^ what's that ugly flag?

So Scotland, France,Norway versus Portugal and England

Maybe we could bring Hungary in it too. Hungary was always an old ally of France. Perhaps we could bring in Norway's Nordic Brothers in as well too.

Also, England and Northern Ireland don't have enough seats in parliament, whereas Wales and Scotland have too many.



Edited 6/7/2015 00:31:03

Hah, maybe France would declare War on Spain for Catalonia. That always happens to me

England spending less its money than Scotland is not a very surprising thing, as I showed you earlier England is the worst developed country in terms of inequalities, and each year the Tories are reducing the social budget and instead favor the financial market of the city. Welcome in England.

Well, it's like that for the rich take the same percentage of customs, and the government will divide it by the number of Population, it does not work according to those who pay more get more

Id like to live in New Zealand

where we bunjee jump then take a white water raft to work

Edited 6/7/2015 11:36:15

Clement Attlee before you post such a graph depicting public spending, do you know that out of the UK, Scotland pay more taxes than the rest?

Well it really discrimination, there is no prohibition to do that?

Edited 6/7/2015 11:39:15

Clement Attlee before you post such a graph depicting public spending, do you know that out of the UK, Scotland pay more taxes than the rest?

Paying more tax does not entitle 1 part more money over another. In fact, that's only true due the north sea oil, something that will run out eventually. Currently Scotland gets that extra money because the Barnett formula, something that was only initially designed as a temporary measure, wasn't designed very well. Here's how it "works".



However, that last part is just a fudge factor with a very vague definition. You can essentially pluck any number out of thin air and it will still "work".

And you still haven't replied on the point about the disproportionate number of MPs that Scotland gets. With the current system, someone living in the Western Isles has a vote that carries over 5 times the weight as someone living in the Isle of Wight. Also, in a true proportional representation system, it would not have been possible for the SNP to get 56 seats, even with if they were to get 100% of the vote in Scotland.

Edited 6/7/2015 22:46:08

that's only true due the north sea oil, something that will run out eventually.

The £250 billion pounds of Scottish oil revenue that has passed the Scottish people by, equates to them each forfeiting £1,628 per annum for the last 30 years totaling £48,000 and if the Scottish stay in the Union the Scot's could forfeit another £1.2 trillion.

And you still haven't replied...

You seem to avoid some discussions or reply at least what you want Mr Attlee, as I showed you earlier that the Scottish Oil (+ the entrance in the European Community's market in the 70's) saved the UK from Bankrupcy.

Edited 6/7/2015 23:28:00

Alright. Think. Are England REALLY going to declare war on Scotland if the succeed in proclaiming their independence? And please tell me that the Taliban reference was a joke.

Yes. And it's not a Taliban reference, it's the Islamic Afghan Emirate's flag. Point is, it has happened twice by what's arguably the most powerful country in the world. The most powerful country in the world does not support Scottish independence, so they'll let England retake what's important: the oil.

Who cares if an independent Scotland would not be as important as Britain? Was anyone expecting it to be? Military strength is not important nowadays as it was before, and Scotland are relatively safe when it comes to international affairs, because they will have a strong economy, and their military doesn't really matter, because what you said about Scotland not being important is true. Nobody would want to BOMB Scotland, what would they gain? There is a strong EU movement in Scotland, and the SNP clearly recognise this, as Nicola Sturgeon on behalf of the SNP, will ask for another independence referendum if Britain is to leave the EU. Even if this is rejected, she has a backup plan. For Britain to leave the EU, there must be majority votes in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, for each of these places views to be represented correctly.

Unity is power. Anyhow, Scotland will not be able to do as much with less power and influence, and Scotland is not really safe in international affairs since independence is not supported by America. Sure, it has EU backing, but who is NATO controlled by? And the nonNATO EU members won't do a thing. Probably (if they've any brain at all), Scotland will hand over the oil. If not, England will fabricate some story about Scottish aggression, Scotland's developping WMDs, Scotland's housing terrorists, some excuse like that. Keep in mind, those are the same official reasons for invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Noon would want to BOMB Scotland, what would they gain?" Yes, what would they gain? Scotland is powerless and generally industryless, I'm only talking about oil here. And yes, I know about the majority votes, that's why I'm sceptic as to Britain really leaving the EU and another reason why Britain would be better off without Scotland.

For a country like Scotland, economy is everything in this day-and-age. Military means nothing when you are so far away from danger.

For a country like Scotland, economy is everything, you're right. So it should have some. Also, England isn't exactly going to be friendly, but no matter.

Transportation is a small aspect here, but it still has some importance. About independence, the Scots want it because recently their voices have been mis-represented, and no, there is not any genocides occuring, there is no ethnic violence, but Scotland are one of the larget ethnic minorities, who, about 90% of the country's views are being misrepresented by a government that they do not want.

Not much importance. So there is no ethnic violence, there is no genocide, just two out of the three critical adjectives for independence: Dumb and Proud. Scots are extremely ethnically close to English, not to mention English is pretty much the dominant ethnicity in Scotland north of Edinburgh and Glasgow (with the exception of true Scottish Galic in the Outer Hebrides). Some folk still have not recovered from the Babel Tower's fall, they think their race is superior to others/other races are worse, and that every race needs its own country.

Government is all fine and well, but like I was saying, let's make Britain into 9 or so different governments then. And furthermore, what happens when the Scots don't like their government? Get a North Scotland and South Scotland? No, to get independence to run away from the current government is an absurd idea.

Excuse me? At this point it becomes subjective, but I'd say that Sturgeon is a better debater, and more intelligent than Farage.

Let's leave it at subjective.

When I say they are not backed by idiot drones, I mean that a lot of their important people in their party aren't. I'm not saying people who vote for them, and yes, I agree that every party has idiots and SNP are no different, but I think that they generally have more intelligent people in televised debates, and such.

Also subjective.

For this, you can blame the Vikings. Scotland used to be the centre of Catholicism, with the missionary St. Columba living on the Isle of Iona, he attracted thousands of other missionaries, and converted thousands of people to Christianity. But then one day, the Vikings invaded, spread their Nordic beliefs, culture and religion. Perhaps in an alternate scenario where the Vikings didn't invade the isle of Iona, it would continue to be the centre of Catholicism, and Scotland would have a much higher tourism than it does not. Moreover, yes I agree to the fact that Scotland's scenery pulls in more tourism than the cities.

Useless paragraph, and I really doubt Scotland was ever a holier place in Catholicism than Jerusalem or Rome. Anyhow, population:tourism money ratio is invalid.

Independence is not a bad idea for Scotland, and if you review my previous posts I have given several reasons as to why Scotland's economy will be greatly benefited from the inequality that is spread around due to the far-right wealth distribution that lies in the UK. The UK are the worst Western Country for this, and with a left-winged government ruling the country, it can be toned down.

No, you actually haven't given "several reasons". You just keep on banging on the current "Tory Government". It's easy to blame things on the government, in 2020, you're going to say "damn Labour Government", "Damn SNP", "Damn [Whatever the current government is]. Every political approach has problems.

Scotland is special because they have a long history of being independent, and that they only joined England because they were screwed over by the Europeans nations when trying to colonise the Americas. They have unique languages, culture, cuisine, ethnicity, and the hope to become independent. Just because somebody has a different political view from someone else doesn't mean they should become independent. There are several other factors that amount up to this. I have shown you the various and plentiful types of industry Scotland has, that would keep it economically afloat as a nation.

You mean Scotland landed on Spanish land (Panamá) and tried to claim it as their own...not to mention taking an absurd gold amount on these expeditions...I read somewhere that on one Scottish settlement ship, 1/5 Scotland's treasury was taken. It sank (or had some bad fate to it). Is uniqueness really a reason for independence? If so, let's go ahead and split Germany into 253 theodes, Indonesia and Malaysia back into 357 tribes, America into too many too count...No, the world does not work this way, or should not, anyway. But you fulfill one adjective very well "Proud". Now go have a lobotomy and grab some guns and you'll be ready for the fight for independence.

I'll not try to argue that the SSP will rebuild. They won't. But they definitely could have got better before, if they put effort into it, and if their leader was actually decent.

They want to, they're trying, but "Socialism" is taboo. That's why the SNP is doing so much better: They don't have the world, "socialism" in their party name.

True. But I'd like to classify this as something a little more sophisticated than arguing.

I don't remember what I said, and I'm too lazy to look.

(If you are finding it hard to find my structure, I am responding to every one of Xypapy's arguments. I am following his structure).

That's why you add quotes in.

There is nothing to argue about it so much, they want independence because M O N E Y
Besides Жұқтыру' you say you want to live in a rich country (Norway) may be the same in Scotland and you will want to live there, lol

Edited 6/8/2015 17:33:16

Yes. And it's not a Taliban reference, it's the Islamic Afghan Emirate's flag. Point is, it has happened twice by what's arguably the most powerful country in the world. The most powerful country in the world does not support Scottish independence, so they'll let England retake what's important: the oil.

Drop it. England will not declare war on Scotland for oil, how many times do I have to tell you that we are not in the middle ages, declaring war on each other for resources? America would not HAVE to involve themselves, because England wouldn't declare war in the first place. England would accept Scottish independence as it is, and not try to mess with their national affairs.

Unity is power. Anyhow, Scotland will not be able to do as much with less power and influence, and Scotland is not really safe in international affairs since independence is not supported by America. Sure, it has EU backing, but who is NATO controlled by? And the nonNATO EU members won't do a thing. Probably (if they've any brain at all), Scotland will hand over the oil. If not, England will fabricate some story about Scottish aggression, Scotland's developping WMDs, Scotland's housing terrorists, some excuse like that. Keep in mind, those are the same official reasons for invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Noon would want to BOMB Scotland, what would they gain?" Yes, what would they gain? Scotland is powerless and generally industryless, I'm only talking about oil here. And yes, I know about the majority votes, that's why I'm sceptic as to Britain really leaving the EU and another reason why Britain would be better off without Scotland.

Unity is power for some, not for all. Sure, America are not in full support for an independent Scotland, but they would recognise one seeing as UK would soon after the referendum. Scotland would not have to hand over the oil, as England are not entitled to it, due to their geographic location. There would be no war, non invasion, stop making up stuff. Also, England would not make up fabrications of Scottish aggression. Firstly, Scotland are highly anti-WMDs, and have protested multiple times to stop the continuation of Trident, and to try and get WMDs out of the country as fast as possible. And for the other one, nobody would believe the UK, if they are to blame Scotland for housing terrorists, because Scotland would have theoretically just seceded. In addition, one of the only things I like about the Conservatives, is their lack of aggression to other nations. The Iraq and Afghan wars were Tony Blair's, Labour's fault. With David Cameron in charge, it's highly unlikely that he would start an invasion.

ANOTHER paragraph about England invading Scotland for oil? Just drop it! They won't! Also, Scotland is rife in industry, and you seem to continue to deny this. Britain would not be better off without Scotland, because of the amount of money that Scotland pull into the United Kingdom, and losing it would be a nightmare. Why would you go on so much about Britain invading Scotland for oil, if Britain would be better off without Scotland apparently?

Not much importance. So there is no ethnic violence, there is no genocide, just two out of the three critical adjectives for independence: Dumb and Proud. Scots are extremely ethnically close to English, not to mention English is pretty much the dominant ethnicity in Scotland north of Edinburgh and Glasgow (with the exception of true Scottish Galic in the Outer Hebrides). Some folk still have not recovered from the Babel Tower's fall, they think their race is superior to others/other races are worse, and that every race needs its own country.

Government is all fine and well, but like I was saying, let's make Britain into 9 or so different governments then. And furthermore, what happens when the Scots don't like their government? Get a North Scotland and South Scotland? No, to get independence to run away from the current government is an absurd idea.

No, there is no ethnic violence, or genocide. Scotland are not extremely ethnically close to English, there are quite a lot of differences. Scotland has a majority of Celts, who are ginger/brown haired, vary in build and don't tan well. Since you deny the fact of Scotland's ethnicity, here is quick map showing where the the Celtic distribution is in Europe. There are majorities in Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, Man, and Brittany, with an exceptional majority in the Outer Hebrides.




... Leave the subjective arguments as they are, no point arguing over pure opinion, I agree ...


Useless paragraph, and I really doubt Scotland was ever a holier place in Catholicism than Jerusalem or Rome. Anyhow, population:tourism money ratio is invalid.

Actually, this is false. At one point, the isle of Iona become the centre of Catholicism in Europe for hundreds of years, it was the place for pilgrimage, congregation, and missionaries. Here is a small excerpt from Wikipedia.

"Saint Columba (Irish: Colm Cille, 'church dove'; 7 December 521 – 9 June 597) was an Irish abbot and missionary credited with spreading Christianity in present-day Scotland. He founded the important abbey on Iona, which became a dominant religious and political institution in the region for centuries. He is the Patron Saint of Derry. He was highly regarded by both the Gaels of Dál Riata and the Picts, and is remembered today as a Christian saint and one of the Twelve Apostles of Ireland."

About your statement on my population:tourism money ratio, and how you say it is invalid. How? It represents how Scottish people make up 1/5 of the Scottish tourism industry, but 1/12 of the country's population.

No, you actually haven't given "several reasons". You just keep on banging on the current "Tory Government". It's easy to blame things on the government, in 2020, you're going to say "damn Labour Government", "Damn SNP", "Damn [Whatever the current government is]. Every political approach has problems.

Yes I have given several reasons, here is a few paragraphs from my first post on the topic with my main points about the economy that you seem to have disregarded.

There is a diverse economy in Scotland, with money being pulled in from various places, such as agriculture, industry, oil, construction, financial business, transport, and more. We also have an excellent fishing association. This is shown how Scotland survived the Global Financial Crisis much better than England. Scotland would also be richer, since Westminster has been costing them billions of pounds (64 billion right now) in repaying debts that England are responsible for. The acts that England are doing are devolved matters, which Scotland have no contribution to, but are obliged to pay this amount of money because they are part of the UK. Moreover, Scotland's national deficit spending is lower, and Scottish public finances are stronger than the UK as a whole.

Scotland also has very strong exports, consisting of petroleum, electrical goods, finance & insurance, mining, transportation, machinery, and Scottish cuisine. Scottish whisky and haggis are very strong exports that are exported to many countries, (with the highest demand in Germany).

Scotland is also the second most reliable place (after London) for investments. 11% of UK's FDI was secured in Scotland, despite the fact that Scotland makes up 8% of the population. USA and Norway put millions of pounds into Scotland, and are always satisfied.

If Scotland had full control over tax, business regulation, labour market, exports, and innovation, the economy would be much stronger. There would be no need to give money to London, for the wealth to be distributed unfairly according to taxes paid, and they would be much better off economically because of this.

You mean Scotland landed on Spanish land (Panamá) and tried to claim it as their own...not to mention taking an absurd gold amount on these expeditions...I read somewhere that on one Scottish settlement ship, 1/5 Scotland's treasury was taken. It sank (or had some bad fate to it). Is uniqueness really a reason for independence? If so, let's go ahead and split Germany into 253 theodes, Indonesia and Malaysia back into 357 tribes, America into too many too count...No, the world does not work this way, or should not, anyway. But you fulfill one adjective very well "Proud". Now go have a lobotomy and grab some guns and you'll be ready for the fight for independence.

By "Screwed over by the European nations", I mean that all European colonial powers blocked trade with Scotland during this, and refused to lend help to Scotland's colonial expeditions, and to be honest, Scotland were terrible at colonising, and wasted a ton of money on their trips that they shouldn't have and were forced to merge with England. Is Germany asking to be hugely divided again? No. Are Indonesia, Malaysia, America asking to split again? No. Scotland's historical independence, and its ability to retain autonomy throughout the entire time it's been in a union with England is only one of the reasons it should become independent again.

They want to, they're trying, but "Socialism" is taboo. That's why the SNP is doing so much better: They don't have the world, "socialism" in their party name.

Socialism is taboo in America, not so much in UK, let alone Scotland, a largely left-winged nation.

I don't remember what I said, and I'm too lazy to look.

You defined what we are doing is arguing, I'd prefer to call it debating, as arguing is usually a few idiots yelling into each other's faces, as spit flies out their mouths, and you can see McDonalds chip fragments between their teeth.

That's why you add quotes in.

Fair point.


@Clement Attlee - Who cares how many seats Scotland has? It won't make a difference in Westminster.

Edited 6/8/2015 19:56:25

I'm not going to read it all, and I think he was talking about genetics in this case, most of Scotland are Germans, not cultural

Elroi, you have to read it all - else, what are you doing here?

The information in Wikipedia shorter...