Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Washington got lucky when Von Steuben started training/drilling the troops at Valley Forge.

 Jihadin wrote:
Washington got lucky when Von Steuben started training/drilling the troops at Valley Forge.

On a horse made of crystal he patrolled the land.

The fact that nobody is taking into consideration the needs of Scotland first...is why this vote needs to happen.

 Bromsy wrote:
Obviously you missed the fact that Washington had like twenty goddamned dicks.

And retractable ninja scythes for hands. In fact, Washington was Wolverine.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
Obviously you missed the fact that Washington had like twenty goddamned dicks.

And retractable ninja scythes for hands. In fact, Washington was Wolverine.

Washington, Washington. 8 foot 7, weighed a fething ton.

Not safe for work.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
The fact that nobody is taking into consideration the needs of Scotland first...is why this vote needs to happen.

I'm not really sure how Scotland is being short changed in any way by the union. Scotland already gets many perks that the rest of the union doesn't. What exactly are "Scotland's needs" anyway and why are they being ignored, and why should they be put ahead of anything else?

 Mr Hyena wrote:
The fact that nobody is taking into consideration the needs of Scotland first...is why this vote needs to happen.

When Scotland has MPs from non Scottish constituencies voting on decisions that do not affect them but only Scotland, then you can whinge about such things. Right now the only people in such a position are the English, compare the number of Tories in Hollyrood to the number of SNP in Westminster and see who exactly is making decisions that don't affect them.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
The fact that nobody is taking into consideration the needs of Scotland first...is why this vote needs to happen.

I'm not really sure how Scotland is being short changed in any way by the union. Scotland already gets many perks that the rest of the union doesn't. What exactly are "Scotland's needs" anyway and why are they being ignored, and why should they be put ahead of anything else?

Take a walk through Glasgow, Edinburgh, etc and not just the pretty bits. What do you see? Areas in desperate need of regeneration. Are we seeing enough regeneration? (as an example of social issues that union membership isn't helping for Scotland.)

Most sensible people would want to trade all those "perks" for the ability to have total control over how the country controls itself. To be able to tackle what the union isn't. Scotland and Wales should have no say on England's laws etc, but neither should England on the others. No more gathering Taxes into a pot and redistributing them. That doesn't help anyone.

The last part of your reason is exactly why the union needs to be dissolved. Why should what happens in England, Wales affect the needs for helping social issues in Scotland?

It IS possible to be close countries without being literally joined. Alternatively, the second best thing would be absolute, total devolution of powers. I'd rather not vote for the SNP, but they are the only party who is legitimately interested in Scotland.

When Scotland has MPs from non Scottish constituencies voting on decisions that do not affect them but only Scotland, then you can whinge about such things.

Remember the smoking ban? That was forcefully tried in Scotland first, but not England. Yeah, it did get implemented later in England, but being used as an experiment isn't cool.

That said, this type of thing shouldn't be happening either way.

I've nothing against Scotland, and wish them all the best if they do break away. At least it'll be a country we can rely on when the chips are down.

A few points: people mentioned earlier that without Scottish MPs, labour would never win in England. Not true, New labour under Blair would still have had the majority in all the elections Blair won, minus the Scottish MPs.

And finally, Scotland has more than pulled its weight in Britain's various wars. 25% of all Scottish males were killed in the great war, and WW2, didn't help the demographics either.

During the American revolution, Scottish troops, or the devils in skirts, were feared by the Americans (still are to this day, hence the $600 billion defence budget) The mere sight of these troops made Washington flee the field at the Battles of Long Island, and Brandywine.

Many of britian's officers were scottish too.

The smoking ban was a great thing, and I'm glad it was rolled out here before anywhere else. I have still seen no compelling reasons and benefits that are credible enough to make me want us to leave the Union.

Freedom and self-respect are good enough reasons to leave the Union. It's true what they say, but most people down here don't really care if Scotland are in or out. If you go it alone, good luck. It will always be the nation of Law, Baxter and King Kenny.

 Castiel wrote:
The smoking ban was a great thing, and I'm glad it was rolled out here before anywhere else. I have still seen no compelling reasons and benefits that are credible enough to make me want us to leave the Union.

Regardless if its good or bad, they still forced their own law onto us. Ideally, any law of this scale should be tested in its own country first. I mean, thats just courtesy.

Interestingly, there is no credible reasons to stay.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

When Scotland has MPs from non Scottish constituencies voting on decisions that do not affect them but only Scotland, then you can whinge about such things.

Remember the smoking ban? That was forcefully tried in Scotland first, but not England. Yeah, it did get implemented later in England, but being used as an experiment isn't cool.

That said, this type of thing shouldn't be happening either way.

The smoking ban in Scotland was passed by the Scottish Parliament, and proposed by the Scottish Executive Health Minister, it had nothing to do with Westminster. Which is very much unlike the introduction of student fees in England, something which would never have been passed without Scottish votes.

So please, tell me of a single case where Westminster has made a decision about Scotland, or used it as an "experiment," because I'm not aware of a single one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Regardless if its good or bad, they still forced their own law onto us. Ideally, any law of this scale should be tested in its own country first. I mean, thats just courtesy.

As I just said, noone forced anything on you. Is that what the general feeling on the smoking ban is? Because it's so wrong it's not even funny.

Although it does kind of suit me, as I'd quite like Scotland to be independent because it would free up a vast amount of public money.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Castiel wrote:
The smoking ban was a great thing, and I'm glad it was rolled out here before anywhere else. I have still seen no compelling reasons and benefits that are credible enough to make me want us to leave the Union.

Regardless if its good or bad, they still forced their own law onto us. Ideally, any law of this scale should be tested in its own country first. I mean, thats just courtesy.

Interestingly, there is no credible reasons to stay.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Interestingly, there is no credible reasons to stay.

Bwhaha!

gak loads of money not a good one then eh?

As I've said before many times, I don't much care if Scotland comes or goes, its their decision, but it will be sad if they go due to watching Braveheart, and pig fething ignorance, which is what the vast majority of the independance lot seem to wallow in.

And as for the absolutely ridiculous gak you said earlier, about there being rough parts of Scotland...

There are rough parts in England! feth me.. there are rough parts in America, the biggest economy... there are rough parts of bloody Dubai! What, do you think that if Scotland gets independence suddenly every street will be refurbished and have golden taps and rivers of chocolate?

Pull the other one. If Scotland feth off, they will have plenty of work to do in order to have the same level of cash to spend as they do now, I'm not saying they cant manage it, but you are hardly getting stiffed with your enormous public sector and their other numerous benefits that poor people in gak hold estates in Newcastle and Sunderland don't have access to.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Take a walk through Glasgow, Edinburgh, etc and not just the pretty bits. What do you see? Areas in desperate need of regeneration. Are we seeing enough regeneration? (as an example of social issues that union membership isn't helping for Scotland.)

You think that is in any way unique to Scotland? Most of the UK (especially in the North) is crumbling apart, with poor housing, lack of infrastructure, employment, etc... Regeneration costs money. I don't know if you've noticed, but there is a bit of a shortage of it at the moment

I don't know the figures, bu I'd imagine that Scotland gets a proportional amount of money as everywhere else for regeneration.

Most sensible people would want to trade all those "perks" for the ability to have total control over how the country controls itself.

That remains to be seen.

No more gathering Taxes into a pot and redistributing them. That doesn't help anyone.

Why not? Taxes revenue isn't exactly horded by England for England at the expense of everywhere else. You'd rather have the 4 countries of the union each with its own tax collection system, only able to draw on the monies collected locally, rather than able to draw on a much greater collective pot as and when needed?

The last part of your reason is exactly why the union needs to be dissolved. Why should what happens in England, Wales affect the needs for helping social issues in Scotland?

How exactly does this happen now?

SNP... are the only party who is legitimately interested in Scotland.

I think you will find the SNP are only interested in the SNP.

Remember the smoking ban? That was forcefully tried in Scotland first, but not England. Yeah, it did get implemented later in England, but being used as an experiment isn't cool.

It's not exactly an experiment. Besides, doesn't this come under helping social problems in Scotland ahead of the other countries in the union?

 dæl wrote:


As I just said, noone forced anything on you. Is that what the general feeling on the smoking ban is? Because it's so wrong it's not even funny.

I wont be at all surprised if this is what the SNP tell the Scottish voters.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
No more gathering Taxes into a pot and redistributing them. That doesn't help anyone.

Why not? Taxes revenue isn't exactly horded by England for England at the expense of everywhere else. You'd rather have the 4 countries of the union each with its own tax collection system, only able to draw on the monies collected locally, rather than able to draw on a much greater collective pot as and when needed?

Scotland would be very much the worse off out of such a system, as we will see if they vote yes.

 dæl wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

When Scotland has MPs from non Scottish constituencies voting on decisions that do not affect them but only Scotland, then you can whinge about such things.

Remember the smoking ban? That was forcefully tried in Scotland first, but not England. Yeah, it did get implemented later in England, but being used as an experiment isn't cool.

That said, this type of thing shouldn't be happening either way.

The smoking ban in Scotland was passed by the Scottish Parliament, and proposed by the Scottish Executive Health Minister, it had nothing to do with Westminster. Which is very much unlike the introduction of student fees in England, something which would never have been passed without Scottish votes.

So please, tell me of a single case where Westminster has made a decision about Scotland, or used it as an "experiment," because I'm not aware of a single one.

I thought that was the case, but didn't have the time to check it out. This is the problem I see with independence, half of the people voting for it don't seem to know the facts of it!

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
The fact that nobody is taking into consideration the needs of Scotland first...is why this vote needs to happen.

I'm not really sure how Scotland is being short changed in any way by the union. Scotland already gets many perks that the rest of the union doesn't. What exactly are "Scotland's needs" anyway and why are they being ignored, and why should they be put ahead of anything else?

Take a walk through Glasgow, Edinburgh, etc and not just the pretty bits. What do you see? Areas in desperate need of regeneration. Are we seeing enough regeneration? (as an example of social issues that union membership isn't helping for Scotland.)

Most sensible people would want to trade all those "perks" for the ability to have total control over how the country controls itself. To be able to tackle what the union isn't. Scotland and Wales should have no say on England's laws etc, but neither should England on the others. No more gathering Taxes into a pot and redistributing them. That doesn't help anyone.

The last part of your reason is exactly why the union needs to be dissolved. Why should what happens in England, Wales affect the needs for helping social issues in Scotland?

It IS possible to be close countries without being literally joined. Alternatively, the second best thing would be absolute, total devolution of powers. I'd rather not vote for the SNP, but they are the only party who is legitimately interested in Scotland.

When Scotland has MPs from non Scottish constituencies voting on decisions that do not affect them but only Scotland, then you can whinge about such things.

Remember the smoking ban? That was forcefully tried in Scotland first, but not England. Yeah, it did get implemented later in England, but being used as an experiment isn't cool.

That said, this type of thing shouldn't be happening either way.

here's the problem. Why do you think you'll have any money?
If England (and I say England) is smart they keep the oil. Scotland has no claim on the North Sea.
What else does Scotland make? If you're getting more tax money than sending you're going to be poorer for it.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Take a walk through Glasgow, Edinburgh, etc and not just the pretty bits. What do you see? Areas in desperate need of regeneration. Are we seeing enough regeneration? (as an example of social issues that union membership isn't helping for Scotland.)

Most sensible people would want to trade all those "perks" for the ability to have total control over how the country controls itself. To be able to tackle what the union isn't. Scotland and Wales should have no say on England's laws etc, but neither should England on the others. No more gathering Taxes into a pot and redistributing them. That doesn't help anyone.

The last part of your reason is exactly why the union needs to be dissolved. Why should what happens in England, Wales affect the needs for helping social issues in Scotland?

It IS possible to be close countries without being literally joined. Alternatively, the second best thing would be absolute, total devolution of powers. I'd rather not vote for the SNP, but they are the only party who is legitimately interested in Scotland.

When Scotland has MPs from non Scottish constituencies voting on decisions that do not affect them but only Scotland, then you can whinge about such things.

Remember the smoking ban? That was forcefully tried in Scotland first, but not England. Yeah, it did get implemented later in England, but being used as an experiment isn't cool.

That said, this type of thing shouldn't be happening either way.

here's the problem. Why do you think you'll have any money?
If England (and I say England) is smart they keep the oil. Scotland has no claim on the North Sea.
What else does Scotland make? If you're getting more tax money than sending you're going to be poorer for it.

The majority of the oil comes in through Aberdeen and is processed in Grangemouth, in Scotland.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Castiel wrote:
The smoking ban was a great thing, and I'm glad it was rolled out here before anywhere else. I have still seen no compelling reasons and benefits that are credible enough to make me want us to leave the Union.

Regardless if its good or bad, they still forced their own law onto us. Ideally, any law of this scale should be tested in its own country first. I mean, thats just courtesy.

Interestingly, there is no credible reasons to stay.

1. you have no money
2. see #1.

Why can't you write your own laws now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Castiel wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Take a walk through Glasgow, Edinburgh, etc and not just the pretty bits. What do you see? Areas in desperate need of regeneration. Are we seeing enough regeneration? (as an example of social issues that union membership isn't helping for Scotland.)

Most sensible people would want to trade all those "perks" for the ability to have total control over how the country controls itself. To be able to tackle what the union isn't. Scotland and Wales should have no say on England's laws etc, but neither should England on the others. No more gathering Taxes into a pot and redistributing them. That doesn't help anyone.

The last part of your reason is exactly why the union needs to be dissolved. Why should what happens in England, Wales affect the needs for helping social issues in Scotland?

It IS possible to be close countries without being literally joined. Alternatively, the second best thing would be absolute, total devolution of powers. I'd rather not vote for the SNP, but they are the only party who is legitimately interested in Scotland.

When Scotland has MPs from non Scottish constituencies voting on decisions that do not affect them but only Scotland, then you can whinge about such things.

Remember the smoking ban? That was forcefully tried in Scotland first, but not England. Yeah, it did get implemented later in England, but being used as an experiment isn't cool.

That said, this type of thing shouldn't be happening either way.

here's the problem. Why do you think you'll have any money?
If England (and I say England) is smart they keep the oil. Scotland has no claim on the North Sea.
What else does Scotland make? If you're getting more tax money than sending you're going to be poorer for it.

The majority of the oil comes in through Aberdeen and is processed in Grangemouth, in Scotland.

Not if its a foreign country.

Actually it might but so what. You're talking a few buck's margin. The money is in the oil itself. If you don't get those proceeds you get a future engvironmental hazard and a few bucks per barrel.

 Castiel wrote:

The majority of the oil comes in through Aberdeen and is processed in Grangemouth, in Scotland.

Yes, but it's English oil, and we aren't going to let a nice little earner like refining it go to waste. Bit of job creation up Newcastle way is a bonus.

 dæl wrote:

 Castiel wrote:

The majority of the oil comes in through Aberdeen and is processed in Grangemouth, in Scotland.

Yes, but it's English oil, and we aren't going to let a nice little earner like refining it go to waste. Bit of job creation up Newcastle way is a bonus.

Well, I guess we have to do something with all that regeneration money we are not spending on Scotland...

 dæl wrote:

 Castiel wrote:

The majority of the oil comes in through Aberdeen and is processed in Grangemouth, in Scotland.

Yes, but it's English oil, and we aren't going to let a nice little earner like refining it go to waste. Bit of job creation up Newcastle way is a bonus.

Not necessary. The oil can be sold to the refinery at market prices. UK keeps the oil proceeds. Scotland keeps the refining proceeds.

 Frazzled wrote:
Not necessary. The oil can be sold to the refinery at market prices. UK keeps the oil proceeds. Scotland keeps the refining proceeds.

I think to continue with the apparent anti-Scottish agenda of the English we will have to ensure that no money goes into Scottland and move the refinery as well as take all the oil.

The tories are as anti-scottish as you can get.

We're arguing over oil?

Is that odd?

Countries argue over oil all the time

 Jihadin wrote:
We're arguing over oil?

There's no argument, we moved the boundaries in 1999 to make it so as that part of the North Sea now belongs to England.