28 Mar 14
1 edit
Did I hear some one tell me today that there are over 30,000 signitures for Alaska to join Russia?
It's like the talk I hear about Venice trying to break away from Italy. In fact, maybe Venice, Alaska, and the Crimea should all form a state. I would include Texas but they would just secede.
- Joined
- 26 Feb 14
- Moves
- 1339
28 Mar 14
Originally posted by whodeyScotland wants out of the uk do you want them?
Did I hear some one tell me today that there are over 30,000 signitures for Alaska to join Russia?
It's like the talk I hear about Venice trying to break away from Italy. In fact, maybe Venice, Alaska, and the Crimea should all form a state. I would include Texas but they would just secede.
- Joined
- 26 Feb 14
- Moves
- 1339
28 Mar 14
Originally posted by whodeythere is no democracy in the UK they like to let us think we are democratic but we don't have a written constitution our bill of right is run by the EU.
Don't ask me, ask them.
Hold a referendum just for kicks and watch the UK blush at the democratic process as they support conquering other lands all in the name of democracy.
28 Mar 14
Originally posted by whodeyAs Sarah Palin pointed out, Alaska is closer to Russia than to the United States. And prior to WWII Russia had visions of including Alaska in her sphere of influence.
Did I hear some one tell me today that there are over 30,000 signitures for Alaska to join Russia?
It's like the talk I hear about Venice trying to break away from Italy. In fact, maybe Venice, Alaska, and the Crimea should all form a state. I would include Texas but they would just secede.
28 Mar 14
Originally posted by redbaronsRubbish.
there is no democracy in the UK they like to let us think we are democratic but we don't have a written constitution our bill of right is run by the EU.
Might be useful if you worked out that the European Court of Human Rights is a legal (not political) institution supported by 47 European states INCLUDING RUSSIA. It is not part of nor a responsibility of the European Union It is a quite separate institution altogether.
The European Union only acceded to the European Convention on Human Rights in 2009 through the Treaty of Lisbon.
If Britain left the European Union, that would not in any way alter its commitments to the European Convention on Human Rights nor to the European Court of Human Rights.
When you declare that you object to being "run by" Europe (in a way you clearly do not understand anyway) what you are really agreeing to is the proposition that the British Government ought to have no supervision whatever in its treatment of the human rights of its citizens and residents. In other words, it appears you do not want your human rights to be protected and you are happy to give your government absolute power over you.
As you have no respect for your own human rights I imagine you do not mind seeing them taken from you.
Idiot
28 Mar 14
3 edits
Originally posted by redbaronsIf you knew your history you would realize that we (the Scottish people) have never wanted to be part of the UK. The Union of the crowns was immensely unpopular in Scotland, infact there were riots when it was introduced. We have always had a different culture and a different language and fought numerous wars of independence against Edward I and Edward II culminating in the glorious victory at Bannockburn securing our independence. It was not until 400 years later that we were sold by the treacherous Scottish nobility for English silver and gold, a shameful act of betrayal immortalized in the Burns song, 'Sic a parcel o rouges'. (such a nation of rouges), infact we have a much greater affinity with Ireland than we do England.
Scotland wants out of the uk do you want them?
28 Mar 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo what could an independent Scotland offer the world besides YouTube videos of men wearing dresses and shagging sheep alfresco?
If you knew your history you would realize that we (the Scottish people) have never wanted to be part of the UK. The Union of the crowns was immensely unpopular in Scotland, infact there were riots when it was introduced. We have always had a different culture and a different language and fought numerous wars of independence against Edward I and Edw ...[text shortened]... uch a nation of rouges), infact we have a much greater affinity with Ireland than we do England.
28 Mar 14
3 edits
Originally posted by Soothfastwow stereotype much? but for a fat a$$ed American that buys his culture in a jar, I can forgive that. We have mountains here that are specifically designed for fat American tourists, we could offer that.
So what could an independent Scotland offer the world besides YouTube videos of men wearing dresses and shagging sheep alfresco?
28 Mar 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTo be fair, the Scots did have benefits from the union though naturally that would depend on your social status - wealthy or poor. I suggest that continued through to the end of the Seventies. Then oil money was allowed to swell the financial sector, primarily in London,at the expense of the industrial sector, and Scotland began to get frozen out as wealth generation was increasingly concentrated in the South East. In other words, the Tories handed over oil wealth to their speculator pals in the City and its dependent tax havens (by using it to fund tax cuts for the rich instead of productive investment) and screwed everyone who did productive work. Britain lost its heavy industry when its European rivals (Germany for example) invested in restructuring and a future based on productive industries instead of the British model of unproductive financial speculators playing with monopoly money at our expense.
If you knew your history you would realize that we (the Scottish people) have never wanted to be part of the UK. The Union of the crowns was immensely unpopular in Scotland, infact there were riots when it was introduced. We have always had a different culture and a different language and fought numerous wars of independence against Edward I and Edw ...[text shortened]... uch a nation of rouges), infact we have a much greater affinity with Ireland than we do England.
I am not sure it is primarily regional differences as such so much as a desire to get free from the priorities of the financial speculators in the City that will do most to drive Scottish separatism. The English obsession with the totally spurious wealth creators (really, wealth destroyers) of the City of London is so dangerous to all our interests that the Scots may rationally decide to just pull up the drawbridge. I am sure that I would vote for separation if I was there.
28 Mar 14
Originally posted by finneganThere was a great nationalistic fervor in the seventies but nothing like what transpired in Ireland. I am trying to gauge the mood and its quite hard to say how it will go. I had a campaigner at the door and he was telling me about the covert efforts of the Tories to privatize the health service in England, the BBC's bias towards unionists etc and some interesting other stuff, its really hard to say how it will go. Since the days of Keir Hardy we have especially in the west had a fine socialist tradition and this in some way might split the vote, I dunno, its hard to say.
To be fair, the Scots did have benefits from the union though naturally that would depend on your social status - wealthy or poor. I suggest that continued through to the end of the Seventies. Then oil money was allowed to swell the financial sector, primarily in London,at the expense of the industrial sector, and Scotland began to get frozen out as wealth ...[text shortened]... ecide to just pull up the drawbridge. I am sure that I would vote for separation if I was there.