancy kowtowing to their radical Islamic minority. They don't matter anymore. That's why they're so angry at the world, especially at people who do matter, like Americans.


----------



## MisterBeale




----------



## Phoenall

Vikrant said:


> "Britain is for the rich. Scotland can be ours."
> 
> That is a nice slogan. That apart, the article below counts five reasons that may make Scottish independence a possibility.
> 
> ---
> 
> None of this is supposed to be happening at all. Better Together is supported by every major media outlet in Scotland as well as in London. It has the full research resources of the British government and the backing of big business. Yet there now seems to be an irresistible momentum towards yes.
> 
> This week saw polls showing a massive eight-point swing to yes in the last month alone, with women and Labour voters leading the way. Photos of people queueing up to register to vote in Glasgow have been circulating. Maybe they were people queueing up to defend the union? Aye, right.
> 
> ...
> 
> Scottish independence 5 reasons yes is winning Mike Small Comment is free theguardian.com






 When the scots get a subsidy of £2000 a year each no one can claim that Britain is richer, isn't Scotlamd part of Britain along with Wales and N.I.


----------



## Politico

Matthew said:


> Would be like the south voting for their independence from the US. We all know how that worked out...



Yeah except their country works nothing like ours. Pick up a book.


----------



## 1776

Scotland will have to form their own military. Maybe Russia can "stop by" in the future with some of their "little green men."


----------



## Samson

Scotland = Oil

Black Gold under the North Sea.

England is not going to let it go anywhere.


----------



## Phoenall

Then why are we so dependent on imported oil and gas, could it be that the Labour government gave it to Europe. Plus the reserves are running out while the oil to the south is still untapped


----------



## bodecea

1776 said:


> Scotland will have to form their own military. Maybe Russia can "stop by" in the future with some of their "little green men."


No different that Ireland, eh?


----------



## alan1

Matthew said:


> Would be like the south voting for their independence from the US. We all know how that worked out...


Doesn't mean the result  was the best outcome.
Just saying.


----------



## Vikrant

Phoenall said:


> When the scots get a subsidy of £2000 a year each no one can claim that Britain is richer, isn't Scotlamd part of Britain along with Wales and N.I.



Apparently, great number of Scots do not feel like they are a part of UK. Economically speaking, it makes sense for Scotland to go independent. This way they do not have to subsidize ailing English economy.


----------



## Vikrant

It seems like Olympic Committee is trying to intimidate Scottish nationalists.

---

An independent Scotland will not be able to compete in the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro, a senior Games official has warned.
Olympic Committee vice president Sir Craig Reedie said Scottish athletes were highly unlikely to be able to represent their new country at the next games if the country votes for independence next week.
Sir Craig, who is also president of the World Anti-Doping Agency, said there would not be enough time between Scottish independence in March 2016 and the start of the Games that summer to allow Scotland into the event.
The revelation comes amid mounting concern in Westminster over a surge in support for independence.
A poll for Sunday Times put the ‘Yes’ camp ahead on 51 per cent to the No camp's 49 per cent.
Panicking Westminster politicians have drawn up a last-minute plan to save the union – promising Scotland sweeping new powers on tax and welfare.
The prospect of missing out on the world’s biggest sporting event will offer the ‘No’ to independence camp further ammunition against separation.
For Scotland to be allowed to compete, the country’s new sporting body will have to show that it is ‘an independent nation recognised by the international community’.
But because of the short time frame between independence and the opening of the Games, Sir Craig told the Observer he thought it would be ‘very, very difficult’ for a newly independent Scottish team to take part.


Read more: Scottish sports stars face Rio 2016 Olympic ban if voters back independence Mail Online 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## Phoenall

Vikrant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the scots get a subsidy of £2000 a year each no one can claim that Britain is richer, isn't Scotlamd part of Britain along with Wales and N.I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, great number of Scots do not feel like they are a part of UK. Economically speaking, it makes sense for Scotland to go independent. This way they do not have to subsidize ailing English economy.
Click to expand...




By voting yes they will save the British economy over £200,000,000 a year in subsidies alone, then there is the cost to the NHS treating alcoholism and alcohol related injuries. And not forgetting the welfare bills for the unemployed. No wonder the economy is ailing when the English tax payers have to bail out the feckless Scots all the time. Give them 18 months and they will be begging to re=join the union because they listened to a racist half wit


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Vikrant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the scots get a subsidy of £2000 a year each no one can claim that Britain is richer, isn't Scotlamd part of Britain along with Wales and N.I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, great number of Scots do not feel like they are a part of UK. Economically speaking, it makes sense for Scotland to go independent. This way they do not have to subsidize ailing English economy.
Click to expand...

I support Scottish independence, but if anything the English have bent over backwards to accommodate the Scottish as part of the Union from subsidizing their social welfare to the disproportionate representation Scotland gets in the Parliament. The SNP and Alex Salmond are completely delusional in their campaign promises for an independent Scotland.


----------



## Stratford57

I personally wish Scottish people good luck. At least nobody is going to start a war against them because of their referendum. Unlikely in Ukraine, which started exterminating its SE just because they had had their referendum and with huge majority said "NO!" to Kiev and their Nazi regime. You would think that all the progressive mankind should  stop that genocide and blame Kiev for its aggression towards its own citizens? Surprise: the world is doing completely opposite...


----------



## Vikrant

Union between Scotland and England was a union of convenience. The union was formed to exploit the colonies. It was Scotland which provided foot soldiers for most of the British colonial conquests. The wealth that both English and Scottish acquired from their joint colonial efforts convinced Scots about the merit of the union. But thing is colonies are long gone now. Money is tight. 

Norway had about the same amount of oil Scotland has but unlike Scotland, Norway being a free nation was able to invest profit from oil sale into Norwegian economy. Look at results today. Norway has extremely high standard of living. On the contrary, Scotland is in bad shape. Why? Because, Scottish oil went to London. In about ten days, we will know the fate of Scotland. I personally do not care what the outcome would be. It is up to Scottish people whether they want to become free and take control of their destiny or they want to stick with the union and complaint about how unhappy they are. 

Look at Ireland. There was a time when British people used to make fun of Irish people. But Ireland stuck to its character and spirit. They are doing pretty well today. And to make a point, Ireland did not have to engage in grand military conquest of any nation. They did it on their own. They could have easily joined Britain and provided foot soldiers just like Scots did but they did not. 

At the end, truth always triumphs.


----------



## Phoenall

Vikrant said:


> Union between Scotland and England was a union of convenience. The union was formed to exploit the colonies. It was Scotland which provided foot soldiers for most of the British colonial conquests. The wealth that both English and Scottish acquired from their joint colonial efforts convinced Scots about the merit of the union. But thing is colonies are long gone now. Money is tight.
> 
> Norway had about the same amount of oil Scotland has but unlike Scotland, Norway being a free nation was able to invest profit from oil sale into Norwegian economy. Look at results today. Norway has extremely high standard of living. On the contrary, Scotland is in bad shape. Why? Because, Scottish oil went to London. In about ten days, we will know the fate of Scotland. I personally do not care what the outcome would be. It is up to Scottish people whether they want to become free and take control of their destiny or they want to stick with the union and complaint about how unhappy they are.
> 
> Look at Ireland. There was a time when British people used to make fun of Irish people. But Ireland stuck to its character and spirit. They are doing pretty well today. And to make a point, Ireland did not have to engage in grand military conquest of any nation. They did it on their own. They could have easily joined Britain and provided foot soldiers just like Scots did but they did not.
> 
> At the end, truth always triumphs.





 What a load of crap the union was formed when Scotland went bankrupt and came to England for help. A deal was struck for Scotland to become part of the UK while keeping its own identity and laws. This was acceptable and so Scotland joined the union as an equal partner after England had bailed them out. It was only with the rise of Scots nationalism and the inherent racism produced that certain hot headed Scots decided they wanted to be free of England while still keeping the money flowing in. What should have happened when Scotland devolved from the rest of Britain is the £2500 subsidy granted to every Scot should have ceased and they should have received a proportional amount of the money raised from Scots taxes and the ability to raise their own taxes on top. This would have shown just how much Scotland is indebted to Great Britain and how much the racist SNP is lying to the Scots people.


----------



## Mindful

*Will the Duchess of Cambridge's pregnancy help save the Union?*

*It's ignited round two of royal baby-mania, but the No camp shouldn't get too excited.*

*Scottish Independence Will the Duchess of Cambridge s pregnancy help save the union - Comment - Voices - The Independent*


----------



## Phoenall

Mindful said:


> *Will the Duchess of Cambridge's pregnancy help save the Union?*
> 
> *It's ignited round two of royal baby-mania, but the No camp shouldn't get too excited.*
> 
> *Scottish Independence Will the Duchess of Cambridge s pregnancy help save the union - Comment - Voices - The Independent*






 Highly unlikely as the rabid rabble rousers of pro independence also happen to be anti monarchists and hate the Royals. But without them Scotland would be just another sad place to live.


----------



## Vikrant

Stratford57 said:


> I personally wish Scottish people good luck. At least nobody is going to start a war against them because of their referendum. Unlikely in Ukraine, which started exterminating its SE just because they had had their referendum and with huge majority said "NO!" to Kiev and their Nazi regime. You would think that all the progressive mankind should  stop that genocide and blame Kiev for its aggression towards its own citizens? Surprise: the world is doing completely opposite...



That is an interesting point. This brings us back to the issue of unequal treatment that Scots have been subjected to. Even European Union discriminates against Scotland. Look at how EU is rolling the red carpet for Ukraine but it is the same EU which is threatening Scots against their quest for freedom. That tells you that EU was created for the benefit of select few European countries not all European countries.


----------



## Vikrant

Phoenall said:


> What a load of crap the union was formed when Scotland went bankrupt and came to England for help. A deal was struck for Scotland to become part of the UK while keeping its own identity and laws. This was acceptable and so Scotland joined the union as an equal partner after England had bailed them out. It was only with the rise of Scots nationalism and the inherent racism produced that certain hot headed Scots decided they wanted to be free of England while still keeping the money flowing in. What should have happened when Scotland devolved from the rest of Britain is the £2500 subsidy granted to every Scot should have ceased and they should have received a proportional amount of the money raised from Scots taxes and the ability to raise their own taxes on top. This would have shown just how much Scotland is indebted to Great Britain and how much the racist SNP is lying to the Scots people.



Both Scotland and England were dirt poor before they started looting other countries. English used the gold and money they looted from their colonies to bribe the Scottish elites who in turn colluded with English in destroying the social fabric of Scotland. That is why Scotland is in a state of confusion today. 

It is really 'generous' of England to take away Scotland's resources and in return throw some crumb at them like the subsidy you are talking about.


----------



## Phoenall

The scots have nothing to offer the EU that they cant get elsewhere. They have no strategic importance like the Ukraine, no arable farm lands to grow grain. The scots treatment was so unequal that they received £2,500 per person per year more than the English. So they will lose all that subsidy when they declare independence


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

The Scots would be wise to reject the EU even harder than they do the UK.


----------



## Phoenall

Vikrant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of crap the union was formed when Scotland went bankrupt and came to England for help. A deal was struck for Scotland to become part of the UK while keeping its own identity and laws. This was acceptable and so Scotland joined the union as an equal partner after England had bailed them out. It was only with the rise of Scots nationalism and the inherent racism produced that certain hot headed Scots decided they wanted to be free of England while still keeping the money flowing in. What should have happened when Scotland devolved from the rest of Britain is the £2500 subsidy granted to every Scot should have ceased and they should have received a proportional amount of the money raised from Scots taxes and the ability to raise their own taxes on top. This would have shown just how much Scotland is indebted to Great Britain and how much the racist SNP is lying to the Scots people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both Scotland and England were dirt poor before they started looting other countries. English used the gold and money they looted from their colonies to bribe the Scottish elites who in turn colluded with English in destroying the social fabric of Scotland. That is why Scotland is in a state of confusion today.
> 
> It is really 'generous' of England to take away Scotland's resources and in return throw some crumb at them like the subsidy you are talking about.
Click to expand...





Scotland was bankrupt in 1700 when it ploughed over half of its capital into the failed Darien scheme, so they had to go cap in hand to the English to bail them out. England never took anything it paid for the oil exploration out of the Unions coffers for the benefit of all British subjects, it was a Scot that gave it away to Europe. But the British government gave the Scots a £2,500 subsidy that they did not give to the English, on top of the oil wealth that went to Aberdeen. They stand to lose all that in their racist greed and good luck to them


----------



## Phoenall

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> The Scots would be wise to reject the EU even harder than they do the UK.





 Then they would be screwed as they would have no support for any future currency they might create, so would face bankruptcy as a nation all over again. They are putting all their eggs in one basket and forget that they don't have sole ownership of the oil.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Phoenall said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Scots would be wise to reject the EU even harder than they do the UK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then they would be screwed as they would have no support for any future currency they might create, so would face bankruptcy as a nation all over again. They are putting all their eggs in one basket and forget that they don't have sole ownership of the oil.
Click to expand...

Well it's not a guarantee they're going to get to use the Pound, and if they join the EU they won't be able to create their own currency. They'll be forced into the Euro.


----------



## Mindful

I watched George Galloway put his case to keep the Union.


----------



## Samson

Phoenall said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Union between Scotland and England was a union of convenience. The union was formed to exploit the colonies. It was Scotland which provided foot soldiers for most of the British colonial conquests. The wealth that both English and Scottish acquired from their joint colonial efforts convinced Scots about the merit of the union. But thing is colonies are long gone now. Money is tight.
> 
> Norway had about the same amount of oil Scotland has but unlike Scotland, Norway being a free nation was able to invest profit from oil sale into Norwegian economy. Look at results today. Norway has extremely high standard of living. On the contrary, Scotland is in bad shape. Why? Because, Scottish oil went to London. In about ten days, we will know the fate of Scotland. I personally do not care what the outcome would be. It is up to Scottish people whether they want to become free and take control of their destiny or they want to stick with the union and complaint about how unhappy they are.
> 
> Look at Ireland. There was a time when British people used to make fun of Irish people. But Ireland stuck to its character and spirit. They are doing pretty well today. And to make a point, Ireland did not have to engage in grand military conquest of any nation. They did it on their own. They could have easily joined Britain and provided foot soldiers just like Scots did but they did not.
> 
> At the end, truth always triumphs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of crap the union was formed when Scotland went bankrupt and came to England for help. A deal was struck for Scotland to become part of the UK while keeping its own identity and laws. This was acceptable and so Scotland joined the union as an equal partner after England had bailed them out. It was only with the rise of Scots nationalism and the inherent racism produced that certain hot headed Scots decided they wanted to be free of England while still keeping the money flowing in. What should have happened when Scotland devolved from the rest of Britain is the £2500 subsidy granted to every Scot should have ceased and they should have received a proportional amount of the money raised from Scots taxes and the ability to raise their own taxes on top. This would have shown just how much Scotland is indebted to Great Britain and how much the racist SNP is lying to the Scots people.
Click to expand...


By "Scotland went Bankrupt" I assume you mean that Scottish nobles lost money in their ill fated colonial adventures?


----------



## 1776

Uh Ireland isn't leaving the UK while Russia is looking west....



bodecea said:


> No different that Ireland, eh?


----------



## Toro

Samson said:


> Scotland = Oil
> 
> Black Gold under the North Sea.
> 
> England is not going to let it go anywhere.



That oil is rapidly diminishing, but the Yes side is whitewashing this.

Generally in the polls, the more educated are against this and the less educated are for it.


----------



## Toro

Vikrant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the scots get a subsidy of £2000 a year each no one can claim that Britain is richer, isn't Scotlamd part of Britain along with Wales and N.I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, great number of Scots do not feel like they are a part of UK. Economically speaking, it makes sense for Scotland to go independent. *This way they do not have to subsidize ailing English economy.*
Click to expand...


lol

Not.


----------



## Toro

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> The Scots would be wise to reject the EU even harder than they do the UK.



Scotland would likely join the EU, whereas Scottish independence would make the probability of the UK leaving greater.

As for all this oil in the North Sea

How much North Sea oil revenue can an independent Scotland extract Politics theguardian.com


----------



## Vikrant

Samson said:


> By "Scotland went Bankrupt" I assume you mean that Scottish nobles lost money in their ill fated colonial adventures?



I am not sure what he/she means by Scotland went bankrupt. The reality is both England and Scotland were dirt poor at the time their union began.  England in its attempt to rectify its poverty, started venturing out looking for new ways to generate revenue. They started arriving in India around the time India as a strong country was in its last leg. The central authority in India was disappearing fast. It lead to various warring factions in India. English started to exploit the situation by trying to establish control over territories in India. The problem was that even though India was in a chaos, it still offered stiff resistance to English. English realized that they needed much larger troop than what they had. Naturally, they approached Scots and offered them a share of the loot if Scots agreed to help English. Scots accepted the deal and the rest is history. The kind of money they were taking from India to Scotland and England totally changed their life style. They went dirt poor to rich overnight. It was this money that kept Scots in the union. Now as you can see, colonies are gone. England has only Scotland to exploit. This creates a not so very savory situation for Scots. 

What English think of Scots can be judged from this old English saying:
England is for beauty
Ireland is for wit
Welsh is for deceit
Scotland is for shit


----------



## Vikrant

Toro said:


> That oil is rapidly diminishing, but the Yes side is whitewashing this.
> 
> Generally in the polls, the more educated are against this and the less educated are for it.



That was the whole point of me bringing in oil: Scots squandered their oil wealth while Norwegians used their oil revenue to boost their economy.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Toro said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Scots would be wise to reject the EU even harder than they do the UK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotland would likely join the EU, whereas Scottish independence would make the probability of the UK leaving greater.
> 
> As for all this oil in the North Sea
> 
> How much North Sea oil revenue can an independent Scotland extract Politics theguardian.com
Click to expand...

I know, and that's why this whole independence scheme is essentially pointless.


----------



## Phoenall

Samson said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Union between Scotland and England was a union of convenience. The union was formed to exploit the colonies. It was Scotland which provided foot soldiers for most of the British colonial conquests. The wealth that both English and Scottish acquired from their joint colonial efforts convinced Scots about the merit of the union. But thing is colonies are long gone now. Money is tight.
> 
> Norway had about the same amount of oil Scotland has but unlike Scotland, Norway being a free nation was able to invest profit from oil sale into Norwegian economy. Look at results today. Norway has extremely high standard of living. On the contrary, Scotland is in bad shape. Why? Because, Scottish oil went to London. In about ten days, we will know the fate of Scotland. I personally do not care what the outcome would be. It is up to Scottish people whether they want to become free and take control of their destiny or they want to stick with the union and complaint about how unhappy they are.
> 
> Look at Ireland. There was a time when British people used to make fun of Irish people. But Ireland stuck to its character and spirit. They are doing pretty well today. And to make a point, Ireland did not have to engage in grand military conquest of any nation. They did it on their own. They could have easily joined Britain and provided foot soldiers just like Scots did but they did not.
> 
> At the end, truth always triumphs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of crap the union was formed when Scotland went bankrupt and came to England for help. A deal was struck for Scotland to become part of the UK while keeping its own identity and laws. This was acceptable and so Scotland joined the union as an equal partner after England had bailed them out. It was only with the rise of Scots nationalism and the inherent racism produced that certain hot headed Scots decided they wanted to be free of England while still keeping the money flowing in. What should have happened when Scotland devolved from the rest of Britain is the £2500 subsidy granted to every Scot should have ceased and they should have received a proportional amount of the money raised from Scots taxes and the ability to raise their own taxes on top. This would have shown just how much Scotland is indebted to Great Britain and how much the racist SNP is lying to the Scots people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By "Scotland went Bankrupt" I assume you mean that Scottish nobles lost money in their ill fated colonial adventures?
Click to expand...




 Not just the nobles but the rest of Scotland was to suffer. The failed harvests 3 years running were biting hard at the time so the thought of a fertile haven was just the thing needed by the Scots. But that is how the act of union came about. Can you see England doing it again after the Scots declare independence and then go bankrupt.


----------



## Phoenall

Vikrant said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> By "Scotland went Bankrupt" I assume you mean that Scottish nobles lost money in their ill fated colonial adventures?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what he/she means by Scotland went bankrupt. The reality is both England and Scotland were dirt poor at the time their union began.  England in its attempt to rectify its poverty, started venturing out looking for new ways to generate revenue. They started arriving in India around the time India as a strong country was in its last leg. The central authority in India was disappearing fast. It lead to various warring factions in India. English started to exploit the situation by trying to establish control over territories in India. The problem was that even though India was in a chaos, it still offered stiff resistance to English. English realized that they needed much larger troop than what they had. Naturally, they approached Scots and offered them a share of the loot if Scots agreed to help English. Scots accepted the deal and the rest is history. The kind of money they were taking from India to Scotland and England totally changed their life style. They went dirt poor to rich overnight. It was this money that kept Scots in the union. Now as you can see, colonies are gone. England has only Scotland to exploit. This creates a not so very savory situation for Scots.
> 
> What English think of Scots can be judged from this old English saying:
> England is for beauty
> Ireland is for wit
> Welsh is for deceit
> Scotland is for shit
Click to expand...






 You don't have a clue on what you are talking about. Trying looking up the Darien Scheme  for starters and see that in the 1690's Scotland tried to emulate all the other nations and create colonies in the new world. They failed and lost most of Scotlands money. So in return for the  Act of Union England bailed Scotland out.


----------



## Vikrant

Phoenall said:


> You don't have a clue on what you are talking about. Trying looking up the Darien Scheme  for starters and see that in the 1690's Scotland tried to emulate all the other nations and create colonies in the new world. They failed and lost most of Scotlands money. So in return for the  Act of Union England bailed Scotland out.



It is you who is clueless. You have absolutely no clue what solidified English hold on Scotland; it was the gold (aka money) looted from India which was used by English to coerce Scottish elites. You are just mouthing off the propaganda you have heard in your racist circle.


----------



## Samson

Toro said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scotland = Oil
> 
> Black Gold under the North Sea.
> 
> England is not going to let it go anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That oil is rapidly diminishing, but the Yes side is whitewashing this.
> 
> Generally in the polls, the more educated are against this and the less educated are for it.
Click to expand...


"Rapidly Diminishing" doesn't mean N. Sea Oil will disappear tomorrow, or within the next decade.

The UK will continue to need this strategic resource after September 18, 2014, thus, there will be no Independent Scotland.


----------



## Samson

Phoenall said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> By "Scotland went Bankrupt" I assume you mean that Scottish nobles lost money in their ill fated colonial adventures?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what he/she means by Scotland went bankrupt. The reality is both England and Scotland were dirt poor at the time their union began.  England in its attempt to rectify its poverty, started venturing out looking for new ways to generate revenue. They started arriving in India around the time India as a strong country was in its last leg. The central authority in India was disappearing fast. It lead to various warring factions in India. English started to exploit the situation by trying to establish control over territories in India. The problem was that even though India was in a chaos, it still offered stiff resistance to English. English realized that they needed much larger troop than what they had. Naturally, they approached Scots and offered them a share of the loot if Scots agreed to help English. Scots accepted the deal and the rest is history. The kind of money they were taking from India to Scotland and England totally changed their life style. They went dirt poor to rich overnight. It was this money that kept Scots in the union. Now as you can see, colonies are gone. England has only Scotland to exploit. This creates a not so very savory situation for Scots.
> 
> What English think of Scots can be judged from this old English saying:
> England is for beauty
> Ireland is for wit
> Welsh is for deceit
> Scotland is for shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have a clue on what you are talking about. Trying looking up the Darien Scheme  for starters and see that in the 1690's Scotland tried to emulate all the other nations and create colonies in the new world. They failed and lost most of Scotlands money. So in return for the  Act of Union England bailed Scotland out.
Click to expand...


All good points (although I'd quibble over the total loss being less than "most of Scotland's money"). It was a large debt, and in the Act of Union, England made sure Scotland was taxed, in part, to pay down the debt.

How this could possibly be relevant more than 350 years after the event, I couldn't possibly imagine. Americans do not have the European capacity to continue centuries-old grudges.


----------



## Phoenall

Vikrant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have a clue on what you are talking about. Trying looking up the Darien Scheme  for starters and see that in the 1690's Scotland tried to emulate all the other nations and create colonies in the new world. They failed and lost most of Scotlands money. So in return for the  Act of Union England bailed Scotland out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is you who is clueless. You have absolutely no clue what solidified English hold on Scotland; it was the gold (aka money) looted from India which was used by English to coerce Scottish elites. You are just mouthing off the propaganda you have heard in your racist circle.
Click to expand...





BULLSHIT it was the failed colony of the Darien project that led to Scotland going cap in hand to England to pull them out of the shit. India had nothing to do with it at all. India happened 160 years after the Act of Union


----------



## Phoenall

Samson said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scotland = Oil
> 
> Black Gold under the North Sea.
> 
> England is not going to let it go anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That oil is rapidly diminishing, but the Yes side is whitewashing this.
> 
> Generally in the polls, the more educated are against this and the less educated are for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Rapidly Diminishing" doesn't mean N. Sea Oil will disappear tomorrow, or within the next decade.
> 
> The UK will continue to need this strategic resource after September 18, 2014, thus, there will be no Independent Scotland.
Click to expand...





 A pity then that the scots who were in power for most of the 1990's and early 2000's gave all the oil away in return for more debt to pay the welfare bills of the immigrants. Why are we so reliant on Russian gas when we have so much under the North Sea. Why do we import so much of our oil from other nations at sky high prices if we have so much under the North sea.


----------



## Phoenall

Samson said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> By "Scotland went Bankrupt" I assume you mean that Scottish nobles lost money in their ill fated colonial adventures?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what he/she means by Scotland went bankrupt. The reality is both England and Scotland were dirt poor at the time their union began.  England in its attempt to rectify its poverty, started venturing out looking for new ways to generate revenue. They started arriving in India around the time India as a strong country was in its last leg. The central authority in India was disappearing fast. It lead to various warring factions in India. English started to exploit the situation by trying to establish control over territories in India. The problem was that even though India was in a chaos, it still offered stiff resistance to English. English realized that they needed much larger troop than what they had. Naturally, they approached Scots and offered them a share of the loot if Scots agreed to help English. Scots accepted the deal and the rest is history. The kind of money they were taking from India to Scotland and England totally changed their life style. They went dirt poor to rich overnight. It was this money that kept Scots in the union. Now as you can see, colonies are gone. England has only Scotland to exploit. This creates a not so very savory situation for Scots.
> 
> What English think of Scots can be judged from this old English saying:
> England is for beauty
> Ireland is for wit
> Welsh is for deceit
> Scotland is for shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have a clue on what you are talking about. Trying looking up the Darien Scheme  for starters and see that in the 1690's Scotland tried to emulate all the other nations and create colonies in the new world. They failed and lost most of Scotlands money. So in return for the  Act of Union England bailed Scotland out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All good points (although I'd quibble over the total loss being less than "most of Scotland's money"). It was a large debt, and in the Act of Union, England made sure Scotland was taxed, in part, to pay down the debt.
> 
> How this could possibly be relevant more than 350 years after the event, I couldn't possibly imagine. Americans do not have the European capacity to continue centuries-old grudges.
Click to expand...





It is all down to Scots racism towards the English that has been ongoing since the Act of Union, without which Scotland would have faced destitution and saw most of its population die through starvation.


----------



## Toro

Samson said:


> "Rapidly Diminishing" doesn't mean N. Sea Oil will disappear tomorrow, or within the next decade.
> 
> The UK will continue to need this strategic resource after September 18, 2014, thus, there will be no Independent Scotland.



Oil production is down something like 70% since 1999.


----------



## 1776

I would love to see the English pound fall, since it would make my trips there cheaper.


----------



## montelatici

This is a serious thing.  If the Scots vote to remain with the UK, they will have to shut up and never again praise the Bruce, Mary Queen of Scots etc.  I don't know what i would do if I were Scottish.  I suspect the Basques and the Catalans are envying the Scots now.  And the Irish, if they had waited they might have been able to have the whole island.


----------



## 1776

but tell us shitstain, are the imaginary "Nazis" in Ukraine really behind this too.....



montelatici said:


> This is a serious thing.  If the Scots vote to remain with the UK, they will have to shut up and never again praise the Bruce, Mary Queen of Scots etc.  I don't know what i would do if I were Scottish.  I suspect the Basques and the Catalans are envying the Scots now.  And the Irish, if they had waited they might have been able to have the whole island.


----------



## JWBooth

Alba gu bràth!


----------



## 1776

Maybe Putin will have to send his "little green men" to Scotland to appease the locals.....


----------



## Vikrant

Phoenall said:


> BULLSHIT it was the failed colony of the Darien project that led to Scotland going cap in hand to England to pull them out of the shit. India had nothing to do with it at all. India happened 160 years after the Act of Union



English started to arrive in India in 1600. They started to get foot foothold in India around late 1600. But as I said earlier, they lacked  adequate troop level to do the job. They made a proposal to Scots to join them in loot of India franchise called East India Company. Scots accepted that proposal around 1707. After that, shares in East India Company were extended to Scots (elites). That is when your union was formed. Fueled by Scottish troops, resurgent English started to build a game plan to control Indian territories. Their first major victory came in the battle of Plassey in 1757 when they captured Bengal. As a matter of fact the dude, Cornwallis who commanded the British troop in India was sent over to the U.S. to quell the rebellion here. That was sometime after 1760. However, Cornwallis was defeated by George Washington in 1781 and that was the end of the climax of his career. 

That is the timeline for you.


----------



## Samson

Toro said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Rapidly Diminishing" doesn't mean N. Sea Oil will disappear tomorrow, or within the next decade.
> 
> The UK will continue to need this strategic resource after September 18, 2014, thus, there will be no Independent Scotland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oil production is down something like 70% since 1999.
Click to expand...


Yes, and its projected to decrease from today's production by 50% by about 2021. What's your point? England should just give up Scotland and control of strategic resources today because production will be down tomorrow? Better to wait until 2030, after there's nothing left.


----------



## Vikrant

If there is still oil left then it will be very irresponsible for Scottish to squander that. They should gain their independence. Use the oil money to invest in their infrastructure just like Norway did. This will raise the standard of living in Scotland just like it did in Norway. Norway today has extremely high standard of living.


----------



## Vikrant

Samson said:


> Yes, and its projected to decrease from today's production by 50% by about 2021. What's your point? England should just give up Scotland and control of strategic resources today because production will be down tomorrow? Better to wait until 2030, after there's nothing left.



I do not think England has a say in it. The decision will be entirely of Scottish people. This a referendum not a war.


----------



## Vandalshandle

I'm a yank, with Scot/Irish heritage. From that perspective, I tend to lean toward Scottish independence.

 Yet, as a yank, I admire and respect the United Kingdom, as center of the history of English speaking people's traditions. Us Americans really like the traditions and history of the UK. With only a couple hundred years on our own, it is fascinating to see UK tradition go so far back in time.

The bottom line is that I don't know enough about the economies involved, so, I guess that this yank would simply make the emotional appeal of, "Don't change a thing, UK!"


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> This is a serious thing.  If the Scots vote to remain with the UK, they will have to shut up and never again praise the Bruce, Mary Queen of Scots etc.  I don't know what i would do if I were Scottish.  I suspect the Basques and the Catalans are envying the Scots now.  And the Irish, if they had waited they might have been able to have the whole island.





 You do know that the Scots are the most anti muslim nation in the world after what happened to Kris Donald, and they will beat the living crap out of any muslim they find.  So don't go there if you value your health


----------



## Phoenall

Vikrant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT it was the failed colony of the Darien project that led to Scotland going cap in hand to England to pull them out of the shit. India had nothing to do with it at all. India happened 160 years after the Act of Union
> 
> 
> 
> 
> English started to arrive in India in 1600. They started to get foot foothold in India around late 1600. But as I said earlier, they lacked  adequate troop level to do the job. They made a proposal to Scots to join them in loot of India franchise called East India Company. Scots accepted that proposal around 1707. After that, shares in East India Company were extended to Scots (elites). That is when your union was formed. Fueled by Scottish troops, resurgent English started to build a game plan to control Indian territories. Their first major victory came in the battle of Plassey in 1757 when they captured Bengal. As a matter of fact the dude, Cornwallis who commanded the British troop in India was sent over to the U.S. to quell the rebellion here. That was sometime after 1760. However, Cornwallis was defeated by George Washington in 1781 and that was the end of the climax of his career.
> 
> That is the timeline for you.
Click to expand...




The English arrived in India to trade as private concerns, not as a national body. They started the East India Company to trade in spice in 1600. The Dutch became the majority party after the English left in 1622. This was the case until William of Orange became King of England and the wars between England and the Dutch ended. The English trade in textiles overtook the trade in spice and became the most lucrative. It was not until 1757 when England went to war in India and it was from this point on they realised they could defeat India by taking it one small province at a time. So you see it was nothing to do with the Scots and they played no role in the matter until the start of the RAJ in 1858.


----------



## Phoenall

Vikrant said:


> If there is still oil left then it will be very irresponsible for Scottish to squander that. They should gain their independence. Use the oil money to invest in their infrastructure just like Norway did. This will raise the standard of living in Scotland just like it did in Norway. Norway today has extremely high standard of living.






You might be able to read, but you don't understand what you are reading. A high standard of living comes at a cost, and in this case it means higher prices. So a chicken fillet costing $1 in the US will cost $10 in Norway.


----------



## Phoenall

Vikrant said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and its projected to decrease from today's production by 50% by about 2021. What's your point? England should just give up Scotland and control of strategic resources today because production will be down tomorrow? Better to wait until 2030, after there's nothing left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think England has a say in it. The decision will be entirely of Scottish people. This a referendum not a war.
Click to expand...




IT does and it will pull the plug on Scotland if things look like going bad. For a start most of the platforms are to the south of the border making then English ( the land borders run from the south west to the north east at about 35 degrees) and the only reason Aberdeen was chosen was because it was the closest deep water port in the UK.


----------



## Toro

montelatici said:


> This is a serious thing.  If the Scots vote to remain with the UK, they will have to shut up and never again praise the Bruce, Mary Queen of Scots etc.  I don't know what i would do if I were Scottish.  I suspect the Basques and the Catalans are envying the Scots now.  And the Irish, if they had waited they might have been able to have the whole island.



Don't be silly.


----------



## Toro

Samson said:


> Yes, and its projected to decrease from today's production by 50% by about 2021. What's your point? England should just give up Scotland and control of strategic resources today because production will be down tomorrow? Better to wait until 2030, after there's nothing left.



The point is that the oil revenue projections for an independent Scotland that the SNP have been making are likely too optimistic.


----------



## Toro

Vikrant said:


> I do not think England has a say in it. The decision will be entirely of Scottish people. This a referendum not a war.



Borders are negotiable.


----------



## Samson

Toro said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and its projected to decrease from today's production by 50% by about 2021. What's your point? England should just give up Scotland and control of strategic resources today because production will be down tomorrow? Better to wait until 2030, after there's nothing left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that the oil revenue projections for an independent Scotland that the SNP have been making are likely too optimistic.
Click to expand...


Oil revenue projections for the USA in 2001 were said to be optimistic: Technology changed the future. Whether that may happen in N. Sea: Who really knows? Regardless of the projection, GB cannot simply give strategic resources away to an independent Scotland.


----------



## Samson

Vikrant said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and its projected to decrease from today's production by 50% by about 2021. What's your point? England should just give up Scotland and control of strategic resources today because production will be down tomorrow? Better to wait until 2030, after there's nothing left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think England has a say in it. The decision will be entirely of Scottish people. This a referendum not a war.
Click to expand...


"Not think England has a say?"





Have you read any English History?


----------



## Samson

Toro said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think England has a say in it. The decision will be entirely of Scottish people. This a referendum not a war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borders are negotiable.
Click to expand...


Having an Army and a Navy makes border negotiations much easier.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Toro said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and its projected to decrease from today's production by 50% by about 2021. What's your point? England should just give up Scotland and control of strategic resources today because production will be down tomorrow? Better to wait until 2030, after there's nothing left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that the oil revenue projections for an independent Scotland that the SNP have been making are likely too optimistic.
Click to expand...

Just about every claim made by the SNP has been nonsense.


----------



## Toro

In fairness, some of the claims on the other side are nonsense too. 

Is Scotland economically viable?  Of course it is. There will be no collapse of the Scottish economy. But it could certainly be disruptive, and Scotland will likely be relatively poorer over time.


----------



## Rotagilla

Nothing is static. Scotland would survive just fine..It would have friendly nations lining up to help them.

If they vote to peacefully withdraw, they should be allowed to do so.

...unlike what happened in the war of northern aggression in the u.s.


----------



## bendog

Let them eat haggis  (-:


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Toro said:


> In fairness, some of the claims on the other side are nonsense too.
> 
> Is Scotland economically viable?  Of course it is. There will be no collapse of the Scottish economy. But it could certainly be disruptive, and Scotland will likely be relatively poorer over time.


Well yes, I support Scottish independence despite thinking the SNP are con-men.


----------



## Toro

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness, some of the claims on the other side are nonsense too.
> 
> Is Scotland economically viable?  Of course it is. There will be no collapse of the Scottish economy. But it could certainly be disruptive, and Scotland will likely be relatively poorer over time.
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, I support Scottish independence despite thinking the SNP are con-men.
Click to expand...


I don't.  And I have more Scottish blood in me than anything.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Toro said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness, some of the claims on the other side are nonsense too.
> 
> Is Scotland economically viable?  Of course it is. There will be no collapse of the Scottish economy. But it could certainly be disruptive, and Scotland will likely be relatively poorer over time.
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, I support Scottish independence despite thinking the SNP are con-men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't.  And I have more Scottish blood in me than anything.
Click to expand...

Well I'm at least a quarter Italian, so that's probably the biggest single nationality I have, but Scottish would be second. Though my reasons for supporting Scottish independence aren't for any Scottish blood that I have, but merely on the basis that I support pretty much any peaceful secession, Scotland, Venetia, Quebec, etc... I think Scotland leaving the UK would be good because I think it would create a bit of competition between the two, which I think can only lead to good things for the people living there. What remains of the UK would be more conservative, and Scotland would be more progressive, and I think they'd be able to check each other better. I think it would also lead what remains of the UK to a more sensible foreign policy rather than simply being a pawn of the US, but that may be wishful thinking, admittedly.


----------



## Vikrant

Phoenall said:


> You might be able to read, but you don't understand what you are reading. A high standard of living comes at a cost, and in this case it means higher prices. So a chicken fillet costing $1 in the US will cost $10 in Norway.



Britain is a very propaganda centric society. The drawback of societies like that is people grow up believing those propaganda. However, when they come face to face with the truth, it irritates them because it just does not conform to their world view. The result is often name calling or obnoxious behavior such as what we are seeing reflected in your posts. If you act civilized, I will engage in discourse with you but if you act rude and obnoxious then you can talk to the hand.


----------



## gipper

Rotagilla said:


> Nothing is static. Scotland would survive just fine..It would have friendly nations lining up to help them.
> 
> If they vote to peacefully withdraw, they should be allowed to do so.
> 
> ...unlike what happened in the war of northern aggression in the u.s.



We can only hope the Scots leave the UK.  That should help secessionist movements worldwide.  Too bad the Frenchies in Quebec, did not secede.  That might have triggered secessionist movements in the USA.


----------



## Vikrant

Samson said:


> "Not think England has a say?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read any English History?



Dude, you got to be kidding me. I doubt anybody on this forum knows more than me when it comes to what English elites are capable of. 

We are talking about a referendum here. Yes, English have no say in it. And, it is also true that the elites whose interests are served by  the union will resort to all sorts of antics to prevent the independence of Scotland. But if you think there will be military intervention from English and Wales to prevent the Scottish independence then you are wrong. But it will be very interesting to see if that happens. 

Coming back to Scottish independence: Scottish people are a staunch supporters of Israel. If they are an independent nation, they will be free to offer more moral and diplomatic support to Israel or else their support for Israel will be moderated by the factions in the union which tend to be pro Arab.


----------



## Vikrant

Phoenall said:


> The English arrived in India to trade as private concerns, not as a national body. They started the East India Company to trade in spice in 1600. The Dutch became the majority party after the English left in 1622. This was the case until William of Orange became King of England and the wars between England and the Dutch ended. The English trade in textiles overtook the trade in spice and became the most lucrative. It was not until 1757 when England went to war in India and it was from this point on they realised they could defeat India by taking it one small province at a time. So you see it was nothing to do with the Scots and they played no role in the matter until the start of the RAJ in 1858.



I gave you the entire timeline and then you come up with this. It does not seem like you are interested in an objective discussion. This is my last post on this subject. You can talk to the hand now.


----------



## Rotagilla

gipper said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is static. Scotland would survive just fine..It would have friendly nations lining up to help them.
> 
> If they vote to peacefully withdraw, they should be allowed to do so.
> 
> ...unlike what happened in the war of northern aggression in the u.s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can only hope the Scots leave the UK.  That should help secessionist movements worldwide.  Too bad the Frenchies in Quebec, did not secede.  That might have triggered secessionist movements in the USA.
Click to expand...


There was something going on in Spain a while back, too?...Catalonia wanted to secede, I think?

Our time is coming again...


----------



## Vikrant

I heard this joke about the Scottish independence:

Scotland: I am leaving you ...

Britain: You can't ...

Scotland: I am leaving. It is over ...

Britain: I am pregnant ...

It was hash tagged as #RoyalBaby


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Rotagilla said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is static. Scotland would survive just fine..It would have friendly nations lining up to help them.
> 
> If they vote to peacefully withdraw, they should be allowed to do so.
> 
> ...unlike what happened in the war of northern aggression in the u.s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can only hope the Scots leave the UK.  That should help secessionist movements worldwide.  Too bad the Frenchies in Quebec, did not secede.  That might have triggered secessionist movements in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was something going on in Spain a while back, too?...Catalonia wanted to secede, I think?
> 
> Our time is coming again...
Click to expand...

Catalonia Wants to Pull a Scotland Too - Yahoo News

They still want to.


----------



## Vikrant

It does not matter which way the vote goes, it is certain that Scots are not happy. Sooner or later this union will break. Scottish are very different sort of people than English.


----------



## Samson

Vikrant said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Not think England has a say?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read any English History?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you got to be kidding me. I doubt anybody on this forum knows more than me when it comes to what English elites are capable of.
> 
> We are talking about a referendum here. Yes, English have no say in it. And, it is also true that the elites whose interests are served by  the union will resort to all sorts of antics to prevent the independence of Scotland. But if you think there will be military intervention from English and Wales to prevent the Scottish independence then you are wrong. But it will be very interesting to see if that happens.
> 
> Coming back to Scottish independence: Scottish people are a staunch supporters of Israel. If they are an independent nation, they will be free to offer more moral and diplomatic support to Israel or else their support for Israel will be moderated by the factions in the union which tend to be pro Arab.
Click to expand...


Did I say I thought England would use a military option?

No.

If you knew a fraction about the English elites' capabilities, then you would know they have many other options and have always been able to exercise them.

Scotland and Israel? WTF?

Try to focus. Get back on your prescription.


----------



## Phoenall

Toro said:


> In fairness, some of the claims on the other side are nonsense too.
> 
> Is Scotland economically viable?  Of course it is. There will be no collapse of the Scottish economy. But it could certainly be disruptive, and Scotland will likely be relatively poorer over time.






What Scots economy, why do you think they want to still be in the British economy and use the British pound. Any currency they have will be new and unproven so not do very well on the market, unless they use the Euro


----------



## Phoenall

Vikrant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might be able to read, but you don't understand what you are reading. A high standard of living comes at a cost, and in this case it means higher prices. So a chicken fillet costing $1 in the US will cost $10 in Norway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Britain is a very propaganda centric society. The drawback of societies like that is people grow up believing those propaganda. However, when they come face to face with the truth, it irritates them because it just does not conform to their world view. The result is often name calling or obnoxious behavior such as what we are seeing reflected in your posts. If you act civilized, I will engage in discourse with you but if you act rude and obnoxious then you can talk to the hand.
Click to expand...




 Like the propaganda spoon fed by the neo Marxists all those years regarding the Pakistani muslim men raping children, when the truth was known it made it ten times worse and now muslims are hated for what they did.


----------



## Phoenall

Vikrant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The English arrived in India to trade as private concerns, not as a national body. They started the East India Company to trade in spice in 1600. The Dutch became the majority party after the English left in 1622. This was the case until William of Orange became King of England and the wars between England and the Dutch ended. The English trade in textiles overtook the trade in spice and became the most lucrative. It was not until 1757 when England went to war in India and it was from this point on they realised they could defeat India by taking it one small province at a time. So you see it was nothing to do with the Scots and they played no role in the matter until the start of the RAJ in 1858.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you the entire timeline and then you come up with this. It does not seem like you are interested in an objective discussion. This is my last post on this subject. You can talk to the hand now.
Click to expand...



What you gave was a fantasy world of your own making that has no bearing on reality. The Act of Union was signed before any wars in India, and the British saw how easy it was to take each small province one at a time. The Scots were not involved until 1858 after the Indian Rebellion of1857.
 I may as well talk to the hand it has more brains than the rest


----------



## Phoenall

Rotagilla said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is static. Scotland would survive just fine..It would have friendly nations lining up to help them.
> 
> If they vote to peacefully withdraw, they should be allowed to do so.
> 
> ...unlike what happened in the war of northern aggression in the u.s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can only hope the Scots leave the UK.  That should help secessionist movements worldwide.  Too bad the Frenchies in Quebec, did not secede.  That might have triggered secessionist movements in the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was something going on in Spain a while back, too?...Catalonia wanted to secede, I think?
> 
> Our time is coming again...
Click to expand...



 Basque separatists is what you are looking for, and they have used terrorist bombings against innocents to force the issue. Like all terrorists they should be shot and we should never negotiate with them.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Phoenall said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness, some of the claims on the other side are nonsense too.
> 
> Is Scotland economically viable?  Of course it is. There will be no collapse of the Scottish economy. But it could certainly be disruptive, and Scotland will likely be relatively poorer over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Scots economy, why do you think they want to still be in the British economy and use the British pound. Any currency they have will be new and unproven so not do very well on the market, unless they use the Euro
Click to expand...

One of the SNP's main claims is that they'll still be able to use the Pound, but that's not clear, and if they join the EU without being allowed to use the Pound they'll be forced into the Euro. They may be forced into the Euro even if they are permitted to use the Pound, frankly. Which is why they should avoid the EU and maybe try to get into the EFTA instead.


----------



## Rotagilla

Samson said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Not think England has a say?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read any English History?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you got to be kidding me. I doubt anybody on this forum knows more than me when it comes to what English elites are capable of.
> 
> We are talking about a referendum here. Yes, English have no say in it. And, it is also true that the elites whose interests are served by  the union will resort to all sorts of antics to prevent the independence of Scotland. But if you think there will be military intervention from English and Wales to prevent the Scottish independence then you are wrong. But it will be very interesting to see if that happens.
> 
> Coming back to Scottish independence: Scottish people are a staunch supporters of Israel. If they are an independent nation, they will be free to offer more moral and diplomatic support to Israel or else their support for Israel will be moderated by the factions in the union which tend to be pro Arab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say I thought England would use a military option?
> 
> No.
> 
> If you knew a fraction about the English elites' capabilities, then you would know they have many other options and have always been able to exercise them.
> 
> Scotland and Israel? WTF?
> 
> Try to focus. Get back on your prescription.
Click to expand...




Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness, some of the claims on the other side are nonsense too.
> 
> Is Scotland economically viable?  Of course it is. There will be no collapse of the Scottish economy. But it could certainly be disruptive, and Scotland will likely be relatively poorer over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Scots economy, why do you think they want to still be in the British economy and use the British pound. Any currency they have will be new and unproven so not do very well on the market, unless they use the Euro
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the SNP's main claims is that they'll still be able to use the Pound, but that's not clear, and if they join the EU without being allowed to use the Pound they'll be forced into the Euro. They may be forced into the Euro even if they are permitted to use the Pound, frankly. Which is why they should avoid the EU and maybe try to get into the EFTA instead.
Click to expand...


They should avoid nato and the EU..Otherwise they'll be flooded with 3rd world immigrants to "culturally enrich" them...not to mention gay "rights" and other moral and cultural poisons "progressives" like so much.

Hold fast to your culture and morals. Resist marxist social engineering, "diversity" and "multiculturalism".


----------



## Vikrant

Samson said:


> Did I say I thought England would use a military option?
> 
> No.
> 
> If you knew a fraction about the English elites' capabilities, then you would know they have many other options and have always been able to exercise them.
> 
> Scotland and Israel? WTF?
> 
> Try to focus. Get back on your prescription.



You are one confused cat. If you had read the whole thread you would have known that I have already mentioned that UK elites will try any antics to prevent Scottish independence. This may be a big news for your little brain but I have known it for a while. 

Only people in British isles who are staunch supporter of Israel are Scots. If they are independent, Israel will have one more vote in the UN. Last time there was no country but the US who voted in favor of Israel. Don't you think it will be better if there were one more country which would stand up for Israel?


----------



## Rotagilla

Vikrant said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say I thought England would use a military option?
> 
> No.
> 
> If you knew a fraction about the English elites' capabilities, then you would know they have many other options and have always been able to exercise them.
> 
> Scotland and Israel? WTF?
> 
> Try to focus. Get back on your prescription.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are one confused cat. If you had read the whole thread you would have known that I have already mentioned that UK elites will try any antics to prevent Scottish independence. This may be a big news for your little brain but I have known it for a while.
> 
> Only people in British isles who are staunch supporter of Israel are Scots. If they are independent, Israel will have one more vote in the UN. Last time there was no country but the US who voted in favor of Israel. Don't you think it will be better if there were one more country which would stand up for Israel?
Click to expand...


Israel can sink or swim on their own. We've wasted too much money and lives fighting for israel by proxy in the ME.
We don't need israel for anything and we don't need anything in the ME.


----------



## Samson

Vikrant said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say I thought England would use a military option?
> 
> No.
> 
> If you knew a fraction about the English elites' capabilities, then you would know they have many other options and have always been able to exercise them.
> 
> Scotland and Israel? WTF?
> 
> Try to focus. Get back on your prescription.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are one confused cat. If you had read the whole thread you would have known that I have already mentioned that UK elites will try any antics to prevent Scottish independence. This may be a big news for your little brain but I have known it for a while.
> 
> Only people in British isles who are staunch supporter of Israel are Scots. If they are independent, Israel will have one more vote in the UN. Last time there was no country but the US who voted in favor of Israel. Don't you think it will be better if there were one more country which would stand up for Israel?
Click to expand...


Linking the argument for Scottish independence to the survival of Israel is absurdly tangential and only adds doubt to the credibility of what might otherwise be reasonable arguments for independence.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Rotagilla said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Not think England has a say?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read any English History?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you got to be kidding me. I doubt anybody on this forum knows more than me when it comes to what English elites are capable of.
> 
> We are talking about a referendum here. Yes, English have no say in it. And, it is also true that the elites whose interests are served by  the union will resort to all sorts of antics to prevent the independence of Scotland. But if you think there will be military intervention from English and Wales to prevent the Scottish independence then you are wrong. But it will be very interesting to see if that happens.
> 
> Coming back to Scottish independence: Scottish people are a staunch supporters of Israel. If they are an independent nation, they will be free to offer more moral and diplomatic support to Israel or else their support for Israel will be moderated by the factions in the union which tend to be pro Arab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say I thought England would use a military option?
> 
> No.
> 
> If you knew a fraction about the English elites' capabilities, then you would know they have many other options and have always been able to exercise them.
> 
> Scotland and Israel? WTF?
> 
> Try to focus. Get back on your prescription.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness, some of the claims on the other side are nonsense too.
> 
> Is Scotland economically viable?  Of course it is. There will be no collapse of the Scottish economy. But it could certainly be disruptive, and Scotland will likely be relatively poorer over time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Scots economy, why do you think they want to still be in the British economy and use the British pound. Any currency they have will be new and unproven so not do very well on the market, unless they use the Euro
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the SNP's main claims is that they'll still be able to use the Pound, but that's not clear, and if they join the EU without being allowed to use the Pound they'll be forced into the Euro. They may be forced into the Euro even if they are permitted to use the Pound, frankly. Which is why they should avoid the EU and maybe try to get into the EFTA instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They should avoid nato and the EU..Otherwise they'll be flooded with 3rd world immigrants to "culturally enrich" them...not to mention gay "rights" and other moral and cultural poisons "progressives" like so much.
> 
> Hold fast to your culture and morals. Resist marxist social engineering, "diversity" and "multiculturalism".
Click to expand...

They should avoid the EU because the idea of an independent Scotland is so that Scots can govern themselves, which would be impossible if they throw off the national government of the UK only to replace it for the international government of the EU. Additionally, the Euro is a nightmare they should want to stay away from.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Vikrant said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say I thought England would use a military option?
> 
> No.
> 
> If you knew a fraction about the English elites' capabilities, then you would know they have many other options and have always been able to exercise them.
> 
> Scotland and Israel? WTF?
> 
> Try to focus. Get back on your prescription.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are one confused cat. If you had read the whole thread you would have known that I have already mentioned that UK elites will try any antics to prevent Scottish independence. This may be a big news for your little brain but I have known it for a while.
> 
> Only people in British isles who are staunch supporter of Israel are Scots. If they are independent, Israel will have one more vote in the UN. Last time there was no country but the US who voted in favor of Israel. Don't you think it will be better if there were one more country which would stand up for Israel?
Click to expand...

An independent Scotland will have little leverage in the UN, so it really won't much matter.


----------



## bendog

If they leave, I think that Billy Connolly would say "they foked themselves in their bullocks."  (-:


----------



## Vikrant

Samson said:


> Linking the argument for Scottish independence to the survival of Israel is absurdly tangential and only adds doubt to the credibility of what might otherwise be reasonable arguments for independence.



I agree. 

The best incentive for Scots to break away from the union would be the Scottish interests themselves. 

And, it is not just oil which makes Scotland wealthier than England and Wales; there are a host of other things. Scotland's per capital income is $40K which is much higher than England's. Scotland is pretty much subsidizing England and Wales at the moment. That is why there will be all attempts to prevent the Scottish independence. 

The Scottish economy in ten essential charts - Telegraph


----------



## Vikrant

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> They should avoid the EU because the idea of an independent Scotland is so that Scots can govern themselves, which would be impossible if they throw off the national government of the UK only to replace it for the international government of the EU. Additionally, the Euro is a nightmare they should want to stay away from.



European union is not a sustainable entity. There is irreconcilable disparity among member states.


----------



## Samson

Vikrant said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Linking the argument for Scottish independence to the survival of Israel is absurdly tangential and only adds doubt to the credibility of what might otherwise be reasonable arguments for independence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> The best incentive for Scots to break away from the union would be the Scottish interests themselves.
> 
> And, it is not just oil which makes Scotland wealthier than England and Wales; there are a host of other things. Scotland's per capital income is $40K which is much higher than England's. Scotland is pretty much subsidizing England and Wales at the moment. That is why there will be all attempts to prevent the Scottish independence.
> 
> The Scottish economy in ten essential charts - Telegraph
Click to expand...


Indeed.

And from your link I found this extremely interesting:

_But with the likes of the __Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds__ already saying they would re-domicile to England in the event of a Yes vote, this would substantially reducing the new economy's exposure to bank failure, while causing the ratio of banking assets to GDP in the rest of the UK to shoot up.
_​I'm not certain the reduction in exposure would necessarily be a good thing, considering that there doesn't seem to be anything to take the place of this much business unless world wide demand for Scotch and Plaid Wool Clothing skyrockets.


----------



## Vikrant

^ Banks can move or re-register themselves in England. The important thing is they cannot take Scottish share of money. I do not think anyone is saying that Scotland's income will go up. What the yes campaign is saying that they will get to keep the money they make.


----------



## Phoenall

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness, some of the claims on the other side are nonsense too.
> 
> Is Scotland economically viable?  Of course it is. There will be no collapse of the Scottish economy. But it could certainly be disruptive, and Scotland will likely be relatively poorer over time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Scots economy, why do you think they want to still be in the British economy and use the British pound. Any currency they have will be new and unproven so not do very well on the market, unless they use the Euro
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the SNP's main claims is that they'll still be able to use the Pound, but that's not clear, and if they join the EU without being allowed to use the Pound they'll be forced into the Euro. They may be forced into the Euro even if they are permitted to use the Pound, frankly. Which is why they should avoid the EU and maybe try to get into the EFTA instead.
Click to expand...





 Have you seen their economy and cost of living, they even ration alcohol and charge extremely high prices for it.


----------



## Indofred

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> One of the SNP's main claims is that they'll still be able to use the Pound,.



They can, but without any guarantees.


----------



## Indofred

Most people seems to be missing the biggest issue here.
All this stuff about use of the pound, oil tax revenue and the rest is smoke.
The real issue will be the governments they saddle themselves with.
The place will be full of left wing arseholes, totally unable to organise a piss up in a brewery, and absolutely no clue how to run an economy.
It's nothing to do with what they have today, or will have if they sod off out of the UK, it's the massive waste they'll commit to if they actually get power,
As with all left wing idiots, they'll be going to the IMF in no time.


----------



## Vikrant

Reasons for Scottish independence go beyond just simple economics. Scottish people have different ambitions and goals than English people. There are major cultural differences. The union was a bizarre event to begin with. It was primarily fueled by colonial era loots which corrupted Scottish elites in abandoning their national identity. The money was making Scottish elites and English put their differences aside. Now, the money is tight and everyone has to fend for himself. So at this stage, Scottish believe that it is in their best interest to go independent so that Scottish resources can be channeled to further Scottish interests. 

This is a good opportunity for Scots to chart our their own destiny. English have always been racist towards them. I do not see any reason why Scots should put with this. 

As far as NATO and EU is concerned, I do not see why Scotland cannot join either or both of them if they see such an act beneficial to their aspirations.


----------



## Vikrant

People seem to be taking it humorously. 

Independence on Twitter Scotland I m leaving you... Britain You can t Scotland I m leaving. It s over. Britain ... I m pregnant RoyalBaby


----------



## Vikrant

Scottish folks are galvanized. There was a protest in front of BBC expressing concerns over BBC bias. 

---







BBC News - Scottish independence Crowd protests against BBC bias


----------



## Indofred

Vikrant said:


> Reasons for Scottish independence go beyond just simple economics. Scottish people have different ambitions and goals than English people. There are major cultural differences.



That applies to the people of Allah's own county, Yorkshire.
Yes, history was a bastard, but that doesn't excuse new stupidity.
As for the man himself, he's a legend in his own mind.
This biography show the man behind the words.
Alex Salmond - Uncyclopedia the content-free encyclopedia


----------



## Indofred

More seriously, the 140,000 quid a jear fat fucker, proposes taxes.
Alex Salmond s local income tax to cost families 550 extra - Telegraph


> Families with two earners face a £550 hike in their bills for council services under Alex Salmond’s plans to introduce a local income tax in an independent Scotland, the Telegraph can disclose today.
> 
> Impartial economists in the Scottish Parliament’s Information Centre (SPICe) calculated the levy would have to be set at 5.4p in the pound to replace the revenue raised by council tax – almost double the rate the SNP originally proposed.
> 
> A worker earning the average Scottish salary of £25,729 would pay £849.37 per year, according to the calculations, meaning a family with two average breadwinners would face a bill of £1,698.74.



But the good news is, it'll hardly touch his salary, so he'll be fine.


----------



## Phoenall

Vikrant said:


> ^ Banks can move or re-register themselves in England. The important thing is they cannot take Scottish share of money. I do not think anyone is saying that Scotland's income will go up. What the yes campaign is saying that they will get to keep the money they make.





 What share of the money as Scotland does not have a bank to prop up its economy, which is why they want the pound sterling. Do you know that the British government safeguards all savings in British banks to a maximum of £50,000. This is what Scotland wants the pound and the Bank of England for, because Salmond knows that his plans are doomed from the start. So if Scotland fails so will the banks along with the peoples money and Britain will not be beholden to them. Also Scotland are refusing to take on their share of the debt leaving Britain with this millstone around its neck. The financial institutions and big companies have seen what is going to happen and are relocating to England as fast as they can, and Salmond is threatening to nationalise them so they cant move. He has lost and he knows it, so he is clutching at straws.


----------



## Phoenall

Indofred said:


> More seriously, the 140,000 quid a jear fat fucker, proposes taxes.
> Alex Salmond s local income tax to cost families 550 extra - Telegraph
> 
> 
> 
> Families with two earners face a £550 hike in their bills for council services under Alex Salmond’s plans to introduce a local income tax in an independent Scotland, the Telegraph can disclose today.
> 
> Impartial economists in the Scottish Parliament’s Information Centre (SPICe) calculated the levy would have to be set at 5.4p in the pound to replace the revenue raised by council tax – almost double the rate the SNP originally proposed.
> 
> A worker earning the average Scottish salary of £25,729 would pay £849.37 per year, according to the calculations, meaning a family with two average breadwinners would face a bill of £1,698.74.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the good news is, it'll hardly touch his salary, so he'll be fine.
Click to expand...





 Considering the actual employment rate in Scotland which stands at 18%, yes just 18 out of every 100 Scots people are in employment, the tax burden on these will be severe. many are looking to relocating to England because of the increased tax burden and rises in the cost of living


----------



## Vikrant

Phoenall said:


> Considering the actual employment rate in Scotland which stands at 18%, yes just 18 out of every 100 Scots people are in employment, the tax burden on these will be severe. many are looking to relocating to England because of the increased tax burden and rises in the cost of living



If only 18 out of 100 Scots are employed then that is a problem right there. I guess that is why Scots want to separate. They want to reverse that figure. They can only do that when they in control of their destiny. 

We have three more days to go. Right? We will find out.


----------



## Vikrant

Indofred said:


> That applies to the people of Allah's own county, Yorkshire.
> Yes, history was a bastard, but that doesn't excuse new stupidity.
> As for the man himself, he's a legend in his own mind.
> This biography show the man behind the words.
> Alex Salmond - Uncyclopedia the content-free encyclopedia



You make a good point. There is a no point in holding grudges. If English people have given up on their racist attitudes towards Scots then Scots should stick around with the union. Whether English people accept Scottish people as equal is something that has to be decided by Scottish people.


----------



## Mindful

How about English Independence? From Scotland  and Wales?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Mindful said:


> How about English Independence? From Scotland  and Wales?


England should certainly have their own devolved parliament the same way Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland do.


----------



## 1776

How about England send in "little green men" to start riots in the Glasgow Castle then the British military can send in the troops like Putin...then nutjobs here will claim the Scots are a bunch of Nazis and that they deserve to be invaded by a foreign force.


----------



## JWBooth

So far sparky, the only nutjob here is you.


----------



## Indofred

Vikrant said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> That applies to the people of Allah's own county, Yorkshire.
> Yes, history was a bastard, but that doesn't excuse new stupidity.
> As for the man himself, he's a legend in his own mind.
> This biography show the man behind the words.
> Alex Salmond - Uncyclopedia the content-free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make a good point. There is a no point in holding grudges. If English people have given up on their racist attitudes towards Scots then Scots should stick around with the union. Whether English people accept Scottish people as equal is something that has to be decided by Scottish people.
Click to expand...


I'm not anti Scottish, I even have Scottish friends.


----------



## 1776

Putin appreciates your limp dick support, you're a pussy. 



JWBooth said:


> So far sparky, the only nutjob here is you.


----------



## Mindful

I see Bob Geldof's sounding off again, in the midst of it. He's not even British.


----------



## 8236

Vikrant said:


> Reasons for Scottish independence go beyond just simple economics. Scottish people have different ambitions and goals than English people. There are major cultural differences. The union was a bizarre event to begin with. It was primarily fueled by colonial era loots which corrupted Scottish elites in abandoning their national identity. The money was making Scottish elites and English put their differences aside. Now, the money is tight and everyone has to fend for himself. So at this stage, Scottish believe that it is in their best interest to go independent so that Scottish resources can be channeled to further Scottish interests.
> 
> This is a good opportunity for Scots to chart our their own destiny. English have always been racist towards them. I do not see any reason why Scots should put with this.
> 
> As far as NATO and EU is concerned, I do not see why Scotland cannot join either or both of them if they see such an act beneficial to their aspirations.



Vikrant, you are a fool. I've read the whole amusing historical nonsense you've been posting in response to Phoenall. How can you be so utterly clueless about Anglo/Scottish/British history when you have something like wikipedia at your fingertips, (yet strangely you managed to actually get some facts right regarding Cornwallis!).

Did you actually read any of Phoenalls posts? How many times do you have to be told about DARIEN??? FWIW, in 1707, England was NOT dirt poor. It made stacks of money from trade. Yes, TRADE. That was the whole point of the British Empire at that stage. It was a trading Empire. In 1707 it was only 300,000 souls in the American colonies, a few islands in the Carribean and a few scattered trading posts in west africa and the indian ocean. But the income from the trade was considerable. Scotland on the other hand WAS broke as pointed out by Phoenall. 
Also, the Bank of England had been created in 1694, which is why the Scots can not say 'it is our pound too' - it predates the Union. Heck, they even print their own bank notes (ironically mostly by the Scottish banks bailed out mainly by English tax payers).
Your obsession with British activities in India coupled with your user name leads me to conclude you hail from there (do you have an axe to grind with the English for that reason?). Your lack of knowldge regarding Brit activities in Indiais hence rather odd too. India provided tea, textiles and spices at the time, not Gold. That came from places in Africa like the Gold Coast(!). Also the main troops used by the British in India were Indians themselves, not Scots. The Scots were too busy building the Empire - yes they were far more involved in that enterprise than the English, although I would admit, not always voluntarily.

I could go on about history, but thats enough for now. 

Since you live in the US I can only assume you have never been to Scotland, because if you had you would know that your statements above about Scots having a different culture to the English is b******t. Half the Scots live in England and plenty of English live in Scotland (you will particularly notice this in the Higlands). Kind of makes the referendum silly doesn't it, cos you can only vote if you live in Scotland. 

Also what planet are you on saying the English are racist towards Scots? The only place you will find any white on white racism (if the concept even makes sense) in the UK is in Northern Ireland and at football/soccer matches. Oh, and you might get your car smashed up if you leave it parked in somewhere like Govan if you have a Union Jack planted on it. 

Btw. if the Scots vote no on thursday , we will only be in the same situation in another 20 years, so I (English) say lets be done with it and let them vote yes, but please Scots, keep your banks and take their debts with you.


----------



## Phoenall

Vikrant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the actual employment rate in Scotland which stands at 18%, yes just 18 out of every 100 Scots people are in employment, the tax burden on these will be severe. many are looking to relocating to England because of the increased tax burden and rises in the cost of living
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only 18 out of 100 Scots are employed then that is a problem right there. I guess that is why Scots want to separate. They want to reverse that figure. They can only do that when they in control of their destiny.
> 
> We have three more days to go. Right? We will find out.
Click to expand...




 The only way they could change that figure would be to bring back child labour and scrap retirement. Separating wont change the numbers it is all down to demographics, too many elderly and under 18's that cant work. The standard employment rate in the civilised world is 22% to 25%. in the case of Scotland far too many are suffering from over indulgence in alcohol and its effects on the human body.


----------



## Phoenall

Vikrant said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> 
> That applies to the people of Allah's own county, Yorkshire.
> Yes, history was a bastard, but that doesn't excuse new stupidity.
> As for the man himself, he's a legend in his own mind.
> This biography show the man behind the words.
> Alex Salmond - Uncyclopedia the content-free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make a good point. There is a no point in holding grudges. If English people have given up on their racist attitudes towards Scots then Scots should stick around with the union. Whether English people accept Scottish people as equal is something that has to be decided by Scottish people.
Click to expand...



 Do tell why the SNP had to bring in anti racism laws in Scotland when racism there went through the roof. So not the English that are racist is it, but the Scots


----------



## Phoenall

Mindful said:


> How about English Independence? From Scotland  and Wales?





We cant say that as that would be racism, yet when the Scots and Welsh demand it isn't................. Go figure ?


----------



## Phoenall

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about English Independence? From Scotland  and Wales?
> 
> 
> 
> England should certainly have their own devolved parliament the same way Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland do.
Click to expand...





 The Scots, Irish and Welsh blocked that because it would have put far too many of their M.P's out of work. Why should the Scots be represented in the British parliament and the English banned from being represented in the Scots ?


----------



## 8236

Another point for you Vikrant.
The Scottish and English 'elites' you talk of did indeed have a 'national identity', but it was neither Scottish nor English. All of them hark back to a bunch of Norman-French robber barons that enslaved the Anglo-Saxons in 1066, the Irish in the centuries after 1172, the Welsh in the 1270s and the Scots from the late 13th century onward.
Scots tend to forget that their national hero was a Frenchy called 'Robert de Bruis', now known as Robert the Bruce.


----------



## Mindful

No one asks what the English would like.


----------



## Mindful




----------



## Mindful




----------



## JWBooth

1776 said:


> Putin appreciates your limp dick support, you're a pussy.
> 
> 
> 
> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far sparky, the only nutjob here is you.
Click to expand...

Like I said, nutjob...


Putin is the only card in your deck. Car wont start? Putin did it. Hemmorroids? Putin's fault. Scots want secession? Putin is behind it.
Curious though, is Putin one of those immortals who has always been there forming all of eternity's events?


----------



## Toro

Betfair is paying out all bets on those who wagered No. They had been offering 1/4 odds. They will no longer take bets on the Scottish referendum.


----------



## Mindful

British politics have never been so exciting.

SCOTLAND DECIDES. Brown calls the SNP liars. Darling joins in. Salmond fights back. Galloway told he’s going to ‘face a bullet’. Miliband sworn at. Alexander heckled. And there’s still one day to go.

lol


----------



## Toro

Mindful said:


> No one asks what the English would like.



That Scots will find that out on the pound if they vote Yes.


----------



## Vikrant

The narrative that Brits were merely trading spices in India is for simple folks. Essentially what they were doing in India was simple robbery. Even the US president during World War II had chat with Brits about that. POTUS told Churchill it was wrong to divert Indian resources without paying them any compensation. So an account was created to write down all the money they were taking from India to finance their World War II efforts. It was called Sterling Debt. At the end of the World War II, Britain was bankrupt so India never got back its real money. But that was just for the duration of World War II. All the money they robbed from India before that was not even acknowledged. 

The foundation of this union was greed. It was achieved through coercing Sottish elites. General Scottish folks were always against this. Now that British empire is gone, Scots have no incentive whatsoever to tag along with this. As I said earlier, I do not care either way. It is up to Scottish people how they want to live their life. I personally think it will be better for their reputation as humans to distance themselves from something which was as unholy as British empire. Once Scotland breaks away from Britain that will be the final nail in the coffin of British empire. 

Here is a funny show from Steven Colbert on Scottish independence. It is funny but towards the end there is an interview with a British editor who acknowledges that it was the empire that kept this union going. Why? Because the empire was bringing in the loots from Asia and Africa.


----------



## Vikrant

Mindful said:


> No one asks what the English would like.



What would you like? The empire created by English destroyed nations and lives. It may have been beneficial for your people but it was disastrous for those countries that were at the receiving ends of your "benevolence".


----------



## Vikrant

> Whatever happens this week, the United Kingdom will be utterly different. The political construct that we call the UK may lose its 300-year identity altogether. That we will soon learn. But even if the UK nominally survives, it will become a much looser association – you might say a less united kingdom – carrying on the process of separation that began just over 100 years ago in May 1914 when Westminster finally passed the Government of Ireland Act, giving Ireland home rule. The First World War intervened, implementation was suspended, and the slither into the troubled subsequent relationship between our two countries continued for the rest of the century. In 1930, King George V remarked to his Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald: “What fools we were not to have accepted Gladstone’s Home Rule Bill.”
> 
> What fools indeed. Nearly all the public debate about the future relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK has been about economics: the use of the pound, the responsibility for collective national debts, the rights to North Sea oil and gas revenues, the headquarters of the Scottish banks and so on. It has not been about the need to match political structures to identity – what kind of political relationship between the different people who share these islands is most likely to make as many people as possible feel happy and fulfilled. The nitty gritty of currency, North Sea revenues and so on is all fixable. You negotiate and do the deal. But you can’t negotiate about identity, so the deal has to be different. It is one of the paradoxes of our time that the more integrated the world economy has become, the greater the desire for local political control.



Scottish independence Welcome to the nation formerly known as the UK - Scotland Debate - The Independent


----------



## mudwhistle

Phoenall said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the scots get a subsidy of £2000 a year each no one can claim that Britain is richer, isn't Scotlamd part of Britain along with Wales and N.I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, great number of Scots do not feel like they are a part of UK. Economically speaking, it makes sense for Scotland to go independent. This way they do not have to subsidize ailing English economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By voting yes they will save the British economy over £200,000,000 a year in subsidies alone, then there is the cost to the NHS treating alcoholism and alcohol related injuries. And not forgetting the welfare bills for the unemployed. No wonder the economy is ailing when the English tax payers have to bail out the feckless Scots all the time. Give them 18 months and they will be begging to re=join the union because they listened to a racist half wit
Click to expand...

I'm kind of torn. I like England but I'm 3/4 Scotch/Irish.


----------



## Mindful

mudwhistle said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the scots get a subsidy of £2000 a year each no one can claim that Britain is richer, isn't Scotlamd part of Britain along with Wales and N.I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, great number of Scots do not feel like they are a part of UK. Economically speaking, it makes sense for Scotland to go independent. This way they do not have to subsidize ailing English economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By voting yes they will save the British economy over £200,000,000 a year in subsidies alone, then there is the cost to the NHS treating alcoholism and alcohol related injuries. And not forgetting the welfare bills for the unemployed. No wonder the economy is ailing when the English tax payers have to bail out the feckless Scots all the time. Give them 18 months and they will be begging to re=join the union because they listened to a racist half wit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm kind of torn. I like England but I'm 3/4 Scotch/Irish.
Click to expand...


Most of that lot settled in the Appalachians, playing banjos and eating squirrels.


----------



## mudwhistle

Mindful said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the scots get a subsidy of £2000 a year each no one can claim that Britain is richer, isn't Scotlamd part of Britain along with Wales and N.I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, great number of Scots do not feel like they are a part of UK. Economically speaking, it makes sense for Scotland to go independent. This way they do not have to subsidize ailing English economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By voting yes they will save the British economy over £200,000,000 a year in subsidies alone, then there is the cost to the NHS treating alcoholism and alcohol related injuries. And not forgetting the welfare bills for the unemployed. No wonder the economy is ailing when the English tax payers have to bail out the feckless Scots all the time. Give them 18 months and they will be begging to re=join the union because they listened to a racist half wit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm kind of torn. I like England but I'm 3/4 Scotch/Irish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that lot settled in the Appalachians, playing banjos and eating squirrels.
Click to expand...

My 5th Great, Great, Great, Great, Grand Uncle was Daniel Boone.


----------



## Vikrant

Mindful said:


> British politics have never been so exciting.
> 
> SCOTLAND DECIDES. Brown calls the SNP liars. Darling joins in. Salmond fights back. Galloway told he’s going to ‘face a bullet’. Miliband sworn at. Alexander heckled. And there’s still one day to go.
> 
> lol



It seems like Scots had enough. I wonder what will happen if the No wins by a tiny margin. 

Ed Miliband forced to abandon walkabout in Edinburgh Politics theguardian.com


----------



## mudwhistle

Vikrant said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> British politics have never been so exciting.
> 
> SCOTLAND DECIDES. Brown calls the SNP liars. Darling joins in. Salmond fights back. Galloway told he’s going to ‘face a bullet’. Miliband sworn at. Alexander heckled. And there’s still one day to go.
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like Scots had enough. I wonder what will happen if the No wins by a tiny margin.
> 
> Ed Miliband forced to abandon walkabout in Edinburgh Politics theguardian.com
Click to expand...

Scotts can be friendly buggers. I can't remember the city that was voted the friendliest city and yet it was the murder capital of the UK. Glasgow I believe.


----------



## Mindful

What will happen to the Union Jack?


----------



## gipper

Mindful said:


> What will happen to the Union Jack?



Who cares?


----------



## B. Kidd

mudwhistle said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the scots get a subsidy of £2000 a year each no one can claim that Britain is richer, isn't Scotlamd part of Britain along with Wales and N.I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, great number of Scots do not feel like they are a part of UK. Economically speaking, it makes sense for Scotland to go independent. This way they do not have to subsidize ailing English economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By voting yes they will save the British economy over £200,000,000 a year in subsidies alone, then there is the cost to the NHS treating alcoholism and alcohol related injuries. And not forgetting the welfare bills for the unemployed. No wonder the economy is ailing when the English tax payers have to bail out the feckless Scots all the time. Give them 18 months and they will be begging to re=join the union because they listened to a racist half wit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm kind of torn. I like England but I'm 3/4 Scotch/Irish.
Click to expand...


That means you are 3/4 'barbarian'; according to the majority of the English whom consider the Scots such behind their backs.


----------



## Mindful

gipper said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> What will happen to the Union Jack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?
Click to expand...


Me.


----------



## gipper

Mindful said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> What will happen to the Union Jack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me.
Click to expand...


Sorry to hear that.  

I certainly hope Scotland leaves the UK.  My hope is this will lead to secessionist movements worldwide and particularly in the USA.  The end of the nation state would be a beautiful thing.


----------



## HenryBHough

Scotland needs to consider that if they do leave The UK there will be no going back.


----------



## Mindful

gipper said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> What will happen to the Union Jack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear that.
> 
> I certainly hope Scotland leaves the UK.  My hope is this will lead to secessionist movements worldwide and particularly in the USA.  The end of the nation state would be a beautiful thing.
Click to expand...


Sorry to hear that.


----------



## Mindful

HenryBHough said:


> Scotland needs to consider that if they do leave The UK there will be no going back.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Mindful said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> What will happen to the Union Jack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me.
Click to expand...

If I had to guess, nothing.


----------



## Toro

Scotland receives more in net fiscal transfers then it sends to the Treasury, even accounting for a split in offshore energy based on geography.


----------



## JWBooth

HenryBHough said:


> Scotland needs to consider that if they do leave The UK there will be no going back.


Yep, do they become Greece or Switzerland?


----------



## bendog

This whole thing seems like the new TV show Outlander.  Where the woman somehow is transported back to the 1700s, with the evil Brits chasing the Scot patriots.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

The Future of Scotland 8217 s Monetary Policy Voices of Liberty Powered by Ron Paul

Interesting piece.


----------



## Stratford57

Donetsk people (SE Ukraine) supported Scottish people . In May they also voted for independence from Ukraine, but for that Kiev junta started its  vengeance towards them.


----------



## bodecea

gipper said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> What will happen to the Union Jack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear that.
> 
> I certainly hope Scotland leaves the UK.  My hope is this will lead to secessionist movements worldwide and particularly in the USA.  The end of the nation state would be a beautiful thing.
Click to expand...

Go to Texas and help with their secession movement....please.


----------



## 1776

Good god you're a fucking nut.



Stratford57 said:


> Donetsk people (SE Ukraine) supported Scottish people . In May they also voted for independence from Ukraine, but for that Kiev junta started its  vengeance towards them.


----------



## Stratford57

1776 said:


> Good god you're a fucking nut.


[/QUOTE]
“When a man uses profanity to support an argument, it indicates that either the man or the argument is weak - probably both”


----------



## JWBooth

Stratford57 said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good god you're a fucking nut.
> 
> 
> 
> “When a man uses profanity to support an argument, it indicates that either the man or the argument is weak - probably both”
Click to expand...

Its the alcohol, in a little while he will demand a full scale invasion of somewhere of little importance or strategic value or a suicide mission on Moscow Centre. The more he drinks, the more rambunctious he gets. After a while you learn to pay him no mind.


----------



## 1776

You can't even speak/type proper English here....asswipe.

Your endless bullshit about "Nazis in Ukraine" is like the little boy that cried wolf.....



Stratford57 said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good god you're a fucking nut.
Click to expand...

“When a man uses profanity to support an argument, it indicates that either the man or the argument is weak - probably both”[/QUOTE]


----------



## Vikrant

Mindful said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> What will happen to the Union Jack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear that.
> 
> I certainly hope Scotland leaves the UK.  My hope is this will lead to secessionist movements worldwide and particularly in the USA.  The end of the nation state would be a beautiful thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear that.
Click to expand...


I think you guys are six hours ahead of us. So this thing probably will get decided while we are sleeping. So let us know which way it goes before we find out through our media.


----------



## JWBooth

1776 said:


> you're an irrelevant shitstain in your mommy's panties.
> 
> 
> 
> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good god you're a fucking nut.
> 
> 
> 
> “When a man uses profanity to support an argument, it indicates that either the man or the argument is weak - probably both”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its the alcohol, in a little while he will demand a full scale invasion of somewhere of little importance or strategic value or a suicide mission on Moscow Centre. The more he drinks, the more rambunctious he gets. After a while you learn to pay him no mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Sloe Gin Fizzes for a quarter night at the legion hall again?


----------



## JWBooth

Stratford57 said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good god you're a fucking nut.
> 
> 
> 
> “When a man uses profanity to support an argument, it indicates that either the man or the argument is weak - probably both”
Click to expand...

Oh, and I forgot, not only is he ready to launch WWIII when he is drinking, he will also say ugly things about your family.


----------



## Samson

JWBooth said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're an irrelevant shitstain in your mommy's panties.
> 
> 
> 
> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good god you're a fucking nut.
> 
> 
> 
> “When a man uses profanity to support an argument, it indicates that either the man or the argument is weak - probably both”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its the alcohol, in a little while he will demand a full scale invasion of somewhere of little importance or strategic value or a suicide mission on Moscow Centre. The more he drinks, the more rambunctious he gets. After a while you learn to pay him no mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sloe Gin Fizzes for a quarter night at the legion hall again?
Click to expand...


----------



## Phoenall

Vikrant said:


> The narrative that Brits were merely trading spices in India is for simple folks. Essentially what they were doing in India was simple robbery. Even the US president during World War II had chat with Brits about that. POTUS told Churchill it was wrong to divert Indian resources without paying them any compensation. So an account was created to write down all the money they were taking from India to finance their World War II efforts. It was called Sterling Debt. At the end of the World War II, Britain was bankrupt so India never got back its real money. But that was just for the duration of World War II. All the money they robbed from India before that was not even acknowledged.
> 
> The foundation of this union was greed. It was achieved through coercing Sottish elites. General Scottish folks were always against this. Now that British empire is gone, Scots have no incentive whatsoever to tag along with this. As I said earlier, I do not care either way. It is up to Scottish people how they want to live their life. I personally think it will be better for their reputation as humans to distance themselves from something which was as unholy as British empire. Once Scotland breaks away from Britain that will be the final nail in the coffin of British empire.
> 
> Here is a funny show from Steven Colbert on Scottish independence. It is funny but towards the end there is an interview with a British editor who acknowledges that it was the empire that kept this union going. Why? Because the empire was bringing in the loots from Asia and Africa.






 Link to all this from a non partisan source please, or would that be impossible to do


----------



## Phoenall

Vikrant said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> British politics have never been so exciting.
> 
> SCOTLAND DECIDES. Brown calls the SNP liars. Darling joins in. Salmond fights back. Galloway told he’s going to ‘face a bullet’. Miliband sworn at. Alexander heckled. And there’s still one day to go.
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like Scots had enough. I wonder what will happen if the No wins by a tiny margin.
> 
> Ed Miliband forced to abandon walkabout in Edinburgh Politics theguardian.com
Click to expand...




 Why don't you tell us, we know you want to give your version of the truth


----------



## Phoenall

Mindful said:


> What will happen to the Union Jack?






 Nothing it will be just the same


----------



## Indofred

1776 said:


> *you're an irrelevant shitstain in your mommy's panties.*



I assume 1776 kopped a ban for that one.


----------



## gipper

bodecea said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> What will happen to the Union Jack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear that.
> 
> I certainly hope Scotland leaves the UK.  My hope is this will lead to secessionist movements worldwide and particularly in the USA.  The end of the nation state would be a beautiful thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go to Texas and help with their secession movement....please.
Click to expand...

...

It would be great if Texas were to secede...maybe.  The potential danger is the fact that there are many Americans, including much of the political class, who would want to murder Texans and destroy their property...or any state, should they try to secede.  They consider secessionists traitors and worthy of death and suffering.


----------



## mudwhistle

I don't think it will work. The UK is a Socialist/Liberal state. Scotland is even more liberal than the rest. They can't survive without handouts from the Brits.


----------



## Beelzebub

mudwhistle said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the scots get a subsidy of £2000 a year each no one can claim that Britain is richer, isn't Scotlamd part of Britain along with Wales and N.I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, great number of Scots do not feel like they are a part of UK. Economically speaking, it makes sense for Scotland to go independent. This way they do not have to subsidize ailing English economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By voting yes they will save the British economy over £200,000,000 a year in subsidies alone, then there is the cost to the NHS treating alcoholism and alcohol related injuries. And not forgetting the welfare bills for the unemployed. No wonder the economy is ailing when the English tax payers have to bail out the feckless Scots all the time. Give them 18 months and they will be begging to re=join the union because they listened to a racist half wit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm kind of torn. I like England but I'm 3/4 Scotch/Irish.
Click to expand...



Scotland will do fine.
The claims of subsidy only reflect the additional wealth generated in Scotland by the oil, so its a wash.

Scottish will be more creative, more industrious and better focused in their own state.  They have rarely failed at big stuff, and if there is some economic contraction, they will weather it and come out the other side, like the other great engineering nation, Germany.

England too can benefit, once it wakes up and reinvents itself a bit.  And it would be good to shake off all the conformist stuff that powers such as the US impose on it.  If there is a NO vote, we should still take up Scotlands example and scare the shit out of Westminster, and try to create a democracy, rather than a corporation led state.


----------



## bodecea

gipper said:


> bThat odecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> What will happen to the Union Jack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear that.
> 
> I certainly hope Scotland leaves the UK.  My hope is this will lead to secessionist movements worldwide and particularly in the USA.  The end of the nation state would be a beautiful thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go to Texas and help with their secession movement....please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...
> 
> It would be great if Texas were to secede...maybe.  The potential danger is the fact that there are many Americans, including much of the political class, who would want to murder Texans and destroy their property...or any state, should they try to secede.  They consider secessionists traitors and worthy of death and suffering.
Click to expand...


That would be foolish.   Allowing Texas to leave, with anyone who doesn't like living in our great country would be a win/win situation.  They would be rid of us....and even better, we'd be rid of them.


----------



## mudwhistle

bodecea said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bThat odecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear that.
> 
> I certainly hope Scotland leaves the UK.  My hope is this will lead to secessionist movements worldwide and particularly in the USA.  The end of the nation state would be a beautiful thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go to Texas and help with their secession movement....please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...
> 
> It would be great if Texas were to secede...maybe.  The potential danger is the fact that there are many Americans, including much of the political class, who would want to murder Texans and destroy their property...or any state, should they try to secede.  They consider secessionists traitors and worthy of death and suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be foolish.   Allowing Texas to leave, with anyone who doesn't like living in our great country would be a win/win situation.  They would be rid of us....and even better, we'd be rid of them.
Click to expand...

I propose the 13 states that keep electing Democrats secede so we can get some good leaders in government.


----------



## bodecea

mudwhistle said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bThat odecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear that.
> 
> I certainly hope Scotland leaves the UK.  My hope is this will lead to secessionist movements worldwide and particularly in the USA.  The end of the nation state would be a beautiful thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go to Texas and help with their secession movement....please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...
> 
> It would be great if Texas were to secede...maybe.  The potential danger is the fact that there are many Americans, including much of the political class, who would want to murder Texans and destroy their property...or any state, should they try to secede.  They consider secessionists traitors and worthy of death and suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be foolish.   Allowing Texas to leave, with anyone who doesn't like living in our great country would be a win/win situation.  They would be rid of us....and even better, we'd be rid of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I propose the 13 states that keep electing Democrats secede so we can get some good leaders in government.
Click to expand...

So..why don't YOU secede?  Or if you can't get a state to go along with you....leave.


----------



## mudwhistle

Beelzebub said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the scots get a subsidy of £2000 a year each no one can claim that Britain is richer, isn't Scotlamd part of Britain along with Wales and N.I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, great number of Scots do not feel like they are a part of UK. Economically speaking, it makes sense for Scotland to go independent. This way they do not have to subsidize ailing English economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By voting yes they will save the British economy over £200,000,000 a year in subsidies alone, then there is the cost to the NHS treating alcoholism and alcohol related injuries. And not forgetting the welfare bills for the unemployed. No wonder the economy is ailing when the English tax payers have to bail out the feckless Scots all the time. Give them 18 months and they will be begging to re=join the union because they listened to a racist half wit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm kind of torn. I like England but I'm 3/4 Scotch/Irish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scotland will do fine.
> The claims of subsidy only reflect the additional wealth generated in Scotland by the oil, so its a wash.
> 
> Scottish will be more creative, more industrious and better focused in their own state.  They have rarely failed at big stuff, and if there is some economic contraction, they will weather it and come out the other side, like the other great engineering nation, Germany.
> 
> England too can benefit, once it wakes up and reinvents itself a bit.  And it would be good to shake off all the conformist stuff that powers such as the US impose on it.  If there is a NO vote, we should still take up Scotlands example and scare the shit out of Westminster, and try to create a democracy, rather than a corporation led state.
Click to expand...

23.1 million jobs were created during the Clinton years. Could have something to do with welfare reform. Scotland needs serious welfare reform.


----------



## mudwhistle

bodecea said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bThat odecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear that.
> 
> I certainly hope Scotland leaves the UK.  My hope is this will lead to secessionist movements worldwide and particularly in the USA.  The end of the nation state would be a beautiful thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Go to Texas and help with their secession movement....please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...
> 
> It would be great if Texas were to secede...maybe.  The potential danger is the fact that there are many Americans, including much of the political class, who would want to murder Texans and destroy their property...or any state, should they try to secede.  They consider secessionists traitors and worthy of death and suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be foolish.   Allowing Texas to leave, with anyone who doesn't like living in our great country would be a win/win situation.  They would be rid of us....and even better, we'd be rid of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I propose the 13 states that keep electing Democrats secede so we can get some good leaders in government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So..why don't YOU secede?  Or if you can't get a state to go along with you....leave.
Click to expand...

Why don't you go fuck yourself. How bout that? While you're at it why don't you use your brain in your posts rather than your sarcasm for once.


----------



## Phoenall

Beelzebub said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the scots get a subsidy of £2000 a year each no one can claim that Britain is richer, isn't Scotlamd part of Britain along with Wales and N.I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, great number of Scots do not feel like they are a part of UK. Economically speaking, it makes sense for Scotland to go independent. This way they do not have to subsidize ailing English economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By voting yes they will save the British economy over £200,000,000 a year in subsidies alone, then there is the cost to the NHS treating alcoholism and alcohol related injuries. And not forgetting the welfare bills for the unemployed. No wonder the economy is ailing when the English tax payers have to bail out the feckless Scots all the time. Give them 18 months and they will be begging to re=join the union because they listened to a racist half wit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm kind of torn. I like England but I'm 3/4 Scotch/Irish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scotland will do fine.
> The claims of subsidy only reflect the additional wealth generated in Scotland by the oil, so its a wash.
> 
> Scottish will be more creative, more industrious and better focused in their own state.  They have rarely failed at big stuff, and if there is some economic contraction, they will weather it and come out the other side, like the other great engineering nation, Germany.
> 
> England too can benefit, once it wakes up and reinvents itself a bit.  And it would be good to shake off all the conformist stuff that powers such as the US impose on it.  If there is a NO vote, we should still take up Scotlands example and scare the shit out of Westminster, and try to create a democracy, rather than a corporation led state.
Click to expand...




Nothing to do with the oil its because Scotland has a greater need for the Health service and welfare. That is what the subsidy is paying for, the alcoholism, the violence and health issues. The British government has given the Scots many chances to show what they are capable of doing and they have failed every time.
 Yes England or should that be Britain, will benefit with lower taxation and lower health service costs, you are aware that we have one of the very few rising economies in the civilised world and it would rise even more if we did not have the burden of Scotland.

 We are a democracy of sorts, the problem lies in the way the  people vote, instead of voting for the individual and what he will do for the people they vote for the party as that is the way their fathers and grandfathers did it.


----------



## mudwhistle

I guess the Scots are helpless without the Brits to feed them welfare money. They can't bring themselves out of their drunken drug induced state long enough to create their own government or even print their own currency. They need to be taken care of for fuck's sake. Before you know it they'll be back to living in sod huts, wearing Kilts, and running around the Highlands killing the English.


----------



## Vikrant

Scottish folks are voting today. I hope they display courage and not allow themselves to get intimidated. This is a very important decision and it can transform their destiny. May the force/source/god be with them. 

---



> After two years of campaigning, pollsters say that the outcome of the vote is too close to ca ll at this point. The ballot asks a simple question—"Should Scotland be an independent country?"— though a vote to split off will raise many more about how the country will stand completely on its own.



http://online.wsj.com/articles/scotland-vote-on-independence-starts-1411018406?tesla=y


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Prayers for Scottish Independence


----------



## Vikrant

Scottish folks are definitely fired up. 






http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/world/europe/scotland-referendum-on-independence.html?_r=0


----------



## MisterBeale

Phoenall said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> What will happen to the Union Jack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing it will be just the same
Click to expand...

They should take the Scottish flag out of it.


----------



## MisterBeale

*Tony Blair Urges the “Ukraine Solution”: Air Strikes Against Scotland in Event of ‘Yes’ Vote*
Satire Tony Blair Urges the 8220 Ukraine Solution 8221 Air Strikes Against Scotland in Event of Yes Vote Global Research


> _Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has urged the UK government to consider military action against Scotland in the event of a vote for independence._
> 
> Mr Blair, who was prime minister between 1997 and 2007, broke his silence in the debate over Scottish independence to urge air strikes – including the use of the Trident independent nuclear deterrent – against Scottish strategic targets in the event of a ‘Yes’ victory next Thursday.
> 
> Interviewed in Kiev, Mr Blair said on Saturday that he hoped Scots would vote against independence, but warned that if Scotland voted to break up the United Kingdom then military intervention would be inevitable: _“Obviously I hope that Scotland votes to stay part of the United Kingdom. But Scotland should prepare itself for a full-scale invasion by ground forces if it doesn’t.”_
> 
> Mr Blair’s comments came just weeks after the former PM called for NATO leaders to agree a joint campaign of targeted bombings and drone attacks against badgers in support of the UK government’s campaign to control the spread of TB in the British countryside.


**


----------



## Vikrant

Here is the brave heart himself - Alex Salmond. 







http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/w...on=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article


----------



## Vikrant

I thought only guys wore kilt.






http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/w...e&region=Footer&module=TopNews&pgtype=article


----------



## GHook93

After Scotland gains independence who will be next:
Northern Ireland is going next. Wales, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Cayman Islands etc?


Heck the ramification could be far reaching throughout Europe.







Heck it could reach across the pond and affect us. HI, AK, VT, TX, PVR, and of course Nation of Atlzan (the Hispanic Only country that encompasses TX, AZ, NM, CA and parts of OR and CO) all have active members and political movements behind. 

I hope the Scotish choose to remain part of the UK, but I see a snowball effect happening across the globe!


----------



## Bill Angel

There is an impressive statue in Baltimore of William Wallace, identified on the statue's base as  the "Guardian of Scotland" and as a "Patriot and Martyr".
Today's  referendum is  perhaps a  measure of the current value to Scots of his mythic  historical importance. 





​


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

MisterBeale said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> What will happen to the Union Jack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing it will be just the same
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They should take the Scottish flag out of it.
Click to expand...

Logically yes, but I don't think governments want to project even hypothetical "weakness."


----------



## Vikrant

I am impressed with the resilience of the Celtic culture. English had been trying to destroy it for hundreds of years now. Look at Irish folks, they turned out to be tough nuts to crack. I thought English had the Scots but it turns out Scots are not dead yet either.


----------



## Vikrant

It looks like we will not know the final result till Friday, Scotland time.


----------



## mudwhistle

Vikrant said:


> It looks like we will not know the final result till Friday, Scotland time.


I nominate Sean Connery as Scotland's first president.


----------



## bodecea

Vikrant said:


> I thought only guys wore kilt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/w...e&region=Footer&module=TopNews&pgtype=article


You've not seen private school skirts, have you?


----------



## bodecea

GHook93 said:


> After Scotland gains independence who will be next:
> Northern Ireland is going next. Wales, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Cayman Islands etc?
> 
> 
> Heck the ramification could be far reaching throughout Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heck it could reach across the pond and affect us. HI, AK, VT, TX, PVR, and of course Nation of Atlzan (the Hispanic Only country that encompasses TX, AZ, NM, CA and parts of OR and CO) all have active members and political movements behind.
> 
> I hope the Scotish choose to remain part of the UK, but I see a snowball effect happening across the globe!


We can only hope TX goes.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

mudwhistle said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like we will not know the final result till Friday, Scotland time.
> 
> 
> 
> I nominate Sean Connery as Scotland's first president.
Click to expand...

He doesn't live in Scotland, and is ineligible to vote for independence.


----------



## HenryBHough

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> He doesn't live in Scotland, and is ineligible to vote for independence.



Probably not but if Scotland is to be run like America he could just walk in and vote.  Then, if independence prevails,  Connery could run for President with absolutely no concern about citizenship.


----------



## NLT

Vikrant said:


> I thought only guys wore kilt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/w...e&region=Footer&module=TopNews&pgtype=article


No fat ugly lesbians like to wear them also, ask bodey


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

HenryBHough said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't live in Scotland, and is ineligible to vote for independence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not but if Scotland is to be run like America he could just walk in and vote.  Then, if independence prevails,  Connery could run for President with absolutely no concern about citizenship.
Click to expand...

Why in the world would Scotland be run like the U.S.? They would retain their parliamentary system, and First Minister Alex Salmond would, presumably, simply become Prime Minister of Scotland, and Queen Elizabeth would become the Queen of Scotland.


----------



## bodecea

NLT said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought only guys wore kilt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/w...e&region=Footer&module=TopNews&pgtype=article
> 
> 
> 
> No fat ugly lesbians like to wear them also, ask bodey
Click to expand...

Still very very predictable in his bootlickishness.


----------



## mudwhistle

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like we will not know the final result till Friday, Scotland time.
> 
> 
> 
> I nominate Sean Connery as Scotland's first president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't live in Scotland, and is ineligible to vote for independence.
Click to expand...

Okay, how bout Kevin Bridges?


----------



## Samson

bodecea said:


> We can only hope TX goes.



Maybe you should start a thread: There you could compulsively post this over and over again in private, and avoid appearing obsessed.






Or seek professional help.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

mudwhistle said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like we will not know the final result till Friday, Scotland time.
> 
> 
> 
> I nominate Sean Connery as Scotland's first president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't live in Scotland, and is ineligible to vote for independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, how bout Kevin Bridges?
Click to expand...

I was going to explain how Scotland wasn't going to have a presidency, but then it occurred to me that you're probably being facetious.


----------



## bodecea

Samson said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can only hope TX goes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should start a thread: There you could compulsively post this over and over again in private, and avoid appearing obsessed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or seek professional help.
Click to expand...

I'm not the poster who brought up TX in this thread....FYI.


----------



## Samson

bodecea said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can only hope TX goes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should start a thread: There you could compulsively post this over and over again in private, and avoid appearing obsessed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or seek professional help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not the poster who brought up TX in this thread....FYI.
Click to expand...


You wanna guess how many times you've posted about Texas in a thread about Scotland?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

I believe the polls close at 10 p.m. Scottish time, which is 5 p.m. EST, so a little over an hour to go. Though I suppose since the vote will be close we won't know until at least later tomorrow.


----------



## mudwhistle

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like we will not know the final result till Friday, Scotland time.
> 
> 
> 
> I nominate Sean Connery as Scotland's first president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't live in Scotland, and is ineligible to vote for independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, how bout Kevin Bridges?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was going to explain how Scotland wasn't going to have a presidency, but then it occurred to me that you're probably being facetious.
Click to expand...

Slightly. But your post was still informative.


----------



## mudwhistle

Samson said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can only hope TX goes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should start a thread: There you could compulsively post this over and over again in private, and avoid appearing obsessed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or seek professional help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not the poster who brought up TX in this thread....FYI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wanna guess how many times you've posted about Texas in a thread about Scotland?
Click to expand...

She has issues with folks from Texas. Hollywood has done a number on them.


----------



## Beelzebub

mudwhistle said:


> I guess the Scots are helpless without the Brits to feed them welfare money. They can't bring themselves out of their drunken drug induced state long enough to create their own government or even print their own currency. They need to be taken care of for fuck's sake. Before you know it they'll be back to living in sod huts, wearing Kilts, and running around the Highlands killing the English.




That's a wrong guess.  But it had a 50/50 chance of being right. 

There is a great deal to Scotland, particularly its engineering.  They suffer from brain-drain going south and to foreign parts, but Scotland produces many people of high merit.  Independence would be a shot in the arm for them, and likely would galvanise the nation to live up to its potential, which it has to be said is a little stifled while England is seen as the hub.


----------



## mudwhistle

Beelzebub said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the Scots are helpless without the Brits to feed them welfare money. They can't bring themselves out of their drunken drug induced state long enough to create their own government or even print their own currency. They need to be taken care of for fuck's sake. Before you know it they'll be back to living in sod huts, wearing Kilts, and running around the Highlands killing the English.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a wrong guess.  But it had a 50/50 chance of being right.
> 
> There is a great deal to Scotland, particularly its engineering.  They suffer from brain-drain going south and to foreign parts, but Scotland produces many people of high merit.  Independence would be a shot in the arm for them, and likely would galvanise the nation to live up to its potential, which it has to be said is a little stifled while England is seen as the hub.
Click to expand...

I was joking.


----------



## mudwhistle

If Scotland wants independence then they deserve their own country. Maybe they just might do it right this time. It won't be easy though.


----------



## Beelzebub

Vikrant said:


> I am impressed with the resilience of the Celtic culture. English had been trying to destroy it for hundreds of years now. Look at Irish folks, they turned out to be tough nuts to crack. I thought English had the Scots but it turns out Scots are not dead yet either.




Don't be daft.

There is not an Englishman alive that doesn't have Celtic ancestors.  Apart from Phil the Greek.

Anglo Saxons come from tribes of Angles, Saxons and Jutes in what is now northern Germany and Denmark.
But you compare the look of folk from northern Germany with Brits.  There is a distinct difference.  That is because of the high input of Celtic genetics.

Culturally, the English are still more Anglo Saxon.  The Welsh & Irish still have more Celtic genetics, and the Scots too.  But the Scots also have a big genetic hangover from the Picts.  From before the Scotti (an Irish tribe) invaded and took over.


----------



## Beelzebub

mudwhistle said:


> Beelzebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the Scots are helpless without the Brits to feed them welfare money. They can't bring themselves out of their drunken drug induced state long enough to create their own government or even print their own currency. They need to be taken care of for fuck's sake. Before you know it they'll be back to living in sod huts, wearing Kilts, and running around the Highlands killing the English.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a wrong guess.  But it had a 50/50 chance of being right.
> 
> There is a great deal to Scotland, particularly its engineering.  They suffer from brain-drain going south and to foreign parts, but Scotland produces many people of high merit.  Independence would be a shot in the arm for them, and likely would galvanise the nation to live up to its potential, which it has to be said is a little stifled while England is seen as the hub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was joking.
Click to expand...



That's fine,
But many still say such things as jokes, then start to believe them.  Am pleased to hear you are not that sort.


----------



## mudwhistle

Beelzebub said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beelzebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the Scots are helpless without the Brits to feed them welfare money. They can't bring themselves out of their drunken drug induced state long enough to create their own government or even print their own currency. They need to be taken care of for fuck's sake. Before you know it they'll be back to living in sod huts, wearing Kilts, and running around the Highlands killing the English.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a wrong guess.  But it had a 50/50 chance of being right.
> 
> There is a great deal to Scotland, particularly its engineering.  They suffer from brain-drain going south and to foreign parts, but Scotland produces many people of high merit.  Independence would be a shot in the arm for them, and likely would galvanise the nation to live up to its potential, which it has to be said is a little stifled while England is seen as the hub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was joking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine,
> But many still say such things as jokes, then start to believe them.  Am pleased to hear you are not that sort.
Click to expand...

No, some actually believe it.


----------



## bodecea

mudwhistle said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can only hope TX goes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should start a thread: There you could compulsively post this over and over again in private, and avoid appearing obsessed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or seek professional help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not the poster who brought up TX in this thread....FYI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wanna guess how many times you've posted about Texas in a thread about Scotland?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She has issues with folks from Texas. Hollywood has done a number on them.
Click to expand...

Probably twice.   It's horrible, isn't it?


----------



## bodecea

Beelzebub said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am impressed with the resilience of the Celtic culture. English had been trying to destroy it for hundreds of years now. Look at Irish folks, they turned out to be tough nuts to crack. I thought English had the Scots but it turns out Scots are not dead yet either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be daft.
> 
> There is not an Englishman alive that doesn't have Celtic ancestors.  Apart from Phil the Greek.
> 
> Anglo Saxons come from tribes of Angles, Saxons and Jutes in what is now northern Germany and Denmark.
> But you compare the look of folk from northern Germany with Brits.  There is a distinct difference.  That is because of the high input of Celtic genetics.
> 
> Culturally, the English are still more Anglo Saxon.  The Welsh & Irish still have more Celtic genetics, and the Scots too.  But the Scots also have a big genetic hangover from the Picts.  From before the Scotti (an Irish tribe) invaded and took over.
Click to expand...

Lets not forget the Normans and the Norse.


----------



## MisterBeale

mudwhistle said:


> If Scotland wants independence then they deserve their own country. Maybe they just might do it right this time. It won't be easy though.


Greatest Scottish American ever has something to say about that. . .




Born in Dunfermline, Scotland on November 25, 1835.  Died in Lenox, Massachusetts on August 11, 1919.


----------



## Samson

bodecea said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can only hope TX goes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should start a thread: There you could compulsively post this over and over again in private, and avoid appearing obsessed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or seek professional help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not the poster who brought up TX in this thread....FYI.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wanna guess how many times you've posted about Texas in a thread about Scotland?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She has issues with folks from Texas. Hollywood has done a number on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably twice.   It's horrible, isn't it?
Click to expand...


Good.

Acceptance it the first step toward recovery.


----------



## Beelzebub

bodecea said:


> Beelzebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am impressed with the resilience of the Celtic culture. English had been trying to destroy it for hundreds of years now. Look at Irish folks, they turned out to be tough nuts to crack. I thought English had the Scots but it turns out Scots are not dead yet either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be daft.
> There is not an Englishman alive that doesn't have Celtic ancestors.  Apart from Phil the Greek.
> 
> Anglo Saxons come from tribes of Angles, Saxons and Jutes in what is now northern Germany and Denmark.
> But you compare the look of folk from northern Germany with Brits.  There is a distinct difference.  That is because of the high input of Celtic genetics.
> 
> Culturally, the English are still more Anglo Saxon.  The Welsh & Irish still have more Celtic genetics, and the Scots too.  But the Scots also have a big genetic hangover from the Picts.  From before the Scotti (an Irish tribe) invaded and took over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets not forget the Normans and the Norse.
Click to expand...



The Normans ARE Norse, just French speaking ones.
And the Norse are from Northern Germanic tribes too.  So much the same as the Anglo Saxons genetically.  Though they did also have separate culture and language which enriched Britain.  And gave us the days of the week, and such.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

BBC Breaking News on Twitter Turnout in indyref set to top 90 - Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson http t.co 5AxupY7Cow pic via SiDedman http t.co YWFbSeZ1Tl 

Huge turnout.


----------



## Toro

YouGov exit poll has the No side winning 54-46.

The head of YouGov just said he was 99% sure the No side would win.

The financial markets certainly think No will win.  The pound was up sharply today.


----------



## Toro

CNN reports.






lol


----------



## mudwhistle

If you can figure out what he's saying you're from Scotland......


----------



## AquaAthena

Exit Polls....NO...

Scottish independence referendum YouGov poll predicts 54 no 46 yes - live updates Politics theguardian.com


----------



## PoliticalChic

AquaAthena said:


> Exit Polls....NO...
> 
> Scottish independence referendum YouGov poll predicts 54 no 46 yes - live updates Politics theguardian.com




In Quebec they're busting their breadsticks!!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Toro said:


> YouGov exit poll has the No side winning 54-46.
> 
> The head of YouGov just said he was 99% sure the No side would win.
> 
> The financial markets certainly think No will win.  The pound was up sharply today.


Not surprising, if disappointing.


----------



## mudwhistle

PoliticalChic said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exit Polls....NO...
> 
> Scottish independence referendum YouGov poll predicts 54 no 46 yes - live updates Politics theguardian.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Quebec they're busting their breadsticks!!
Click to expand...

LMAO!!


----------



## Toro

Gotta be careful with exit polls.  I remember watching the 1992 UK general election, and as soon as the polls closed, the BBC called a minority government for Labour based on exit polls. 

However, as the night wore on, the election swung towards the Tories, who wound up winning a majority government.  In the end, they found that even though people wanted to vote for Labour, they couldn't, and elected John Major Prime Minister.


----------



## KissMy

Phoenall said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of crap the union was formed when Scotland went bankrupt and came to England for help. A deal was struck for Scotland to become part of the UK while keeping its own identity and laws. This was acceptable and so Scotland joined the union as an equal partner after England had bailed them out. It was only with the rise of Scots nationalism and the inherent racism produced that certain hot headed Scots decided they wanted to be free of England while still keeping the money flowing in. What should have happened when Scotland devolved from the rest of Britain is the £2500 subsidy granted to every Scot should have ceased and they should have received a proportional amount of the money raised from Scots taxes and the ability to raise their own taxes on top. This would have shown just how much Scotland is indebted to Great Britain and how much the racist SNP is lying to the Scots people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both Scotland and England were dirt poor before they started looting other countries. English used the gold and money they looted from their colonies to bribe the Scottish elites who in turn colluded with English in destroying the social fabric of Scotland. That is why Scotland is in a state of confusion today.
> 
> It is really 'generous' of England to take away Scotland's resources and in return throw some crumb at them like the subsidy you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scotland was bankrupt in 1700 when it ploughed over half of its capital into the failed Darien scheme, so they had to go cap in hand to the English to bail them out. England never took anything it paid for the oil exploration out of the Unions coffers for the benefit of all British subjects, it was a Scot that gave it away to Europe. But the British government gave the Scots a £2,500 subsidy that they did not give to the English, on top of the oil wealth that went to Aberdeen. They stand to lose all that in their racist greed and good luck to them
Click to expand...


Scotland trades little with foreigners, has a trade surplus & it has a high employment rate. England is the exact opposite. England steals wealth created with the blood sweat & tears of others. England engages in massive trading, has a large trade deficit & low employment.


----------



## AquaAthena

Toro said:


> Gotta be careful with exit polls.  I remember watching the 1992 UK general election, and as soon as the polls closed, the BBC called a minority government for Labour based on exit polls.
> 
> However, as the night wore on, the election swung towards the Tories, who wound up winning a majority government.  In the end, they found that even though people wanted to vote for Labour, they couldn't, and elected John Major Prime Minister.


So true. They are fun, though....


----------



## Uncensored2008

Does this mean they will not draw and quarter Mel Gibson?


----------



## Vikrant

bodecea said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought only guys wore kilt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/w...e&region=Footer&module=TopNews&pgtype=article
> 
> 
> 
> You've not seen private school skirts, have you?
Click to expand...


OK. So that is what that is, private school uniform.


----------



## Vikrant

NLT said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought only guys wore kilt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/w...e&region=Footer&module=TopNews&pgtype=article
> 
> 
> 
> No fat ugly lesbians like to wear them also, ask bodey
Click to expand...


Be nice homie. You have no way of knowing whether she is fat or lesbian or anything. And, even if she were one of those, it is wrong to deride people like that.


----------



## Vikrant

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't live in Scotland, and is ineligible to vote for independence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not but if Scotland is to be run like America he could just walk in and vote.  Then, if independence prevails,  Connery could run for President with absolutely no concern about citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why in the world would Scotland be run like the U.S.? They would retain their parliamentary system, and First Minister Alex Salmond would, presumably, simply become Prime Minister of Scotland, and *Queen Elizabeth would become the Queen of Scotland.*
Click to expand...


So who will fill the position of Queen of England?


----------



## Vikrant

AquaAthena said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta be careful with exit polls.  I remember watching the 1992 UK general election, and as soon as the polls closed, the BBC called a minority government for Labour based on exit polls.
> 
> However, as the night wore on, the election swung towards the Tories, who wound up winning a majority government.  In the end, they found that even though people wanted to vote for Labour, they couldn't, and elected John Major Prime Minister.
> 
> 
> 
> So true. They are fun, though....
Click to expand...


There is no need to despair. Scotland and England will still be friends. Scotland will still be a good friend of the US. Nothing much will change except decisions related to Scotland will be made by Scottish people. This is not a bad thing after all. English people will be happy that they do not have to support "drunk" Scots. At the end everyone wins.


----------



## Vikrant

This is a funny video from John Oliver. Every clip will make you laugh. There are some jabs at Mel Gibson and David Cameron but other than that it is extremely funny video. This even has a clip of David Cameron playing cricket. There are some Scottish accents that are very hard to understand at least for me.


----------



## MaryL

I would say to  the Scotts: stay united with England.


----------



## Samson

Toro said:


> Gotta be careful with exit polls.  I remember watching the 1992 UK general election, and as soon as the polls closed, the BBC called a minority government for Labour based on exit polls.
> 
> However, as the night wore on, the election swung towards the Tories, who wound up winning a majority government.  In the end, they found that even though people *wanted to vote for Labour, they couldn't*, and elected John Major Prime Minister.




They "wanted to but couldn't?"



Are they all 16 year old girls?


----------



## bodecea

MaryL said:


> I would say to  the Scotts: stay united with England.


I would imagine there are some "Scotts" who live in England.  However, were you referring to the Scots?


----------



## KissMy

One Scottish district vote totals are in. 54.6% of Clackmannanshire voted NO! Only 31 more districts to go.


----------



## Vikrant

MaryL said:


> I would say to  the Scotts: stay united with England.



After diving a bit deep into the issue, I am not surprised that it has come to this. Scots were very strongly against the Gulf War II and they feel like they were dragged into it just because they were part of the UK. They also feel that Scotland does not have compelling interest in getting involved in Syria but despite that they may be dragged into this if they remain a part of UK. They feel very strongly that some of these wars (fought by UK) were unnecessary and the wasted efforts could have been better directed at addressing domestic issues such as education, health, etc. 

Watch this town hall type meeting to get a feel of both sides:


----------



## Toro

Clackmannanshire has voted No.  They were expected to vote Yes.  

That is a bad omen for the Yes side.


----------



## mudwhistle

MaryL said:


> I would say to  the Scotts: stay united with England.


Thank you MaryL Queen of Scots.


----------



## Samson

bodecea said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say to  the Scotts: stay united with England.
> 
> 
> 
> I would imagine there are some "Scotts" who live in England.  However, were you referring to the Scots?
Click to expand...



Oh, C'mon, man!


----------



## Samson

Toro said:


> Clackmannanshire has voted No.  They were expected to vote Yes.
> 
> That is a bad omen for the Yes side.



"ClackMannAnShire"

Really?

It seems like a bad omen after they named the place.


----------



## Vikrant

It is quite possible that Scotland may vote No. This referendum may simply have been nothing more than a warning shot at Westminster to start paying attention to Scottish concerns.


----------



## mudwhistle




----------



## Vikrant

Clackmannanshire has declared the first result of the independence referendum.

Turnout in the area was 88.6% with No winning by 19,036 to the Yes campaign's 16,350.

BBC News - Scottish independence Clackmannanshire first to declare


----------



## JWBooth

Vikrant said:


> It is quite possible that Scotland may vote No. This referendum may simply have been nothing more than a warning shot at Westminster to start paying attention to Scottish concerns.


If so, then this would be one of the biggest extortion gambits ever played.


----------



## Vikrant

JWBooth said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite possible that Scotland may vote No. This referendum may simply have been nothing more than a warning shot at Westminster to start paying attention to Scottish concerns.
> 
> 
> 
> If so, then this would be one of the biggest extortion gambits ever played.
Click to expand...


That is my conjecture. I can easily be wrong.


----------



## Samson

Vikrant said:


> It is quite possible that Scotland may vote No. This referendum may simply have been nothing more than a warning shot at Westminster to start paying attention to Scottish concerns.




Well, as long as we're hypothesizing about Westminster's ulterior motives, I believe the referendum was designed to placate Scottish Nationals. England would never have approved it had it been even remotely concerned it might be a "Yes" victory.

It is a complete travesty.


----------



## Vikrant

Samson said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite possible that Scotland may vote No. This referendum may simply have been nothing more than a warning shot at Westminster to start paying attention to Scottish concerns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as long as we're hypothesizing about Westminster's ulterior motives, I believe the referendum was designed to placate Scottish Nationals. England would never have approved it had it been even remotely concerned it might be a "Yes" victory.
> 
> It is a complete travesty.
Click to expand...


That is not a bad guess actually. But one thing I am certain on is that Westminster is going to give more attention to Scots on foreign issues. I am not saying that UK will give up its nuclear weapons to please Scottish folks but UK will certainly be more careful about engaging in wars going forward. That is my prediction.


----------



## HenryBHough

Because some of our more gullible, mostly of the progressive variety will believe anything, I offer this bit of "electioneering" just in.....

Queen Rips Scottish Bastards in Angry Televised Address - The New Yorker

_"LONDON (The Borowitz Report)—In an eleventh-hour development that could have an unpredictable effect on the vote to determine Scottish independence, Queen Elizabeth II took to the British airwaves on Thursday to excoriate the Scots in a one-hour, profanity-laden tirade."_


----------



## Vikrant

It seems like Scottish folks had a very busy day today. Watching the videos, it seems like there was a heavy duty support for the Yes camp. It is hard to believe that Yes side could lose at all if you are to go by the passion displayed by Yes side. BTW, there are some accusations that No side is rigging the votes. 

Scottish independence vote ends and the countdown begins Daily Mail Online


----------



## Vikrant

I am not sure what is going on here. 






Scottish independence vote ends and the countdown begins Daily Mail Online


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Looks like it's not going to happen.
BBC News - Scottish referendum Voters to reject independence - BBC


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Scottish Independence result Alex Salmond accepts Scotland has rejected independence - Yahoo News UK

No wins


----------



## Toro

It wound up being not as close as expected as No won 55-45.  Only 4 of 32 council areas voted Yes.  

It appears that undecideds broke against succession but a fairly wide margin.  In Quebec, undecideds voted 2:1 against, and it appears they did so in Scotland as well.


----------



## Rikurzhen

Toro said:


> It wound up being not as close as expected as No won 55-45.  Only 4 of 32 council areas voted Yes.
> 
> It appears that undecideds broke against succession but a fairly wide margin.  In Quebec, undecideds voted 2:1 against, and it appears they did so in Scotland as well.



It'll be interesting to see if it was women who quashed the dream. The last poll I saw had women with a 16 spread favoring NO while the men where 53% in favor of YES. Women are very supportive of dependence on government. I wonder if that 16 point spread held.


----------



## Swagger

Thank fuck for that.


----------



## mudwhistle

Yet Scots will still be Scots........and remind everyone of it.


----------



## gipper

Rikurzhen said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wound up being not as close as expected as No won 55-45.  Only 4 of 32 council areas voted Yes.
> 
> It appears that undecideds broke against succession but a fairly wide margin.  In Quebec, undecideds voted 2:1 against, and it appears they did so in Scotland as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It'll be interesting to see if it was women who quashed the dream. The last poll I saw had women with a 16 spread favoring NO while the men where 53% in favor of YES. Women are very supportive of dependence on government. I wonder if that 16 point spread held.
Click to expand...


Could be.  

This is most unfortunate.  I would guess the state run media put on a full court press to scare many Scots into voting to stay part of a failed corrupt PC warmongering nation state.  

What a shame.


----------



## Swagger

mudwhistle said:


> Yet Scots will still be Scots........and remind everyone of it.



Don't know about you but I haven't really got a problem with that. After all is said and done, they're still proud of their heritage, and I hope the relatively harmless tribalism between the Scots, English, Irish and Welsh continues long after I've been put in the ground.


----------



## mudwhistle

Swagger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet Scots will still be Scots........and remind everyone of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know about you but I haven't really got a problem with that. After all is said and done, they're still proud of their heritage, and I hope the relatively harmless tribalism between the Scots, English, Irish and Welsh continues long after I've been put in the ground.
Click to expand...

That goes without saying.


----------



## Swagger

mudwhistle said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet Scots will still be Scots........and remind everyone of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know about you but I haven't really got a problem with that. After all is said and done, they're still proud of their heritage, and I hope the relatively harmless tribalism between the Scots, English, Irish and Welsh continues long after I've been put in the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That goes without saying.
Click to expand...


Nothing personal, Mud, it's just that we've narrowly averted having the country we've taken for granted being ripped from under our feet. I'm genuinely and sincerely relieved at the outcome.


----------



## mudwhistle

Swagger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet Scots will still be Scots........and remind everyone of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know about you but I haven't really got a problem with that. After all is said and done, they're still proud of their heritage, and I hope the relatively harmless tribalism between the Scots, English, Irish and Welsh continues long after I've been put in the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That goes without saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing personal, Mud, it's just that we've narrowly averted having the country we've taken for granted being ripped from under our feet. I'm genuinely and sincerely relieved at the outcome.
Click to expand...

I imagine it would be similar to the turmoil during the breakup of India only not so violent. Muslims and Hindus murdering each other for one reason or another because they have to relocate due to their citizenship.
Radical change is never easy.


----------



## Swagger

mudwhistle said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet Scots will still be Scots........and remind everyone of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know about you but I haven't really got a problem with that. After all is said and done, they're still proud of their heritage, and I hope the relatively harmless tribalism between the Scots, English, Irish and Welsh continues long after I've been put in the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That goes without saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing personal, Mud, it's just that we've narrowly averted having the country we've taken for granted being ripped from under our feet. I'm genuinely and sincerely relieved at the outcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I imagine it would be similar to the turmoil during the breakup of India only not so violent. Muslims and Hindus murdering each other for one reason or another because they have to relocate due to their citizenship.
Click to expand...


Respectfully, I have to disagree. Religion is one of the founding pillars of a culture. India and Pakistan were divided by religion, whereas apart from a few differences there's little seperating Scotland and England. Scotland is family whereas, in my opinion, India and Pakistan are just neighbours. Either way, India's better off without a horde of stinking Pakis holding them back with their medieval culture and mindset.


----------



## mudwhistle

Swagger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet Scots will still be Scots........and remind everyone of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know about you but I haven't really got a problem with that. After all is said and done, they're still proud of their heritage, and I hope the relatively harmless tribalism between the Scots, English, Irish and Welsh continues long after I've been put in the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That goes without saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing personal, Mud, it's just that we've narrowly averted having the country we've taken for granted being ripped from under our feet. I'm genuinely and sincerely relieved at the outcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I imagine it would be similar to the turmoil during the breakup of India only not so violent. Muslims and Hindus murdering each other for one reason or another because they have to relocate due to their citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Respectfully, I have to disagree. Religion is one of the founding pillars of a culture. India and Pakistan were divided by religion, whereas apart from a few differences there's little seperating Scotland and England. Scotland is family whereas, in my opinion, India and Pakistan are just neighbours. Either way, India's better off without a horde of stinking Pakis holding them back with their medieval culture and mindset.
Click to expand...

You and I may feel that way, but some folks might differ. All it takes is 10% of all Muslims to cause the kind of trouble they've been causing. Imagine 45% of Scots feeling they have no ties to England.


----------



## mudwhistle

My Dad's family is Irish related to the Kennedys but my Mom's was McQuirk. I imagine in England that's a pretty low family tree.


----------



## Swagger

mudwhistle said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know about you but I haven't really got a problem with that. After all is said and done, they're still proud of their heritage, and I hope the relatively harmless tribalism between the Scots, English, Irish and Welsh continues long after I've been put in the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> That goes without saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing personal, Mud, it's just that we've narrowly averted having the country we've taken for granted being ripped from under our feet. I'm genuinely and sincerely relieved at the outcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I imagine it would be similar to the turmoil during the breakup of India only not so violent. Muslims and Hindus murdering each other for one reason or another because they have to relocate due to their citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Respectfully, I have to disagree. Religion is one of the founding pillars of a culture. India and Pakistan were divided by religion, whereas apart from a few differences there's little seperating Scotland and England. Scotland is family whereas, in my opinion, India and Pakistan are just neighbours. Either way, India's better off without a horde of stinking Pakis holding them back with their medieval culture and mindset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and I may feel that way, but some folks might differ. All it takes is 10% of all Muslims to cause the kind of trouble they've been causing. Imagine 45% of Scots feeling they have no ties to England.
Click to expand...


I can certainly understand why so many voted Yes, as the fact of the matter is that the United Kingdom is governed from London, which is in England. I can understand their resentment at that, as it's essentially a reminder of English subjugation. But thankfully 55% of Scots realised that the Act of Union signified that the tribes of the British Isles are in this together, and divided we fall.

But let's look at the Muslim issue and why I found the "nationalist" element so hollow. The SNP is in no, way shape of form a nationalist movement because they were desperate for Scotland to become part of the bastard E.U., which kind of suggests they were well aware of the financial difficulties an independent Scotland would immediately find itself in. And what does the E.U. hold most sacred? Multiculturalism. And Brussels would certainly see to it that its latest vassel state began accepting as many Pakis and wogs as they could send them.

Muslims are a dangerous, filthy and diseased scourge that have no place in Europe. Normal people realise that they're trouble, but our leaders are insulated (by design) from the anxiety, stress and atmosphere of resentment they instill wherever they settle outside of the shitholes they come from.


----------



## mudwhistle

Swagger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> That goes without saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing personal, Mud, it's just that we've narrowly averted having the country we've taken for granted being ripped from under our feet. I'm genuinely and sincerely relieved at the outcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I imagine it would be similar to the turmoil during the breakup of India only not so violent. Muslims and Hindus murdering each other for one reason or another because they have to relocate due to their citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Respectfully, I have to disagree. Religion is one of the founding pillars of a culture. India and Pakistan were divided by religion, whereas apart from a few differences there's little seperating Scotland and England. Scotland is family whereas, in my opinion, India and Pakistan are just neighbours. Either way, India's better off without a horde of stinking Pakis holding them back with their medieval culture and mindset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and I may feel that way, but some folks might differ. All it takes is 10% of all Muslims to cause the kind of trouble they've been causing. Imagine 45% of Scots feeling they have no ties to England.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can certainly understand why so many voted Yes, as the fact of the matter is that the United Kingdom is governed from London, which is in England. I can understand their resentment at that, as it's essentially a reminder of English subjugation. But thankfully 55% of Scots realised that the Act of Union signified that the tribes of the British Isles are in this together, and divided we fall.
> 
> But let's look at the Muslim issue and why I found the "nationalist" element so hollow. The SNP is in no, way shape of form a nationalist movement because they were desperate for Scotland to become part of the bastard E.U., which kind of suggests they were well aware of the financial difficulties an independent Scotland would immediately find itself in. And what does the E.U. hold most sacred? Multiculturalism. And the Brussels would certainly see to it that its latest vassel state began accepting as many Pakis and wogs as they could send them.
> 
> Muslims are a dangerous, filthy and diseased scourge that have no place in Europe. Normal people realise that they're trouble, but our leaders are insulated (by design) from the anxiety, stress and atmosphere of resentment they instill wherever they settle outside of the shitholes they come from.
Click to expand...

This is why I'm not afraid of talking about things I may be ignorant of. I may learn something.


----------



## Swagger

mudwhistle said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing personal, Mud, it's just that we've narrowly averted having the country we've taken for granted being ripped from under our feet. I'm genuinely and sincerely relieved at the outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> I imagine it would be similar to the turmoil during the breakup of India only not so violent. Muslims and Hindus murdering each other for one reason or another because they have to relocate due to their citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Respectfully, I have to disagree. Religion is one of the founding pillars of a culture. India and Pakistan were divided by religion, whereas apart from a few differences there's little seperating Scotland and England. Scotland is family whereas, in my opinion, India and Pakistan are just neighbours. Either way, India's better off without a horde of stinking Pakis holding them back with their medieval culture and mindset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and I may feel that way, but some folks might differ. All it takes is 10% of all Muslims to cause the kind of trouble they've been causing. Imagine 45% of Scots feeling they have no ties to England.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can certainly understand why so many voted Yes, as the fact of the matter is that the United Kingdom is governed from London, which is in England. I can understand their resentment at that, as it's essentially a reminder of English subjugation. But thankfully 55% of Scots realised that the Act of Union signified that the tribes of the British Isles are in this together, and divided we fall.
> 
> But let's look at the Muslim issue and why I found the "nationalist" element so hollow. The SNP is in no, way shape of form a nationalist movement because they were desperate for Scotland to become part of the bastard E.U., which kind of suggests they were well aware of the financial difficulties an independent Scotland would immediately find itself in. And what does the E.U. hold most sacred? Multiculturalism. And the Brussels would certainly see to it that its latest vassel state began accepting as many Pakis and wogs as they could send them.
> 
> Muslims are a dangerous, filthy and diseased scourge that have no place in Europe. Normal people realise that they're trouble, but our leaders are insulated (by design) from the anxiety, stress and atmosphere of resentment they instill wherever they settle outside of the shitholes they come from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why I'm not afraid of talking about things I may be ignorant of. I may learn something.
Click to expand...


It's healthy that you take an interest in the events surrounding where your ancestors came from, Mud. I understand why Americans like to think of themselves as seperate from Europe (especially when you take into account the amount of blood shed), but the cold reality of the matter is that White Americans are ethnically European, and should take an interest in what's happening in the 'old' world.


----------



## Swagger

I wonder how many Scots would've voted Yes if the eventual consequence of a Yes vote were made more public in the opposition's literature? That consequence would've been Scotland being flooded with peasants from the Third World at the behest of the E.U., in case you didn't know.


----------



## mudwhistle

Swagger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I imagine it would be similar to the turmoil during the breakup of India only not so violent. Muslims and Hindus murdering each other for one reason or another because they have to relocate due to their citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully, I have to disagree. Religion is one of the founding pillars of a culture. India and Pakistan were divided by religion, whereas apart from a few differences there's little seperating Scotland and England. Scotland is family whereas, in my opinion, India and Pakistan are just neighbours. Either way, India's better off without a horde of stinking Pakis holding them back with their medieval culture and mindset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and I may feel that way, but some folks might differ. All it takes is 10% of all Muslims to cause the kind of trouble they've been causing. Imagine 45% of Scots feeling they have no ties to England.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can certainly understand why so many voted Yes, as the fact of the matter is that the United Kingdom is governed from London, which is in England. I can understand their resentment at that, as it's essentially a reminder of English subjugation. But thankfully 55% of Scots realised that the Act of Union signified that the tribes of the British Isles are in this together, and divided we fall.
> 
> But let's look at the Muslim issue and why I found the "nationalist" element so hollow. The SNP is in no, way shape of form a nationalist movement because they were desperate for Scotland to become part of the bastard E.U., which kind of suggests they were well aware of the financial difficulties an independent Scotland would immediately find itself in. And what does the E.U. hold most sacred? Multiculturalism. And the Brussels would certainly see to it that its latest vassel state began accepting as many Pakis and wogs as they could send them.
> 
> Muslims are a dangerous, filthy and diseased scourge that have no place in Europe. Normal people realise that they're trouble, but our leaders are insulated (by design) from the anxiety, stress and atmosphere of resentment they instill wherever they settle outside of the shitholes they come from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why I'm not afraid of talking about things I may be ignorant of. I may learn something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's healthy that you take an interest in the events surrounding where your ancestors came from, Mud. I understand why Americans like to think of themselves as seperate from Europe (especially when you take into account the amount of blood shed), but the cold reality of the matter is that White Americans are ethnically European, and should take an interest in what's happening in the 'old' world.
Click to expand...

I consider myself an American but I also consider my relationship with the UK sort of like a sibling. We have the same parents and that makes us brothers. I have ancestral ties to Norway and Italy, as well as Native-American ties, but I felt most at home when I visited London several years back. Seemed like the place was full of comedians. At least that was my first impression. I lived in Germany for a couple of years and was able to get over there for a few days. 

Belgium can kiss my hairy nutsack however.


----------



## mudwhistle

I had a US history teacher in college that was  British. He always called us students Colonialists. He seemed to think we were a bunch of zombies because instead of acting as participants in class we would sit there being silent and not wise-cracking like British students did, he claimed. This silence comes from years of punishment for acting up in school. He mistook our politeness for apathy. He may have been at least partially correct.


----------



## mudwhistle

Swagger said:


> I wonder how many Scots would've voted Yes if the eventual consequence of a Yes vote were made more public in the opposition's literature? That consequence would've been Scotland being flooded with peasants from the Third World at the behest of the E.U., in case you didn't know.


Welcome to Hope & Change


----------



## Swagger

mudwhistle said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully, I have to disagree. Religion is one of the founding pillars of a culture. India and Pakistan were divided by religion, whereas apart from a few differences there's little seperating Scotland and England. Scotland is family whereas, in my opinion, India and Pakistan are just neighbours. Either way, India's better off without a horde of stinking Pakis holding them back with their medieval culture and mindset.
> 
> 
> 
> You and I may feel that way, but some folks might differ. All it takes is 10% of all Muslims to cause the kind of trouble they've been causing. Imagine 45% of Scots feeling they have no ties to England.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can certainly understand why so many voted Yes, as the fact of the matter is that the United Kingdom is governed from London, which is in England. I can understand their resentment at that, as it's essentially a reminder of English subjugation. But thankfully 55% of Scots realised that the Act of Union signified that the tribes of the British Isles are in this together, and divided we fall.
> 
> But let's look at the Muslim issue and why I found the "nationalist" element so hollow. The SNP is in no, way shape of form a nationalist movement because they were desperate for Scotland to become part of the bastard E.U., which kind of suggests they were well aware of the financial difficulties an independent Scotland would immediately find itself in. And what does the E.U. hold most sacred? Multiculturalism. And the Brussels would certainly see to it that its latest vassel state began accepting as many Pakis and wogs as they could send them.
> 
> Muslims are a dangerous, filthy and diseased scourge that have no place in Europe. Normal people realise that they're trouble, but our leaders are insulated (by design) from the anxiety, stress and atmosphere of resentment they instill wherever they settle outside of the shitholes they come from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why I'm not afraid of talking about things I may be ignorant of. I may learn something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's healthy that you take an interest in the events surrounding where your ancestors came from, Mud. I understand why Americans like to think of themselves as seperate from Europe (especially when you take into account the amount of blood shed), but the cold reality of the matter is that White Americans are ethnically European, and should take an interest in what's happening in the 'old' world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I consider myself an American but I also consider my relationship with the UK sort of like a sibling. We have the same parents and that makes us brothers. I have ancestral ties to Norway and Italy, as well as Native-American ties, but I felt most at home when I visited London several years back. Seemed like the place was full of comedians. At least that was my first impression. I lived in Germany for a couple of years and was able to get over there for a few days.
> 
> Belgium can kiss my hairy nutsack however.
Click to expand...


I've been to Bruges several times and overall my experience of Belgium has always been positive. My animosity towards Brussels/Belgium is entirely rooted in the E.U., its unelected eurocrats and its ignorant proponents. I hate that organisation with a passion and hungrily await its demise. I also vote and volunteer for UKIP in the hope of contributing towards accelerating its destruction and awakening people to the danger it poses. It strips nations of their sovereignty via its sympathetic politicians in member states and dictates multiculturalism. It's a cancer and I wouldn't bat an eyelid if a bomb ripped through its headquarters.


----------



## mudwhistle

Swagger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and I may feel that way, but some folks might differ. All it takes is 10% of all Muslims to cause the kind of trouble they've been causing. Imagine 45% of Scots feeling they have no ties to England.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can certainly understand why so many voted Yes, as the fact of the matter is that the United Kingdom is governed from London, which is in England. I can understand their resentment at that, as it's essentially a reminder of English subjugation. But thankfully 55% of Scots realised that the Act of Union signified that the tribes of the British Isles are in this together, and divided we fall.
> 
> But let's look at the Muslim issue and why I found the "nationalist" element so hollow. The SNP is in no, way shape of form a nationalist movement because they were desperate for Scotland to become part of the bastard E.U., which kind of suggests they were well aware of the financial difficulties an independent Scotland would immediately find itself in. And what does the E.U. hold most sacred? Multiculturalism. And the Brussels would certainly see to it that its latest vassel state began accepting as many Pakis and wogs as they could send them.
> 
> Muslims are a dangerous, filthy and diseased scourge that have no place in Europe. Normal people realise that they're trouble, but our leaders are insulated (by design) from the anxiety, stress and atmosphere of resentment they instill wherever they settle outside of the shitholes they come from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why I'm not afraid of talking about things I may be ignorant of. I may learn something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's healthy that you take an interest in the events surrounding where your ancestors came from, Mud. I understand why Americans like to think of themselves as seperate from Europe (especially when you take into account the amount of blood shed), but the cold reality of the matter is that White Americans are ethnically European, and should take an interest in what's happening in the 'old' world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I consider myself an American but I also consider my relationship with the UK sort of like a sibling. We have the same parents and that makes us brothers. I have ancestral ties to Norway and Italy, as well as Native-American ties, but I felt most at home when I visited London several years back. Seemed like the place was full of comedians. At least that was my first impression. I lived in Germany for a couple of years and was able to get over there for a few days.
> 
> Belgium can kiss my hairy nutsack however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been to Bruges several times and overall my experience of Belgium has always been positive. My animosity towards Brussels/Belgium is entirely rooted in the E.U., its unelected eurocrats and its ignorant proponents. I hate that organisation with a passion and hungrily await its demise. I also vote and volunteer for UKIP in the hope of contributing towards accelerating its destruction and awakening people to the danger it poses. It strips nations of their sovereignty via its sympathetic politicians in member states and dictates multiculturalism. It's a cancer and I wouldn't bat an eyelid if a bomb ripped through its headquarters.
Click to expand...

I had some bad experiences with Belgium troops in Somalia back in 93'.

They were beating prisoners and one of the officers that accompanied us told the UNISOM authority about it. 

Dumb-ass.

 The Belgium command refused to give us agreed upon support during one of our missions after that. Anyway, the shithead that caused the dispute got a quick ticket back stateside and we had to stay to deal with it.


----------



## mudwhistle

Swagger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and I may feel that way, but some folks might differ. All it takes is 10% of all Muslims to cause the kind of trouble they've been causing. Imagine 45% of Scots feeling they have no ties to England.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can certainly understand why so many voted Yes, as the fact of the matter is that the United Kingdom is governed from London, which is in England. I can understand their resentment at that, as it's essentially a reminder of English subjugation. But thankfully 55% of Scots realised that the Act of Union signified that the tribes of the British Isles are in this together, and divided we fall.
> 
> But let's look at the Muslim issue and why I found the "nationalist" element so hollow. The SNP is in no, way shape of form a nationalist movement because they were desperate for Scotland to become part of the bastard E.U., which kind of suggests they were well aware of the financial difficulties an independent Scotland would immediately find itself in. And what does the E.U. hold most sacred? Multiculturalism. And the Brussels would certainly see to it that its latest vassel state began accepting as many Pakis and wogs as they could send them.
> 
> Muslims are a dangerous, filthy and diseased scourge that have no place in Europe. Normal people realise that they're trouble, but our leaders are insulated (by design) from the anxiety, stress and atmosphere of resentment they instill wherever they settle outside of the shitholes they come from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why I'm not afraid of talking about things I may be ignorant of. I may learn something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's healthy that you take an interest in the events surrounding where your ancestors came from, Mud. I understand why Americans like to think of themselves as seperate from Europe (especially when you take into account the amount of blood shed), but the cold reality of the matter is that White Americans are ethnically European, and should take an interest in what's happening in the 'old' world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I consider myself an American but I also consider my relationship with the UK sort of like a sibling. We have the same parents and that makes us brothers. I have ancestral ties to Norway and Italy, as well as Native-American ties, but I felt most at home when I visited London several years back. Seemed like the place was full of comedians. At least that was my first impression. I lived in Germany for a couple of years and was able to get over there for a few days.
> 
> Belgium can kiss my hairy nutsack however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been to Bruges several times and overall my experience of Belgium has always been positive. My animosity towards Brussels/Belgium is entirely rooted in the E.U., its unelected eurocrats and its ignorant proponents. I hate that organisation with a passion and hungrily await its demise. I also vote and volunteer for UKIP in the hope of contributing towards accelerating its destruction and awakening people to the danger it poses. It strips nations of their sovereignty via its sympathetic politicians in member states and dictates multiculturalism. It's a cancer and I wouldn't bat an eyelid if a bomb ripped through its headquarters.
Click to expand...

This is the kind of crap we're faced with in Obama.


----------



## Swagger

mudwhistle said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can certainly understand why so many voted Yes, as the fact of the matter is that the United Kingdom is governed from London, which is in England. I can understand their resentment at that, as it's essentially a reminder of English subjugation. But thankfully 55% of Scots realised that the Act of Union signified that the tribes of the British Isles are in this together, and divided we fall.
> 
> But let's look at the Muslim issue and why I found the "nationalist" element so hollow. The SNP is in no, way shape of form a nationalist movement because they were desperate for Scotland to become part of the bastard E.U., which kind of suggests they were well aware of the financial difficulties an independent Scotland would immediately find itself in. And what does the E.U. hold most sacred? Multiculturalism. And the Brussels would certainly see to it that its latest vassel state began accepting as many Pakis and wogs as they could send them.
> 
> Muslims are a dangerous, filthy and diseased scourge that have no place in Europe. Normal people realise that they're trouble, but our leaders are insulated (by design) from the anxiety, stress and atmosphere of resentment they instill wherever they settle outside of the shitholes they come from.
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I'm not afraid of talking about things I may be ignorant of. I may learn something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's healthy that you take an interest in the events surrounding where your ancestors came from, Mud. I understand why Americans like to think of themselves as seperate from Europe (especially when you take into account the amount of blood shed), but the cold reality of the matter is that White Americans are ethnically European, and should take an interest in what's happening in the 'old' world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I consider myself an American but I also consider my relationship with the UK sort of like a sibling. We have the same parents and that makes us brothers. I have ancestral ties to Norway and Italy, as well as Native-American ties, but I felt most at home when I visited London several years back. Seemed like the place was full of comedians. At least that was my first impression. I lived in Germany for a couple of years and was able to get over there for a few days.
> 
> Belgium can kiss my hairy nutsack however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been to Bruges several times and overall my experience of Belgium has always been positive. My animosity towards Brussels/Belgium is entirely rooted in the E.U., its unelected eurocrats and its ignorant proponents. I hate that organisation with a passion and hungrily await its demise. I also vote and volunteer for UKIP in the hope of contributing towards accelerating its destruction and awakening people to the danger it poses. It strips nations of their sovereignty via its sympathetic politicians in member states and dictates multiculturalism. It's a cancer and I wouldn't bat an eyelid if a bomb ripped through its headquarters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the kind of crap we're faced with in Obama.
Click to expand...


In an ideal world, what would you propose in order to put America back on the right path?

From an outsider's perspective it's quite clear that you need to build a wall on your southern border or put landmines down. Furthermore, it would be prudent to perhaps revise your Constitution so that you can expel/repatriate all Muslims, even if they hold citizenship. The Mexican invasion of your southern states and Islam pose a greater threat than what's happening in the Middle East. Both elements need to be removed from the equation.


----------



## mudwhistle

Swagger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I'm not afraid of talking about things I may be ignorant of. I may learn something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's healthy that you take an interest in the events surrounding where your ancestors came from, Mud. I understand why Americans like to think of themselves as seperate from Europe (especially when you take into account the amount of blood shed), but the cold reality of the matter is that White Americans are ethnically European, and should take an interest in what's happening in the 'old' world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I consider myself an American but I also consider my relationship with the UK sort of like a sibling. We have the same parents and that makes us brothers. I have ancestral ties to Norway and Italy, as well as Native-American ties, but I felt most at home when I visited London several years back. Seemed like the place was full of comedians. At least that was my first impression. I lived in Germany for a couple of years and was able to get over there for a few days.
> 
> Belgium can kiss my hairy nutsack however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been to Bruges several times and overall my experience of Belgium has always been positive. My animosity towards Brussels/Belgium is entirely rooted in the E.U., its unelected eurocrats and its ignorant proponents. I hate that organisation with a passion and hungrily await its demise. I also vote and volunteer for UKIP in the hope of contributing towards accelerating its destruction and awakening people to the danger it poses. It strips nations of their sovereignty via its sympathetic politicians in member states and dictates multiculturalism. It's a cancer and I wouldn't bat an eyelid if a bomb ripped through its headquarters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the kind of crap we're faced with in Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In an ideal world, what would you propose in order to put America back on the right path?
> 
> From an outsider's perspective it's quite clear that you need to build a wall on your southern border or put landmines down. Furthermore, it would be prudent to perhaps revise your Constitution so that you can expel/repatriate all Muslims, even if they hold citizenship. The Mexican invasion of your southern states and Islam pose a greater threat than what's happening in the Middle East. Both elements need to be removed from the equation.
Click to expand...

The first logical step would be removing every Democrat from Washington and then purging all of the liberals out of the media. 

I guess we'll have to suffer through a series of tragic events before public opinion turns on them.
Right now I'd say we're fucked.


----------



## mudwhistle

Putting up a wall doesn't help much when the Whitehouse and the ACLU plans on flying them in to all of the lower 48. Heard the other day they won a grievance for deportees and were planning on bringing them back.


----------



## Swagger

mudwhistle said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's healthy that you take an interest in the events surrounding where your ancestors came from, Mud. I understand why Americans like to think of themselves as seperate from Europe (especially when you take into account the amount of blood shed), but the cold reality of the matter is that White Americans are ethnically European, and should take an interest in what's happening in the 'old' world.
> 
> 
> 
> I consider myself an American but I also consider my relationship with the UK sort of like a sibling. We have the same parents and that makes us brothers. I have ancestral ties to Norway and Italy, as well as Native-American ties, but I felt most at home when I visited London several years back. Seemed like the place was full of comedians. At least that was my first impression. I lived in Germany for a couple of years and was able to get over there for a few days.
> 
> Belgium can kiss my hairy nutsack however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been to Bruges several times and overall my experience of Belgium has always been positive. My animosity towards Brussels/Belgium is entirely rooted in the E.U., its unelected eurocrats and its ignorant proponents. I hate that organisation with a passion and hungrily await its demise. I also vote and volunteer for UKIP in the hope of contributing towards accelerating its destruction and awakening people to the danger it poses. It strips nations of their sovereignty via its sympathetic politicians in member states and dictates multiculturalism. It's a cancer and I wouldn't bat an eyelid if a bomb ripped through its headquarters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the kind of crap we're faced with in Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In an ideal world, what would you propose in order to put America back on the right path?
> 
> From an outsider's perspective it's quite clear that you need to build a wall on your southern border or put landmines down. Furthermore, it would be prudent to perhaps revise your Constitution so that you can expel/repatriate all Muslims, even if they hold citizenship. The Mexican invasion of your southern states and Islam pose a greater threat than what's happening in the Middle East. Both elements need to be removed from the equation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first logical step would be removing every Democrat from Washington and then purging all of the liberals out of the media.
> 
> I guess we'll have to suffer through a series of tragic events before public opinion turns on them.
> Right now I'd say we're fucked.
Click to expand...


Agreed. But you shouldn't limit that purge to the Democrats. You'd have to identify which members of the GOP that have espoused views that could pose a threat to the conscious of a new, conservative-inclined population. Furthermore, White would have to be made racially aware through the media (ideally headed by the likes of Ann Coulter or Pat Buchanan), hopefully achieving an attitude towards minorities held beofre WWII. Not violent or unnecessarily cruel, but racially aware nonetheless. The opposite is what put Barack Obama in the White House (twice) and gave rise to your undeniably hostile Attorney General.


----------



## mudwhistle

Swagger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I consider myself an American but I also consider my relationship with the UK sort of like a sibling. We have the same parents and that makes us brothers. I have ancestral ties to Norway and Italy, as well as Native-American ties, but I felt most at home when I visited London several years back. Seemed like the place was full of comedians. At least that was my first impression. I lived in Germany for a couple of years and was able to get over there for a few days.
> 
> Belgium can kiss my hairy nutsack however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been to Bruges several times and overall my experience of Belgium has always been positive. My animosity towards Brussels/Belgium is entirely rooted in the E.U., its unelected eurocrats and its ignorant proponents. I hate that organisation with a passion and hungrily await its demise. I also vote and volunteer for UKIP in the hope of contributing towards accelerating its destruction and awakening people to the danger it poses. It strips nations of their sovereignty via its sympathetic politicians in member states and dictates multiculturalism. It's a cancer and I wouldn't bat an eyelid if a bomb ripped through its headquarters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the kind of crap we're faced with in Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In an ideal world, what would you propose in order to put America back on the right path?
> 
> From an outsider's perspective it's quite clear that you need to build a wall on your southern border or put landmines down. Furthermore, it would be prudent to perhaps revise your Constitution so that you can expel/repatriate all Muslims, even if they hold citizenship. The Mexican invasion of your southern states and Islam pose a greater threat than what's happening in the Middle East. Both elements need to be removed from the equation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first logical step would be removing every Democrat from Washington and then purging all of the liberals out of the media.
> 
> I guess we'll have to suffer through a series of tragic events before public opinion turns on them.
> Right now I'd say we're fucked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. But you shouldn't limit that purge to the Democrats. You'd have to identify which members of the GOP that have espoused views that could pose a threat to the conscious of a new, conservative-inclined population. Furthermore, White would have to be made racially aware through the media (ideally headed by the likes of Ann Coulter or Pat Buchanan), hopefully achieving an attitude towards minorities held beofre WWII. Not violent or unnecessarily cruel, but racially aware nonetheless. The opposite is what put Barack Obama in the White House (twice) and gave rise to your undeniably hostile Attorney General.
Click to expand...

I'd settle for getting rid of the Communists/Democrats.
Being too aggressive only gives them more reasons to be critical and thus gains them some semblance of sympathy.


----------



## Swagger

mudwhistle said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been to Bruges several times and overall my experience of Belgium has always been positive. My animosity towards Brussels/Belgium is entirely rooted in the E.U., its unelected eurocrats and its ignorant proponents. I hate that organisation with a passion and hungrily await its demise. I also vote and volunteer for UKIP in the hope of contributing towards accelerating its destruction and awakening people to the danger it poses. It strips nations of their sovereignty via its sympathetic politicians in member states and dictates multiculturalism. It's a cancer and I wouldn't bat an eyelid if a bomb ripped through its headquarters.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the kind of crap we're faced with in Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In an ideal world, what would you propose in order to put America back on the right path?
> 
> From an outsider's perspective it's quite clear that you need to build a wall on your southern border or put landmines down. Furthermore, it would be prudent to perhaps revise your Constitution so that you can expel/repatriate all Muslims, even if they hold citizenship. The Mexican invasion of your southern states and Islam pose a greater threat than what's happening in the Middle East. Both elements need to be removed from the equation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first logical step would be removing every Democrat from Washington and then purging all of the liberals out of the media.
> 
> I guess we'll have to suffer through a series of tragic events before public opinion turns on them.
> Right now I'd say we're fucked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. But you shouldn't limit that purge to the Democrats. You'd have to identify which members of the GOP that have espoused views that could pose a threat to the conscious of a new, conservative-inclined population. Furthermore, White would have to be made racially aware through the media (ideally headed by the likes of Ann Coulter or Pat Buchanan), hopefully achieving an attitude towards minorities held beofre WWII. Not violent or unnecessarily cruel, but racially aware nonetheless. The opposite is what put Barack Obama in the White House (twice) and gave rise to your undeniably hostile Attorney General.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd settle for getting rid of the Communists/Democrats.
> Being too aggressive only gives them more reasons to be critical and thus gains them some semblance of sympathy.
Click to expand...


The Republicans could stay in power for the next hundred years if they got over their fear of being called "racist" and openly appealed to the interests of the demographic majority: White people. They could adjust the mainstream narrative in their agenda's favour almost overnight if they exploited White people's ethnic angst to the fullest. Hitler succeeded at it and so have the Muslims and Jews. It's about time White people get in on the act.


----------



## Vikrant

I am glad for those folks who thought that this will be the end of the world. You can relax for now. I am also glad for David Cameron because his opponent would have crucified him if Scotland had broken away. 

I feel sorry for those Scots who will still have to put up with British policies they vehemently disagree with. 

Swagger/Mud - Let us keep off topic discussion out of this thread. Too much racism is bad for a human soul. Everything will be fine. People of color are a very long way from posing any danger to you folks. So relax and let us discuss aftermath of the referendum.


----------



## Vikrant

Swagger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the kind of crap we're faced with in Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In an ideal world, what would you propose in order to put America back on the right path?
> 
> From an outsider's perspective it's quite clear that you need to build a wall on your southern border or put landmines down. Furthermore, it would be prudent to perhaps revise your Constitution so that you can expel/repatriate all Muslims, even if they hold citizenship. The Mexican invasion of your southern states and Islam pose a greater threat than what's happening in the Middle East. Both elements need to be removed from the equation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first logical step would be removing every Democrat from Washington and then purging all of the liberals out of the media.
> 
> I guess we'll have to suffer through a series of tragic events before public opinion turns on them.
> Right now I'd say we're fucked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. But you shouldn't limit that purge to the Democrats. You'd have to identify which members of the GOP that have espoused views that could pose a threat to the conscious of a new, conservative-inclined population. Furthermore, White would have to be made racially aware through the media (ideally headed by the likes of Ann Coulter or Pat Buchanan), hopefully achieving an attitude towards minorities held beofre WWII. Not violent or unnecessarily cruel, but racially aware nonetheless. The opposite is what put Barack Obama in the White House (twice) and gave rise to your undeniably hostile Attorney General.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd settle for getting rid of the Communists/Democrats.
> Being too aggressive only gives them more reasons to be critical and thus gains them some semblance of sympathy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Republicans could stay in power for the next hundred years if they got over their fear of being called "racist" and openly appealed to the interests of the demographic majority: White people. They could adjust the mainstream narrative in their agenda's favour almost overnight if they exploited White people's ethnic angst to the fullest. Hitler succeeded at it and so have the Muslims and Jews. It's about time White people get in on the act.
Click to expand...



Boss, lay off the racism. BTW, I will be visiting London pretty soon just to piss you off.


----------



## mudwhistle

The crap that the Belgiums were doing in Somalia made GITMO and Abu Ghraib look like college hazing, but you hear nothing of it. The Dems control the media, so they continue to tarnish America while everyone else in their normal hypocritical fashion makes fun of us. This is a threat as well. Democrats using the media to encourage attacks.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Rikurzhen said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wound up being not as close as expected as No won 55-45.  Only 4 of 32 council areas voted Yes.
> 
> It appears that undecideds broke against succession but a fairly wide margin.  In Quebec, undecideds voted 2:1 against, and it appears they did so in Scotland as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It'll be interesting to see if it was women who quashed the dream. The last poll I saw had women with a 16 spread favoring NO while the men where 53% in favor of YES. Women are very supportive of dependence on government. I wonder if that 16 point spread held.
Click to expand...

Women ultimately favored the No vote by 56 to 44, only slightly more than Scotland as a whole. The real story, I think, is that younger to middle-age voters generally favored the Yes vote, whereas age 65+ plus voters overwhelmingly supported No.
http://www.conservativehome.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Referendum-day-poll-summary-140919.pdf


----------



## mudwhistle

Vikrant said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In an ideal world, what would you propose in order to put America back on the right path?
> 
> From an outsider's perspective it's quite clear that you need to build a wall on your southern border or put landmines down. Furthermore, it would be prudent to perhaps revise your Constitution so that you can expel/repatriate all Muslims, even if they hold citizenship. The Mexican invasion of your southern states and Islam pose a greater threat than what's happening in the Middle East. Both elements need to be removed from the equation.
> 
> 
> 
> The first logical step would be removing every Democrat from Washington and then purging all of the liberals out of the media.
> 
> I guess we'll have to suffer through a series of tragic events before public opinion turns on them.
> Right now I'd say we're fucked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. But you shouldn't limit that purge to the Democrats. You'd have to identify which members of the GOP that have espoused views that could pose a threat to the conscious of a new, conservative-inclined population. Furthermore, White would have to be made racially aware through the media (ideally headed by the likes of Ann Coulter or Pat Buchanan), hopefully achieving an attitude towards minorities held beofre WWII. Not violent or unnecessarily cruel, but racially aware nonetheless. The opposite is what put Barack Obama in the White House (twice) and gave rise to your undeniably hostile Attorney General.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd settle for getting rid of the Communists/Democrats.
> Being too aggressive only gives them more reasons to be critical and thus gains them some semblance of sympathy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Republicans could stay in power for the next hundred years if they got over their fear of being called "racist" and openly appealed to the interests of the demographic majority: White people. They could adjust the mainstream narrative in their agenda's favour almost overnight if they exploited White people's ethnic angst to the fullest. Hitler succeeded at it and so have the Muslims and Jews. It's about time White people get in on the act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, lay off the racism. BTW, I will be visiting London pretty soon just to piss you off.
Click to expand...

Uh, I always thought race and nationality were sort of interchangeable.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Wow, bombs and bigotry. This thread got ugly fast.


----------



## mudwhistle

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Wow, bombs and bigotry. This thread got ugly fast.


Can't we all just get along????


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

mudwhistle said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, bombs and bigotry. This thread got ugly fast.
> 
> 
> 
> Can't we all just get along????
Click to expand...

Judging from your and Swagger's conversation, I'm going to say probably not.


----------



## Vikrant

mudwhistle said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, bombs and bigotry. This thread got ugly fast.
> 
> 
> 
> Can't we all just get along????
Click to expand...


Racist people have too much faith in violence and intimidation. Let us take a look at it. What is the worst that you can do to man? You can kill him. Not a big deal. May be you can torture him. Even the torture is only effective during the beginning. After that beginning phase, the man is dead. His ideas will still be alive. There will always be another man to pick up the torch and fight for justice.


----------



## mudwhistle

Vikrant said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, bombs and bigotry. This thread got ugly fast.
> 
> 
> 
> Can't we all just get along????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racist people have too much faith in violence and intimidation. Let us take a look at it. What is the worst that you can do to man? You can kill him. Not a big deal. May be you can torture him. Even the torture is only effective during the beginning. After that beginning phase, the man is dead. His ideas will still be alive. There will always be another man to pick up the torch and fight for justice.
Click to expand...

Excuse me. But I never advocated racism. I feel you're jumping to conclusions.

One thing is for sure, killing one who practices evil does not erase evil. Man is inherently evil and can easily give in to that inherent evil. Resisting that evil is harder than the alternative. Besides, Swagger was obviously being at least partially facetious and I would hope you could recognize that.  Never mind the fact that the people in question are thinking if not stating openly much worse.


----------



## Vikrant

mudwhistle said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, bombs and bigotry. This thread got ugly fast.
> 
> 
> 
> Can't we all just get along????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racist people have too much faith in violence and intimidation. Let us take a look at it. What is the worst that you can do to man? You can kill him. Not a big deal. May be you can torture him. Even the torture is only effective during the beginning. After that beginning phase, the man is dead. His ideas will still be alive. There will always be another man to pick up the torch and fight for justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excuse me. But I never advocated racism. I feel you're jumping to conclusions.
> 
> One thing is for sure, killing one who practices evil does not erase evil. Man is inherently evil and can easily give in to that inherent evil. Resisting that evil is harder than the alternative. Besides, Swagger was obviously being at least partially facetious and I would hope you could recognize that.  Never mind the fact that the people in question are thinking if not stating openly much worse.
Click to expand...


Fair enough.


----------



## HenryBHough

Despite Salmond having called the referendum a "once in a lifetime" event you can be sure there's be another one along promptly.

This sort of movement never accepts defeat as permanent.  They just keep calling for votes on the very same thing year after year.  Their hope is that they'll get people weary enough of slogging to the polls that all but their most faithful will just settle back on the couch and let it happen.

And, in time, it will.

T'wixt now and tne multiple billions will be spent on campaigning and running elections on the same subject over and over and over.

Britain would now do well to hold a nationwide referendum on turfing Scotland OUT.


----------



## Swagger

HenryBHough said:


> Despite Salmond having called the referendum a "once in a lifetime" event you can be sure there's be another one along promptly.
> 
> This sort of movement never accepts defeat as permanent.  They just keep calling for votes on the very same thing year after year.  Their hope is that they'll get people weary enough of slogging to the polls that all but their most faithful will just settle back on the couch and let it happen.
> 
> And, in time, it will.
> 
> T'wixt now and tne multiple billions will be spent on campaigning and running elections on the same subject over and over and over.
> 
> Britain would now do well to hold a nationwide referendum on turfing Scotland OUT.



I'd rather we just drew a line under this and move on. Besides, I'd rather have a referendum on leaving the E.U.


----------



## Swagger

Vikrant said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In an ideal world, what would you propose in order to put America back on the right path?
> 
> From an outsider's perspective it's quite clear that you need to build a wall on your southern border or put landmines down. Furthermore, it would be prudent to perhaps revise your Constitution so that you can expel/repatriate all Muslims, even if they hold citizenship. The Mexican invasion of your southern states and Islam pose a greater threat than what's happening in the Middle East. Both elements need to be removed from the equation.
> 
> 
> 
> The first logical step would be removing every Democrat from Washington and then purging all of the liberals out of the media.
> 
> I guess we'll have to suffer through a series of tragic events before public opinion turns on them.
> Right now I'd say we're fucked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. But you shouldn't limit that purge to the Democrats. You'd have to identify which members of the GOP that have espoused views that could pose a threat to the conscious of a new, conservative-inclined population. Furthermore, White would have to be made racially aware through the media (ideally headed by the likes of Ann Coulter or Pat Buchanan), hopefully achieving an attitude towards minorities held beofre WWII. Not violent or unnecessarily cruel, but racially aware nonetheless. The opposite is what put Barack Obama in the White House (twice) and gave rise to your undeniably hostile Attorney General.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd settle for getting rid of the Communists/Democrats.
> Being too aggressive only gives them more reasons to be critical and thus gains them some semblance of sympathy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Republicans could stay in power for the next hundred years if they got over their fear of being called "racist" and openly appealed to the interests of the demographic majority: White people. They could adjust the mainstream narrative in their agenda's favour almost overnight if they exploited White people's ethnic angst to the fullest. Hitler succeeded at it and so have the Muslims and Jews. It's about time White people get in on the act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, lay off the racism. BTW, I will be visiting London pretty soon just to piss you off.
Click to expand...


I strongly suggest you reacquaint yourself with the definition of racism, because I haven't submitted anything to this thread that is racist. I've certainly been very critical of what I and many others consider a cultural threat, but I haven't been racist.


----------



## Phoenall

Sorry to say people but Scotland voted 55% to 45% to stay in the union, Salmond has taken this as a vote of no confidence and has quit as First Minister and leader of the SNP.  The P.M. David Cameron has spelt out that this is the right time to have a devolved English Parliament with no Scots, Welsh or Irish M.P's. This Parliament will resolve English issues and how English taxes are spent. So it seems that the Scots have even lost devo max they thought they were getting and will have to fend for themselves on the taxes they raise themselves. They will be allocated a fair share of the UK taxes and no more, and will have to implement a local Scottish tax


----------



## mudwhistle

Swagger said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first logical step would be removing every Democrat from Washington and then purging all of the liberals out of the media.
> 
> I guess we'll have to suffer through a series of tragic events before public opinion turns on them.
> Right now I'd say we're fucked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. But you shouldn't limit that purge to the Democrats. You'd have to identify which members of the GOP that have espoused views that could pose a threat to the conscious of a new, conservative-inclined population. Furthermore, White would have to be made racially aware through the media (ideally headed by the likes of Ann Coulter or Pat Buchanan), hopefully achieving an attitude towards minorities held beofre WWII. Not violent or unnecessarily cruel, but racially aware nonetheless. The opposite is what put Barack Obama in the White House (twice) and gave rise to your undeniably hostile Attorney General.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd settle for getting rid of the Communists/Democrats.
> Being too aggressive only gives them more reasons to be critical and thus gains them some semblance of sympathy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Republicans could stay in power for the next hundred years if they got over their fear of being called "racist" and openly appealed to the interests of the demographic majority: White people. They could adjust the mainstream narrative in their agenda's favour almost overnight if they exploited White people's ethnic angst to the fullest. Hitler succeeded at it and so have the Muslims and Jews. It's about time White people get in on the act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Boss, lay off the racism. BTW, I will be visiting London pretty soon just to piss you off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I strongly suggest you reacquaint yourself with the definition of racism, because I haven't submitted anything to this thread that is racist. I've certainly been very critical of what I and many others consider a cultural threat, but I haven't been racist.
Click to expand...

If you say bad things about evil Brown people your unquestionably a racist, regardless the threat.


----------



## Toro

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wound up being not as close as expected as No won 55-45.  Only 4 of 32 council areas voted Yes.
> 
> It appears that undecideds broke against succession but a fairly wide margin.  In Quebec, undecideds voted 2:1 against, and it appears they did so in Scotland as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It'll be interesting to see if it was women who quashed the dream. The last poll I saw had women with a 16 spread favoring NO while the men where 53% in favor of YES. Women are very supportive of dependence on government. I wonder if that 16 point spread held.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Women ultimately favored the No vote by 56 to 44, only slightly more than Scotland as a whole. The real story, I think, is that younger to middle-age voters generally favored the Yes vote, whereas age 65+ plus voters overwhelmingly supported No.
> http://www.conservativehome.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Referendum-day-poll-summary-140919.pdf
Click to expand...


That's how it usually is.  Young people are more idealistic and emotional, and tend to vote with their hearts.  Older people have more to lose, and tend to be more rational and conservative.


----------



## Toro

Phoenall said:


> Sorry to say people but Scotland voted 55% to 45% to stay in the union, Salmond has taken this as a vote of no confidence and has quit as First Minister and leader of the SNP.  The P.M. David Cameron has spelt out that this is the right time to have a devolved English Parliament with no Scots, Welsh or Irish M.P's. This Parliament will resolve English issues and how English taxes are spent. So it seems that the Scots have even lost devo max they thought they were getting and will have to fend for themselves on the taxes they raise themselves. They will be allocated a fair share of the UK taxes and no more, and will have to implement a local Scottish tax



I'm a little surprised.  He did better than most people thought a month ago.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Toro said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wound up being not as close as expected as No won 55-45.  Only 4 of 32 council areas voted Yes.
> 
> It appears that undecideds broke against succession but a fairly wide margin.  In Quebec, undecideds voted 2:1 against, and it appears they did so in Scotland as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It'll be interesting to see if it was women who quashed the dream. The last poll I saw had women with a 16 spread favoring NO while the men where 53% in favor of YES. Women are very supportive of dependence on government. I wonder if that 16 point spread held.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Women ultimately favored the No vote by 56 to 44, only slightly more than Scotland as a whole. The real story, I think, is that younger to middle-age voters generally favored the Yes vote, whereas age 65+ plus voters overwhelmingly supported No.
> http://www.conservativehome.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Referendum-day-poll-summary-140919.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's how it usually is.  Young people are more idealistic and emotional, and tend to vote with their hearts.  Older people have more to lose, and tend to be more rational and conservative.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it's just crazy how it's slightly pro-independence until you hit 65+ where it just goes against independence overwhelmingly.


----------



## Toro

Swagger said:


> I strongly suggest you reacquaint yourself with the definition of racism, because I haven't submitted anything to this thread that is racist. I've certainly been very critical of what I and many others consider a cultural threat, but I haven't been racist.





Swagger said:


> Muslims are a dangerous, filthy and diseased scourge that have no place in Europe.





Swagger said:


> The Republicans could stay in power for the next hundred years if they got over their fear of being called "racist" and openly appealed to the interests of the demographic majority: White people. They could adjust the mainstream narrative in their agenda's favour almost overnight if they exploited White people's ethnic angst to the fullest. Hitler succeeded at it and so have the Muslims and Jews. It's about time White people get in on the act.





Now, of course, you're going to say you're not being a "racist" but a "race realist."  But with such vitriol in your posts, such a delineation is merely semantics.


----------



## Toro

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Yes, but it's just crazy how it's slightly pro-independence until you hit 65+ where it just goes against independence overwhelmingly.



Not when you're worried about your pension.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Toro said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but it's just crazy how it's slightly pro-independence until you hit 65+ where it just goes against independence overwhelmingly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not when you're worried about your pension.
Click to expand...

Not crazy from their point of view, it's just such a stark contrast in the numbers as soon as you hit that age group.


----------



## mudwhistle

Toro said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly suggest you reacquaint yourself with the definition of racism, because I haven't submitted anything to this thread that is racist. I've certainly been very critical of what I and many others consider a cultural threat, but I haven't been racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims are a dangerous, filthy and diseased scourge that have no place in Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans could stay in power for the next hundred years if they got over their fear of being called "racist" and openly appealed to the interests of the demographic majority: White people. They could adjust the mainstream narrative in their agenda's favour almost overnight if they exploited White people's ethnic angst to the fullest. Hitler succeeded at it and so have the Muslims and Jews. It's about time White people get in on the act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, of course, you're going to say you're not being a "racist" but a "race realist."  But with such vitriol in your posts, such a delineation is merely semantics.
Click to expand...

I guess it's just semantics when you guys say the Tea Party is full of wife-beaters and terrorists.....


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

mudwhistle said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly suggest you reacquaint yourself with the definition of racism, because I haven't submitted anything to this thread that is racist. I've certainly been very critical of what I and many others consider a cultural threat, but I haven't been racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims are a dangerous, filthy and diseased scourge that have no place in Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans could stay in power for the next hundred years if they got over their fear of being called "racist" and openly appealed to the interests of the demographic majority: White people. They could adjust the mainstream narrative in their agenda's favour almost overnight if they exploited White people's ethnic angst to the fullest. Hitler succeeded at it and so have the Muslims and Jews. It's about time White people get in on the act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, of course, you're going to say you're not being a "racist" but a "race realist."  But with such vitriol in your posts, such a delineation is merely semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess it's just semantics when you guys say the Tea Party is full of wife-beaters and terrorists.....
Click to expand...

Link to Toro ever saying anything of the sort?


----------



## Swagger

Toro said:


> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly suggest you reacquaint yourself with the definition of racism, because I haven't submitted anything to this thread that is racist. I've certainly been very critical of what I and many others consider a cultural threat, but I haven't been racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims are a dangerous, filthy and diseased scourge that have no place in Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans could stay in power for the next hundred years if they got over their fear of being called "racist" and openly appealed to the interests of the demographic majority: White people. They could adjust the mainstream narrative in their agenda's favour almost overnight if they exploited White people's ethnic angst to the fullest. Hitler succeeded at it and so have the Muslims and Jews. It's about time White people get in on the act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, of course, you're going to say you're not being a "racist" but a "race realist."  But with such vitriol in your posts, such a delineation is merely semantics.
Click to expand...


Pandering to Muslims has proven counter-productive on almost every occasion. They murdered 52 people on the Tube. They openly burn poppies; spit on soldiers returning from Afghanistan and they beheaded a young soldier in broad daylight. And the media tell us that most Muslims are "moderate" and "peaceful". They aren't. They're a direct cultural threat and I wouldn't bat an eyelid if we rounded them all up without sentiment or prejudice and sent them all back to wherever they came from. You give Muslims an inch and they take a yard.


----------



## mudwhistle

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly suggest you reacquaint yourself with the definition of racism, because I haven't submitted anything to this thread that is racist. I've certainly been very critical of what I and many others consider a cultural threat, but I haven't been racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims are a dangerous, filthy and diseased scourge that have no place in Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans could stay in power for the next hundred years if they got over their fear of being called "racist" and openly appealed to the interests of the demographic majority: White people. They could adjust the mainstream narrative in their agenda's favour almost overnight if they exploited White people's ethnic angst to the fullest. Hitler succeeded at it and so have the Muslims and Jews. It's about time White people get in on the act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, of course, you're going to say you're not being a "racist" but a "race realist."  But with such vitriol in your posts, such a delineation is merely semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess it's just semantics when you guys say the Tea Party is full of wife-beaters and terrorists.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link to Toro ever saying anything of the sort?
Click to expand...

STFU!!!!

What, are you blowing him?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

mudwhistle said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly suggest you reacquaint yourself with the definition of racism, because I haven't submitted anything to this thread that is racist. I've certainly been very critical of what I and many others consider a cultural threat, but I haven't been racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims are a dangerous, filthy and diseased scourge that have no place in Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans could stay in power for the next hundred years if they got over their fear of being called "racist" and openly appealed to the interests of the demographic majority: White people. They could adjust the mainstream narrative in their agenda's favour almost overnight if they exploited White people's ethnic angst to the fullest. Hitler succeeded at it and so have the Muslims and Jews. It's about time White people get in on the act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, of course, you're going to say you're not being a "racist" but a "race realist."  But with such vitriol in your posts, such a delineation is merely semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess it's just semantics when you guys say the Tea Party is full of wife-beaters and terrorists.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link to Toro ever saying anything of the sort?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> STFU!!!!
> 
> What, are you blowing him?
Click to expand...

Are you blowing Swagger?


----------



## Phoenall

The result was 55% NO and 45% YES.    Salmond has resigned as he knows it is a vote of no confidence in him and the SNP


----------



## mudwhistle

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly suggest you reacquaint yourself with the definition of racism, because I haven't submitted anything to this thread that is racist. I've certainly been very critical of what I and many others consider a cultural threat, but I haven't been racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims are a dangerous, filthy and diseased scourge that have no place in Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans could stay in power for the next hundred years if they got over their fear of being called "racist" and openly appealed to the interests of the demographic majority: White people. They could adjust the mainstream narrative in their agenda's favour almost overnight if they exploited White people's ethnic angst to the fullest. Hitler succeeded at it and so have the Muslims and Jews. It's about time White people get in on the act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, of course, you're going to say you're not being a "racist" but a "race realist."  But with such vitriol in your posts, such a delineation is merely semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess it's just semantics when you guys say the Tea Party is full of wife-beaters and terrorists.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link to Toro ever saying anything of the sort?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> STFU!!!!
> 
> What, are you blowing him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you blowing Swagger?
Click to expand...


No. Answer the fucken question.


----------



## mudwhistle

BTW, I was defending myself and Swagger, yah tosser!!!!


----------



## HenryBHough

British press says most businesses that had been preparing to move South if "Yes" had won are now shelving their plans.

Bad move.

Rest assured that, at the earliest possible moment, there's going to be another push for a referendum.  In which the proposition will be defeated again.  Then another referendum and indefinitely until it's approved.  

After all, independent campaigning is now Scotland's biggest industry!


----------



## Toro

mudwhistle said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly suggest you reacquaint yourself with the definition of racism, because I haven't submitted anything to this thread that is racist. I've certainly been very critical of what I and many others consider a cultural threat, but I haven't been racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims are a dangerous, filthy and diseased scourge that have no place in Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans could stay in power for the next hundred years if they got over their fear of being called "racist" and openly appealed to the interests of the demographic majority: White people. They could adjust the mainstream narrative in their agenda's favour almost overnight if they exploited White people's ethnic angst to the fullest. Hitler succeeded at it and so have the Muslims and Jews. It's about time White people get in on the act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, of course, you're going to say you're not being a "racist" but a "race realist."  But with such vitriol in your posts, such a delineation is merely semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess it's just semantics when you guys say the Tea Party is full of wife-beaters and terrorists.....
Click to expand...


WTF are you talking about?

It's a bit early to be dipping into the hooch, isn't it?


----------



## mudwhistle

Toro said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly suggest you reacquaint yourself with the definition of racism, because I haven't submitted anything to this thread that is racist. I've certainly been very critical of what I and many others consider a cultural threat, but I haven't been racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims are a dangerous, filthy and diseased scourge that have no place in Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swagger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans could stay in power for the next hundred years if they got over their fear of being called "racist" and openly appealed to the interests of the demographic majority: White people. They could adjust the mainstream narrative in their agenda's favour almost overnight if they exploited White people's ethnic angst to the fullest. Hitler succeeded at it and so have the Muslims and Jews. It's about time White people get in on the act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, of course, you're going to say you're not being a "racist" but a "race realist."  But with such vitriol in your posts, such a delineation is merely semantics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess it's just semantics when you guys say the Tea Party is full of wife-beaters and terrorists.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about?
> 
> It's a bit early to be dipping into the hooch, isn't it?
Click to expand...

A bit, but it's Friday, so WTF!!


----------



## Toro

mudwhistle said:


> BTW, I was defending myself and Swagger, yah tosser!!!!



Defending while drinking heavily is never a good mix.


----------



## mudwhistle

No seriously, I was talking about Debbie Washherass-Shits and her hair pulling accusations.  That and the leftist accusations about Tea Party terrorism.


----------



## mudwhistle

Toro said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, I was defending myself and Swagger, yah tosser!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defending while drinking heavily is never a good mix.
Click to expand...

I swear ocifer,......I didn't touch a drop.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

mudwhistle said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, of course, you're going to say you're not being a "racist" but a "race realist."  But with such vitriol in your posts, such a delineation is merely semantics.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it's just semantics when you guys say the Tea Party is full of wife-beaters and terrorists.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link to Toro ever saying anything of the sort?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> STFU!!!!
> 
> What, are you blowing him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you blowing Swagger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Answer the fucken question.
Click to expand...

Provide a link proving your assertion.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

mudwhistle said:


> BTW, I was defending myself and Swagger, yah tosser!!!!


Except for the part where Toro was only talking to Swagger, pudding head.


----------



## mudwhistle

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it's just semantics when you guys say the Tea Party is full of wife-beaters and terrorists.....
> 
> 
> 
> Link to Toro ever saying anything of the sort?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> STFU!!!!
> 
> What, are you blowing him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you blowing Swagger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Answer the fucken question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Provide a link proving your assertion.
Click to expand...

No.

Next question.


----------



## mudwhistle

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, I was defending myself and Swagger, yah tosser!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the part where Toro was only talking to Swagger, pudding head.
Click to expand...

Lol!!!

Good comeback.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

mudwhistle said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to Toro ever saying anything of the sort?
> 
> 
> 
> STFU!!!!
> 
> What, are you blowing him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you blowing Swagger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Answer the fucken question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Provide a link proving your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Next question.
Click to expand...

Then it's clear you had no idea what you were talking about.


----------



## mudwhistle

No really, I'm not drinking......yet.


----------



## mudwhistle

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> STFU!!!!
> 
> What, are you blowing him?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you blowing Swagger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Answer the fucken question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Provide a link proving your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Next question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then it's clear you had no idea what you were talking about.
Click to expand...

I gave the explanation to Toro above. I had plenty to base that assumption from.


----------



## gipper

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Rikurzhen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wound up being not as close as expected as No won 55-45.  Only 4 of 32 council areas voted Yes.
> 
> It appears that undecideds broke against succession but a fairly wide margin.  In Quebec, undecideds voted 2:1 against, and it appears they did so in Scotland as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It'll be interesting to see if it was women who quashed the dream. The last poll I saw had women with a 16 spread favoring NO while the men where 53% in favor of YES. Women are very supportive of dependence on government. I wonder if that 16 point spread held.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Women ultimately favored the No vote by 56 to 44, only slightly more than Scotland as a whole. The real story, I think, is that younger to middle-age voters generally favored the Yes vote, whereas age 65+ plus voters overwhelmingly supported No.
> http://www.conservativehome.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Referendum-day-poll-summary-140919.pdf
Click to expand...


Intergenerational hate is coming....to the USA too...all thanks to big government.

*In Scotland, the Parasites Punished the Productive*
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.



 









As Zero Hedge points out, those on welfare attacked young workers with their votes for union. This is an indication of the coming social unrest. Young working Americans are right to hate the Social Security flat income tax, which is double what it seems to be, since the “employer portion” also comes out of the worker’s wages. Older people are wrong to think they are owed welfare. They are not supposed to rip off the young; they are supposed to love and guide and teach kids. Kids, in return, are supposed to honor and love and learn from their elders. Help in either direction is supposed to be voluntary. Only the State is capable of perverting the natural order to promote intergenerational hate. When the troubles come, in Scotland or here, we have to remember who the villain is. (Thanks to Ursel Doran)


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

mudwhistle said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you blowing Swagger?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Answer the fucken question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Provide a link proving your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Next question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then it's clear you had no idea what you were talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave the explanation to Toro above. I had plenty to base that assumption from.
Click to expand...

No, you simply assumed that Toro was a partisan Democrat. You had nothing to base that assumption on.


----------



## Rikurzhen

HenryBHough said:


> Despite Salmond having called the referendum a "once in a lifetime" event you can be sure there's be another one along promptly.



Exactly. Think of it like the Homosexual "Marriage" issue. It's never settled until the Gay Agenda is implemented. California had a referendum, the issue was not passed and the homosexuals kept hammering away.


----------



## mudwhistle

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Answer the fucken question.
> 
> 
> 
> Provide a link proving your assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Next question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then it's clear you had no idea what you were talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave the explanation to Toro above. I had plenty to base that assumption from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you simply assumed that Toro was a partisan Democrat. You had nothing to base that assumption on.
Click to expand...

Uh, he and I have conversed before over the years here at USMB. I can take a hint.


----------



## mudwhistle

Rikurzhen said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite Salmond having called the referendum a "once in a lifetime" event you can be sure there's be another one along promptly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Think of it like the Homosexual "Marriage" issue. It's never settled until the Gay Agenda is implemented. California had a referendum, the issue was not passed and the homosexuals kept hammering away.
Click to expand...

Are you calling Scots a bunch of fags?


----------



## HenryBHough

T'was buttons wot got Scots to wear kilts.

When zippers were introduced there was great puzzlement for weeks until a particularly canny Scot realized that sheep could _hear _zippers at 100 yards!


----------



## Kondor3

mudwhistle said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, I was defending myself and Swagger, yah tosser!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defending while drinking heavily is never a good mix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I swear ocifer,......I didn't touch a drop.
Click to expand...

Honest... ah've only had tee martoonis... ahhh ain't as think as you drunk I am ! ;-)


----------



## Stratford57

Victoria Shilova, the leader of "Antiwar" movement in Ukraine said today: "Referendum in Scotland has shown a good example of a civilized way to respect a right of a nation for self determination. It's strange that nobody has been bombing Scotland, nobody has  declared Scots "separatists" or "terrorists", nobody has burnt them alive.  Everything has been the way it should be, because the people respect each other and  a human life is the highest value for them.

For some reason British people who condemn the rebels in SE Ukraine, did not want to call  Scots bad names or to bomb such a "separatist" Scotland using "Grads"...

All that was possible because Britain is ruled by the people, capable to love their citizens."


----------



## Vikrant

mudwhistle said:


> BTW, I was defending myself and Swagger, yah tosser!!!!



You do not need to attack or defend anyone. Just keep the discussion on topic. We can still discuss lots of things like:

- Will England have its on parliament?
- What will be done about disproportionate employment rate between Scotland and England? As you know lots of Scots believe that high employment level in Scotland ends up subsidizing high unemployment in England. 
- Will UK take Scottish concerns seriously before embarking on wars that yield no benefits for Scotland? 
- Where did the minorities stand on this issue? 
-  This referendum proves that 45% of Scots are dissatisfied with the union? Can this referendum come about again in a future date?


----------



## Vikrant

Stratford57 said:


> Victoria Shilova, the leader of "Antiwar" movement in Ukraine said today: "Referendum in Scotland has shown a good example of a civilized way to respect a right of a nation for self determination. It's strange that nobody has been bombing Scotland, nobody has  declared Scots "separatists" or "terrorists", nobody has burnt them alive.  Everything has been the way it should be, because the people respect each other and  a human life is the highest value for them.
> 
> For some reason British people who condemn the rebels in SE Ukraine, did not want to call  Scots bad names or to bomb such a "separatist" Scotland using "Grads"...
> 
> All that was possible because Britain is ruled by the people, capable to love their citizens."



She is good looking and smart.


----------



## Toro

mudwhistle said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Provide a link proving your assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Next question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then it's clear you had no idea what you were talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave the explanation to Toro above. I had plenty to base that assumption from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you simply assumed that Toro was a partisan Democrat. You had nothing to base that assumption on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, he and I have conversed before over the years here at USMB. I can take a hint.
Click to expand...


You took the wrong hint.


----------



## Vikrant

It definitely ruined the hopes and dreams of many.






Scotland independence Latest photos from the Yes and No campaigns - Telegraph


----------



## Vikrant

pro-union skinheads taunt defeated Scottish 

Glasgow s George Square turns ugly tonight as pro-union skinheads taunt defeated Scottish independence campaigners - Mirror Online


----------



## Vikrant

When this campaign started, it had very little support from the Scots but as it progressed, it gathered momentum. What changed the minds of so many Scots was the abuse that was hurled at general Scottish culture. 45% is a very large segment of the population. If the fundamental concerns of Scots is not addressed then this number can grow. I think entire UK needs to do some soul searching and realize that if they want to live together in a union then there has to be mutual respect for each other. 

Scottish independence Andy Murray backs Yes campaign in eleventh hour decision - People - News - The Independent


----------



## Phoenall

KissMy said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of crap the union was formed when Scotland went bankrupt and came to England for help. A deal was struck for Scotland to become part of the UK while keeping its own identity and laws. This was acceptable and so Scotland joined the union as an equal partner after England had bailed them out. It was only with the rise of Scots nationalism and the inherent racism produced that certain hot headed Scots decided they wanted to be free of England while still keeping the money flowing in. What should have happened when Scotland devolved from the rest of Britain is the £2500 subsidy granted to every Scot should have ceased and they should have received a proportional amount of the money raised from Scots taxes and the ability to raise their own taxes on top. This would have shown just how much Scotland is indebted to Great Britain and how much the racist SNP is lying to the Scots people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both Scotland and England were dirt poor before they started looting other countries. English used the gold and money they looted from their colonies to bribe the Scottish elites who in turn colluded with English in destroying the social fabric of Scotland. That is why Scotland is in a state of confusion today.
> 
> It is really 'generous' of England to take away Scotland's resources and in return throw some crumb at them like the subsidy you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scotland was bankrupt in 1700 when it ploughed over half of its capital into the failed Darien scheme, so they had to go cap in hand to the English to bail them out. England never took anything it paid for the oil exploration out of the Unions coffers for the benefit of all British subjects, it was a Scot that gave it away to Europe. But the British government gave the Scots a £2,500 subsidy that they did not give to the English, on top of the oil wealth that went to Aberdeen. They stand to lose all that in their racist greed and good luck to them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scotland trades little with foreigners, has a trade surplus & it has a high employment rate. England is the exact opposite. England steals wealth created with the blood sweat & tears of others. England engages in massive trading, has a large trade deficit & low employment.
Click to expand...





High unemployment actually and a trade deficit as we import most of our goods. But we do have a surplus of the "service industries" making these cheaper for foreign buyers.


----------



## Phoenall

Vikrant said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't live in Scotland, and is ineligible to vote for independence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not but if Scotland is to be run like America he could just walk in and vote.  Then, if independence prevails,  Connery could run for President with absolutely no concern about citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why in the world would Scotland be run like the U.S.? They would retain their parliamentary system, and First Minister Alex Salmond would, presumably, simply become Prime Minister of Scotland, and *Queen Elizabeth would become the Queen of Scotland.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who will fill the position of Queen of England?
Click to expand...




 It would not be empty as she would be Queen of England as well as the Queen of all the commonwealth countries, including India


----------



## Vikrant

Phoenall said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't live in Scotland, and is ineligible to vote for independence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not but if Scotland is to be run like America he could just walk in and vote.  Then, if independence prevails,  Connery could run for President with absolutely no concern about citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why in the world would Scotland be run like the U.S.? They would retain their parliamentary system, and First Minister Alex Salmond would, presumably, simply become Prime Minister of Scotland, and *Queen Elizabeth would become the Queen of Scotland.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who will fill the position of Queen of England?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would not be empty as she would be Queen of England as well as the Queen of all the commonwealth countries, including India
Click to expand...



I am glad to hear that.


----------



## HenryBHough

More chatter in the British press today about a referendum in England.  It wouldn't throw Scotland out of the union; just prohibit Scot MPs (members of parliament) from voting on issues that would pertain only to residents of the southern part of the island, known as "England".


----------



## Kondor3

HenryBHough said:


> More chatter in the British press today about a referendum in England.  It wouldn't throw Scotland out of the union; just prohibit Scot MPs (members of parliament) from voting on issues that would pertain only to residents of the southern part of the island, known as "England".


Bad idea, hard on the heels of promises to Scotland, for more powers.

This is something probably best left until the Devolution issue is resolved for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, simultaneously.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

I haven't heard anything about a referendum in England, but Cameron did promise more local powers for England. Here's MEP Daniel Hannan's column from yesterday on the subject.
Now we can give real power to English voters by DANIEL HANNAN Daily Mail Online


----------



## Phoenall

HenryBHough said:


> More chatter in the British press today about a referendum in England.  It wouldn't throw Scotland out of the union; just prohibit Scot MPs (members of parliament) from voting on issues that would pertain only to residents of the southern part of the island, known as "England".






 Not a referendum but an actual change in the political climate in the UK. As Cameron says why should England be left out when it comes to having a parliament of their own. So he is enacting a law to change the way politics is done in the UK and barring welsh, irish and scots from having any say in the running of England. There is also moves to have it that the voting public can sack their M.P. and force a by election if they don't represent the electorate. This will stop party politics and have a return to representation of the people


----------



## Vikrant

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> I haven't heard anything about a referendum in England, but Cameron did promise more local powers for England. Here's MEP Daniel Hannan's column from yesterday on the subject.
> Now we can give real power to English voters by DANIEL HANNAN Daily Mail Online



England having its own parliament is a one step in the right direction. More importantly though, once the dust settles in, David Cameron has to implement all the devolution promises he made to Scotland during the campaign. This is important or else grudges will start to settle in.


----------



## HenryBHough

Vikrant said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't heard anything about a referendum in England, but Cameron did promise more local powers for England. Here's MEP Daniel Hannan's column from yesterday on the subject.
> Now we can give real power to English voters by DANIEL HANNAN Daily Mail Online
> 
> 
> 
> 
> England having its own parliament is a one step in the right direction. More importantly though, once the dust settles in, David Cameron has to implement all the devolution promises he made to Scotland during the campaign. This is important or else grudges will start to settle in.
Click to expand...


Scots do NOT *bear* grudges.

They *cherish* them!


----------



## Phoenall

Vikrant said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't heard anything about a referendum in England, but Cameron did promise more local powers for England. Here's MEP Daniel Hannan's column from yesterday on the subject.
> Now we can give real power to English voters by DANIEL HANNAN Daily Mail Online
> 
> 
> 
> 
> England having its own parliament is a one step in the right direction. More importantly though, once the dust settles in, David Cameron has to implement all the devolution promises he made to Scotland during the campaign. This is important or else grudges will start to settle in.
Click to expand...




 Do you even know what the devolution promises were, and how they would affect the Scots. Far too many people are not looking at the facts and just at what the scots are expecting to get. Like the ability to raise their own taxes, but they will lose the same amount from the common purse. The ability to spend the money on what they want, as long as it does not exceed the budget. This means they can raise taxes themselves but the English, Welsh and Irish will not bankroll their plans, so leaving them with the headache of balancing the books and keeping the Scots people happy.


----------



## HenryBHough

Today Salmond has emerged from his funk and is talking darkly about alternative routes to Scottish independence.  Meeting at mid-week with ISIS?  Probably not but if he reads this board he may just have been inspired.


----------



## mudwhistle

HenryBHough said:


> More chatter in the British press today about a referendum in England.  It wouldn't throw Scotland out of the union; just prohibit Scot MPs (members of parliament) from voting on issues that would pertain only to residents of the southern part of the island, known as "England".


That would make the No folks want to change their votes.


----------



## Vikrant

I think there ought to be another referendum to remove the word welsh from English language at least within the UK. I think it is bigoted. 



> It was promised, it's got to be delivered, and anyone who *welshes* on that will pay a very heavy price for years to come.



Scotland Devolution Pledge Non-Negotiable


----------



## Phoenall

Vikrant said:


> I think there ought to be another referendum to remove the word welsh from English language at least within the UK. I think it is bigoted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was promised, it's got to be delivered, and anyone who *welshes* on that will pay a very heavy price for years to come.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotland Devolution Pledge Non-Negotiable
Click to expand...




 Why it is a recognised word in the Oxford dictionary, and the promises made were open ended so the Scots should have realised that


----------



## Vikrant

Phoenall said:


> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there ought to be another referendum to remove the word welsh from English language at least within the UK. I think it is bigoted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was promised, it's got to be delivered, and anyone who *welshes* on that will pay a very heavy price for years to come.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotland Devolution Pledge Non-Negotiable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why it is a recognised word in the Oxford dictionary, *and the promises made were open ended so the Scots should have realised that*
Click to expand...


It seems like you are saying that Scottish folks got sucker punched.


----------



## Phoenall

Vikrant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vikrant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there ought to be another referendum to remove the word welsh from English language at least within the UK. I think it is bigoted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was promised, it's got to be delivered, and anyone who *welshes* on that will pay a very heavy price for years to come.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scotland Devolution Pledge Non-Negotiable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why it is a recognised word in the Oxford dictionary, *and the promises made were open ended so the Scots should have realised that*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems like you are saying that Scottish folks got sucker punched.
Click to expand...



 If they could not see what was in front of them then they deserve all they get


----------

