Please Leave Now!
Comments
-
0
-
ddraver wrote:no but they can take back ownership of the dwindling tax revenue, which is the point...
FTFY0 -
0 -
AgreedBallysmate wrote:
And I don't think it's entirely clear what the long term vision for the EU is or whether there is one.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:ddraver wrote:no but they can take back ownership of the dwindling tax revenue, which is the point...
FTFY
Fair point...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Mr Goo wrote:BelgianBeerGeek wrote:Perhaps the Jocks will go their own way anyway. If the UK gets a referendum on the EU (and thats by no means certain) I reckon the majority of people will vote to leave. Scotland (and NI?) benefit from the EU greatly more than England. They might prefer to stay in the EU, which would mean leaving the union.
Where would that leave the referendum? If we voted for the UK to leave the EU, then the Scots voted to secede, would that invalidate the referendum?
Hold the front page. If the UK does get an In/Out referendum and it goes OUT. Then I think Cornwall may want independence too. I went to Truro on Monday and their new Park and Ride scheme is funded by Brussels. Which leads me to think that their is a Celtic link to the SW region. Also begs the question, Why are county councils having to apply to Brussels, Belgium (foreign country), for money to improve infrastructure? Surely this is an example of the UK not being in total control of its finances and its ability to fund its own projects. Perhaps the UK should apply to the EU for the HS2 rail link. And indeed if the Scottish people want high speed rail between its major conurbations then they too should go to the EU. Every other country in Europe does. Polands' entire new motorway network was indirectly paid for by us.
That is the point of the Structural Funds: a proportion of the overall contribution into the EU pot is allocated to funding infrastructure projects in disadvantaged regions that could not otherwise be funded themselves. The idea being that by improving said infrastructure the regions become less disadvantaged and therefore more able to contribute themselves. Win/win all round.0 -
cc78 wrote:Mr Goo wrote:BelgianBeerGeek wrote:Perhaps the Jocks will go their own way anyway. If the UK gets a referendum on the EU (and thats by no means certain) I reckon the majority of people will vote to leave. Scotland (and NI?) benefit from the EU greatly more than England. They might prefer to stay in the EU, which would mean leaving the union.
Where would that leave the referendum? If we voted for the UK to leave the EU, then the Scots voted to secede, would that invalidate the referendum?
Hold the front page. If the UK does get an In/Out referendum and it goes OUT. Then I think Cornwall may want independence too. I went to Truro on Monday and their new Park and Ride scheme is funded by Brussels. Which leads me to think that their is a Celtic link to the SW region. Also begs the question, Why are county councils having to apply to Brussels, Belgium (foreign country), for money to improve infrastructure? Surely this is an example of the UK not being in total control of its finances and its ability to fund its own projects. Perhaps the UK should apply to the EU for the HS2 rail link. And indeed if the Scottish people want high speed rail between its major conurbations then they too should go to the EU. Every other country in Europe does. Polands' entire new motorway network was indirectly paid for by us.
That is the point of the Structural Funds: a proportion of the overall contribution into the EU pot is allocated to funding infrastructure projects in disadvantaged regions that could not otherwise be funded themselves. The idea being that by improving said infrastructure the regions become less disadvantaged and therefore more able to contribute themselves. Win/win all round.
Still doesn't alter the fact that they are just giving back some of our own money.0 -
going off topic a bit;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=44&v=Y9uMArSeg38
'I can't be racist because I'm an ethnic minority woman', says Goldsmiths university diversity officer embroiled in racism row...0 -
Ballysmate wrote:
Still doesn't alter the fact that they are just giving back some of our own money.
If you are taking the isolationist view, then yes you could say that. But it's money that is generated from the UK economy being a member of the EU. Leave the EU and yes, no more payments to the Structural Funds, but then also no more of the wider economic benefits that membership brings the UK. Unless of course you believe those benefits do not exist; most would disagree, but that's your prerogative and you can vote Out in the referendum and see what happens.0 -
RideOnTime wrote:going off topic a bit;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=44&v=Y9uMArSeg38
'I can't be racist because I'm an ethnic minority woman', says Goldsmiths university diversity officer embroiled in racism row...
Is this the towering intellect that 9 grand a year buys you?0 -
What's your point?Ballysmate wrote:cc78 wrote:Mr Goo wrote:BelgianBeerGeek wrote:Perhaps the Jocks will go their own way anyway. If the UK gets a referendum on the EU (and thats by no means certain) I reckon the majority of people will vote to leave. Scotland (and NI?) benefit from the EU greatly more than England. They might prefer to stay in the EU, which would mean leaving the union.
Where would that leave the referendum? If we voted for the UK to leave the EU, then the Scots voted to secede, would that invalidate the referendum?
Hold the front page. If the UK does get an In/Out referendum and it goes OUT. Then I think Cornwall may want independence too. I went to Truro on Monday and their new Park and Ride scheme is funded by Brussels. Which leads me to think that their is a Celtic link to the SW region. Also begs the question, Why are county councils having to apply to Brussels, Belgium (foreign country), for money to improve infrastructure? Surely this is an example of the UK not being in total control of its finances and its ability to fund its own projects. Perhaps the UK should apply to the EU for the HS2 rail link. And indeed if the Scottish people want high speed rail between its major conurbations then they too should go to the EU. Every other country in Europe does. Polands' entire new motorway network was indirectly paid for by us.
That is the point of the Structural Funds: a proportion of the overall contribution into the EU pot is allocated to funding infrastructure projects in disadvantaged regions that could not otherwise be funded themselves. The idea being that by improving said infrastructure the regions become less disadvantaged and therefore more able to contribute themselves. Win/win all round.
Still doesn't alter the fact that they are just giving back some of our own money.
Are you just opposed to taxation in general or are you saying this is different from the rationale of national taxation?
You pay tax. It is used to fund infrastructure, public services like health & policing, pay unemplyment benefit, state pensions and other welfare payments. You benefit from some of this but then more you have and pay the lower the proportion likely to directly benefit you as an individual. The rationale is that the nation's society as a whole needs to be supported for the benefit of all - both from an economic and humanitarian perspective.
Don't EU state financial contributions and funding operate on the exact same basis?0 -
cc78 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:
Still doesn't alter the fact that they are just giving back some of our own money.
If you are taking the isolationist view, then yes you could say that. But it's money that is generated from the UK economy being a member of the EU. Leave the EU and yes, no more payments to the Structural Funds, but then also no more of the wider economic benefits that membership brings the UK. Unless of course you believe those benefits do not exist; most would disagree, but that's your prerogative and you can vote Out in the referendum and see what happens.
If you read ANY of my posts on the EU, you will see that I am uncertain how I would vote in any referendum. I just remind people when they point with pride to any project 'funded' by the EU, that the EU produces no wealth of its own, it is reliant on contributions. It is using our own money.
If as you state, the money we contribute is a result of our membership of the EU, please provide some evidence, as it would perhaps aid me making an informed decision come referendum time.0 -
Ai_1 wrote:
What's your point?Ballysmate wrote:cc78 wrote:Mr Goo wrote:BelgianBeerGeek wrote:Perhaps the Jocks will go their own way anyway. If the UK gets a referendum on the EU (and thats by no means certain) I reckon the majority of people will vote to leave. Scotland (and NI?) benefit from the EU greatly more than England. They might prefer to stay in the EU, which would mean leaving the union.
Where would that leave the referendum? If we voted for the UK to leave the EU, then the Scots voted to secede, would that invalidate the referendum?
Hold the front page. If the UK does get an In/Out referendum and it goes OUT. Then I think Cornwall may want independence too. I went to Truro on Monday and their new Park and Ride scheme is funded by Brussels. Which leads me to think that their is a Celtic link to the SW region. Also begs the question, Why are county councils having to apply to Brussels, Belgium (foreign country), for money to improve infrastructure? Surely this is an example of the UK not being in total control of its finances and its ability to fund its own projects. Perhaps the UK should apply to the EU for the HS2 rail link. And indeed if the Scottish people want high speed rail between its major conurbations then they too should go to the EU. Every other country in Europe does. Polands' entire new motorway network was indirectly paid for by us.
That is the point of the Structural Funds: a proportion of the overall contribution into the EU pot is allocated to funding infrastructure projects in disadvantaged regions that could not otherwise be funded themselves. The idea being that by improving said infrastructure the regions become less disadvantaged and therefore more able to contribute themselves. Win/win all round.
Still doesn't alter the fact that they are just giving back some of our own money.
Are you just opposed to taxation in general or are you saying this is different from the rationale of national taxation?
You pay tax. It is used to fund infrastructure, public services like health & policing, pay unemplyment benefit, state pensions and other welfare payments. You benefit from some of this but then more you have and pay the lower the proportion likely to directly benefit you as an individual. The rationale is that the nation's society as a whole needs to be supported for the benefit of all - both from an economic and humanitarian perspective.
Don't EU state financial contributions and funding operate on the exact same basis?
Of course I understand the tax system, you don't necessarily get out what you put in. You seem to be looking at this from a broader 'What's best for the entire EU' where the 'tax' if you want to think of it that way is spent.
I look at it in terms of 'What is best for the UK' and come any referendum that will be my sole point of reference.0 -
Exactly my point. Within a country, the rationale is that what's best for the nation is, in general, good for the individual. Within the UK the rationale must surely be that whatever is best for the union is, in general, good for England, Scotland, Wales and NI. Within the EU, similarly, the rationale must be that what's best for the the union is, in general, good for the the member states.Ballysmate wrote:Ai_1 wrote:
What's your point?Ballysmate wrote:cc78 wrote:Mr Goo wrote:BelgianBeerGeek wrote:Perhaps the Jocks will go their own way anyway. If the UK gets a referendum on the EU (and thats by no means certain) I reckon the majority of people will vote to leave. Scotland (and NI?) benefit from the EU greatly more than England. They might prefer to stay in the EU, which would mean leaving the union.
Where would that leave the referendum? If we voted for the UK to leave the EU, then the Scots voted to secede, would that invalidate the referendum?
Hold the front page. If the UK does get an In/Out referendum and it goes OUT. Then I think Cornwall may want independence too. I went to Truro on Monday and their new Park and Ride scheme is funded by Brussels. Which leads me to think that their is a Celtic link to the SW region. Also begs the question, Why are county councils having to apply to Brussels, Belgium (foreign country), for money to improve infrastructure? Surely this is an example of the UK not being in total control of its finances and its ability to fund its own projects. Perhaps the UK should apply to the EU for the HS2 rail link. And indeed if the Scottish people want high speed rail between its major conurbations then they too should go to the EU. Every other country in Europe does. Polands' entire new motorway network was indirectly paid for by us.
That is the point of the Structural Funds: a proportion of the overall contribution into the EU pot is allocated to funding infrastructure projects in disadvantaged regions that could not otherwise be funded themselves. The idea being that by improving said infrastructure the regions become less disadvantaged and therefore more able to contribute themselves. Win/win all round.
Still doesn't alter the fact that they are just giving back some of our own money.
Are you just opposed to taxation in general or are you saying this is different from the rationale of national taxation?
You pay tax. It is used to fund infrastructure, public services like health & policing, pay unemplyment benefit, state pensions and other welfare payments. You benefit from some of this but then more you have and pay the lower the proportion likely to directly benefit you as an individual. The rationale is that the nation's society as a whole needs to be supported for the benefit of all - both from an economic and humanitarian perspective.
Don't EU state financial contributions and funding operate on the exact same basis?
Of course I understand the tax system, you don't necessarily get out what you put in. You seem to be looking at this from a broader 'What's best for the entire EU' where the 'tax' if you want to think of it that way is spent.
I look at it in terms of 'What is best for the UK' and come any referendum that will be my sole point of reference.
I compared national taxation to EU funding on the basis that this is the rationale in each case.
Therefore, given your interest in the EU is entirely based on what you think is best for the UK, would it be fair to assume your interest in British government is entirely based on what's best for you as an individual?0 -
Mr Goo wrote:pinarello001 wrote:Mr Goo wrote:BelgianBeerGeek wrote:Perhaps...referendum?
...And indeed if the Scottish people want high speed rail between its major conurbations then they too should go to the EU.
What a good idea.
I'm off to Holyrood...
Sarcasm?
No.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Ballysmate wrote:RideOnTime wrote:going off topic a bit;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=44&v=Y9uMArSeg38
'I can't be racist because I'm an ethnic minority woman', says Goldsmiths university diversity officer embroiled in racism row...
Is this the towering intellect that 9 grand a year buys you?
I am a bit confused. She looks very white to me or is she the spokesperson for Bahar Mustafa? don't know.
Lots of DM's about.0 -
Ai_1 wrote:
Exactly my point. Within a country, the rationale is that what's best for the nation is, in general, good for the individual. Within the UK the rationale must surely be that whatever is best for the union is, in general, good for England, Scotland, Wales and NI. Within the EU, similarly, the rationale must be that what's best for the the union is, in general, good for the the member states.Ballysmate wrote:Ai_1 wrote:
What's your point?Ballysmate wrote:cc78 wrote:Mr Goo wrote:BelgianBeerGeek wrote:Perhaps the Jocks will go their own way anyway. If the UK gets a referendum on the EU (and thats by no means certain) I reckon the majority of people will vote to leave. Scotland (and NI?) benefit from the EU greatly more than England. They might prefer to stay in the EU, which would mean leaving the union.
Where would that leave the referendum? If we voted for the UK to leave the EU, then the Scots voted to secede, would that invalidate the referendum?
Hold the front page. If the UK does get an In/Out referendum and it goes OUT. Then I think Cornwall may want independence too. I went to Truro on Monday and their new Park and Ride scheme is funded by Brussels. Which leads me to think that their is a Celtic link to the SW region. Also begs the question, Why are county councils having to apply to Brussels, Belgium (foreign country), for money to improve infrastructure? Surely this is an example of the UK not being in total control of its finances and its ability to fund its own projects. Perhaps the UK should apply to the EU for the HS2 rail link. And indeed if the Scottish people want high speed rail between its major conurbations then they too should go to the EU. Every other country in Europe does. Polands' entire new motorway network was indirectly paid for by us.
That is the point of the Structural Funds: a proportion of the overall contribution into the EU pot is allocated to funding infrastructure projects in disadvantaged regions that could not otherwise be funded themselves. The idea being that by improving said infrastructure the regions become less disadvantaged and therefore more able to contribute themselves. Win/win all round.
Still doesn't alter the fact that they are just giving back some of our own money.
Are you just opposed to taxation in general or are you saying this is different from the rationale of national taxation?
You pay tax. It is used to fund infrastructure, public services like health & policing, pay unemplyment benefit, state pensions and other welfare payments. You benefit from some of this but then more you have and pay the lower the proportion likely to directly benefit you as an individual. The rationale is that the nation's society as a whole needs to be supported for the benefit of all - both from an economic and humanitarian perspective.
Don't EU state financial contributions and funding operate on the exact same basis?
Of course I understand the tax system, you don't necessarily get out what you put in. You seem to be looking at this from a broader 'What's best for the entire EU' where the 'tax' if you want to think of it that way is spent.
I look at it in terms of 'What is best for the UK' and come any referendum that will be my sole point of reference.
I compared national taxation to EU funding on the basis that this is the rationale in each case.
Therefore, given your interest in the EU is entirely based on what you think is best for the UK, would it be fair to assume your interest in British government is entirely based on what's best for you as an individual?
My interest in the UK government is what is best for the UK, and this hopefully will be what is best for me.
When it comes to the referendum, I again will vote for what I think is best for the UK. If the interests of the EU and UK are served by our membership, so be it.
If you are suggesting that I should vote to stay in on the basis that our membership will automatically mean that it will be to the UK's benefit, I have to say you are not convincing me.
You may not agree , but I shall be voting in accordance with national state interest.
Edit That should be 'National self interest'0 -
Ai_1 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:orraloon wrote:VTech wrote:my tax pounds pay for there kids education whilst on top of that I pay for my own kids without the support of the tax pounds I am already paying.
The Londonite shiny faces were drumming up all sorts of fluff about the "subsidy" paid by "England" to Scotland. We may get some proper facts coming out now that the GE is out of the way, and if full fiscal autonomy indeed means changes to the amount and way Scotland spends its public finances then so be it.
But the point should be remembered that no university tuition fees etc are policies adopted by the democratically elected representatives in Edinburgh on how they wish to spend the money they have. The London parliament could choose to do the same, or as is the case, they choose to spend their money on other priorities. HS2 anyone? Crossrail?
Once Scotland is out of the way, I await with interest the bleating about how much subsidy goes to these ungrateful wretches from Newcastle, Manchester, Liverpool.... Northern England? Only good for (shale oil production technique word which BR screen won't permit, 8 letters starts with 'fr', has 'ack' in middle and ends in 'ing'') I seem to recall. Ai_1 has a valid argument.
No problem with Holyrood spending their money as they see fit. Prescriptions? Education? It is up to them.
Let them have FFA so that it is their own money they're spending. At least that will stop them bleating on about everything being the fault of the English.
I have no problem with regions getting varying amounts according to their needs.I don't expect wretches from anywhere to be grateful. It's the constant whine "It isnae fair!" from north of the border when they are getting rather a good deal that pi55es me off.
Come on Dave, scrap Barnett and give the porridge eaters FFA.
[/quote]Wow, that just drips with prejudiced, xenophobic, self righteous ignorance. Although you know that and are doing it on purpose so it's easy to disregard.
I missed this or I would have revisited it earlier. If you are referring to my light hearted description of the Scots, then i am sorry if you are so easily offended.
If you are referring to my desire that Scotland be given FFA, it is after all what they are asking for.
If you are referring to my belief that they get a good deal through Barnett, but are constantly whining, the YES campaign was fought on the basis that Westminster was shafting Scotland.
Another example of Scotland/SNP's whining comes from the newly elected member for East Lothian, coincidentally where my family hails from, who seems to want to get FFA but also keep a subsidy fro rUK.
"For Scotland to accept fiscal autonomy without inbuilt UK-wide fiscal balancing would be tantamount to economic suicide. However, all federal systems have mechanisms for cross subsidising regions in economic need by regions in surplus. To deny that to Scotland suggests a disingenuous Mr Cameron is hoping to derail any move to Scottish Hole Rule within the UK. Either way, May 7 is a forking of the constitutional road."
http://www.thenational.scot/news/george ... owers.2787
They seem to want their cake and eat it. Or more accurately, someone else to buy the cake.0 -
I said that what you had written "drips with prejudiced, xenophobic, self righteous ignorance."Ballysmate wrote:Ai_1 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:.....No problem with Holyrood spending their money as they see fit. Prescriptions? Education? It is up to them.
Let them have FFA so that it is their own money they're spending. At least that will stop them bleating on about everything being the fault of the English.
I have no problem with regions getting varying amounts according to their needs.I don't expect wretches from anywhere to be grateful. It's the constant whine "It isnae fair!" from north of the border when they are getting rather a good deal that pi55es me off.
Come on Dave, scrap Barnett and give the porridge eaters FFA.Wow, that just drips with prejudiced, xenophobic, self righteous ignorance. Although you know that and are doing it on purpose so it's easy to disregard.
I missed this or I would have revisited it earlier. If you are referring to my light hearted description of the Scots, then i am sorry if you are so easily offended.
If you are referring to my desire that Scotland be given FFA, it is after all what they are asking for.
If you are referring to my belief that they get a good deal through Barnett, but are constantly whining, the YES campaign was fought on the basis that Westminster was shafting Scotland.
Another example of Scotland/SNP's whining comes from the newly elected member for East Lothian, coincidentally where my family hails from, who seems to want to get FFA but also keep a subsidy fro rUK.
"For Scotland to accept fiscal autonomy without inbuilt UK-wide fiscal balancing would be tantamount to economic suicide. However, all federal systems have mechanisms for cross subsidising regions in economic need by regions in surplus. To deny that to Scotland suggests a disingenuous Mr Cameron is hoping to derail any move to Scottish Hole Rule within the UK. Either way, May 7 is a forking of the constitutional road."
http://www.thenational.scot/news/george ... owers.2787
They seem to want their cake and eat it. Or more accurately, someone else to buy the cake.
I did not say whether I was offended or otherwise. I'm criticising what you wrote not complaining about it's effect on me. Saying you're sorry if I'm so easily offended is nothing but obfuscation.
If you're trying to make an objective rational argument then make one. When you start calling people wretches, porridge eaters and sticking in stuff like your "It isnae fair" jibe, you're revealing a distinct prejudicial streak.
Did you really not know what I was referring to or is that just more manoeuvering?0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Ai_1 wrote:
Exactly my point. Within a country, the rationale is that what's best for the nation is, in general, good for the individual. Within the UK the rationale must surely be that whatever is best for the union is, in general, good for England, Scotland, Wales and NI. Within the EU, similarly, the rationale must be that what's best for the the union is, in general, good for the the member states.Ballysmate wrote:Ai_1 wrote:
What's your point?Ballysmate wrote:cc78 wrote:Mr Goo wrote:BelgianBeerGeek wrote:Perhaps the Jocks will go their own way anyway. If the UK gets a referendum on the EU (and thats by no means certain) I reckon the majority of people will vote to leave. Scotland (and NI?) benefit from the EU greatly more than England. They might prefer to stay in the EU, which would mean leaving the union.
Where would that leave the referendum? If we voted for the UK to leave the EU, then the Scots voted to secede, would that invalidate the referendum?
Hold the front page. If the UK does get an In/Out referendum and it goes OUT. Then I think Cornwall may want independence too. I went to Truro on Monday and their new Park and Ride scheme is funded by Brussels. Which leads me to think that their is a Celtic link to the SW region. Also begs the question, Why are county councils having to apply to Brussels, Belgium (foreign country), for money to improve infrastructure? Surely this is an example of the UK not being in total control of its finances and its ability to fund its own projects. Perhaps the UK should apply to the EU for the HS2 rail link. And indeed if the Scottish people want high speed rail between its major conurbations then they too should go to the EU. Every other country in Europe does. Polands' entire new motorway network was indirectly paid for by us.
That is the point of the Structural Funds: a proportion of the overall contribution into the EU pot is allocated to funding infrastructure projects in disadvantaged regions that could not otherwise be funded themselves. The idea being that by improving said infrastructure the regions become less disadvantaged and therefore more able to contribute themselves. Win/win all round.
Still doesn't alter the fact that they are just giving back some of our own money.
Are you just opposed to taxation in general or are you saying this is different from the rationale of national taxation?
You pay tax. It is used to fund infrastructure, public services like health & policing, pay unemplyment benefit, state pensions and other welfare payments. You benefit from some of this but then more you have and pay the lower the proportion likely to directly benefit you as an individual. The rationale is that the nation's society as a whole needs to be supported for the benefit of all - both from an economic and humanitarian perspective.
Don't EU state financial contributions and funding operate on the exact same basis?
Of course I understand the tax system, you don't necessarily get out what you put in. You seem to be looking at this from a broader 'What's best for the entire EU' where the 'tax' if you want to think of it that way is spent.
I look at it in terms of 'What is best for the UK' and come any referendum that will be my sole point of reference.
I compared national taxation to EU funding on the basis that this is the rationale in each case.
Therefore, given your interest in the EU is entirely based on what you think is best for the UK, would it be fair to assume your interest in British government is entirely based on what's best for you as an individual?
My interest in the UK government is what is best for the UK, and this hopefully will be what is best for me.
When it comes to the referendum, I again will vote for what I think is best for the UK. If the interests of the EU and UK are served by our membership, so be it.
If you are suggesting that I should vote to stay in on the basis that our membership will automatically mean that it will be to the UK's benefit, I have to say you are not convincing me.
You may not agree , but I shall be voting in accordance with national state interest.
Edit That should be 'National self interest'
If this was clear I would be happy to be 'out'. It really isn't clear though and its not going to be by the time of any referendum. My fear and may be it is a fear and not based on rationality is that in an ever increasing connected world trying to bolster up the nation state is going the wrong way. May be I unfairly paint the Tories with the nonsense that comes from UKIP support - but it is the fear of England being a backward inward looking non-progressive state that has little interest in the outside world.0 -
Ai_1 wrote:
I said that what you had written "drips with prejudiced, xenophobic, self righteous ignorance."Ballysmate wrote:Ai_1 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:.....No problem with Holyrood spending their money as they see fit. Prescriptions? Education? It is up to them.
Let them have FFA so that it is their own money they're spending. At least that will stop them bleating on about everything being the fault of the English.
I have no problem with regions getting varying amounts according to their needs.I don't expect wretches from anywhere to be grateful. It's the constant whine "It isnae fair!" from north of the border when they are getting rather a good deal that pi55es me off.
Come on Dave, scrap Barnett and give the porridge eaters FFA.Wow, that just drips with prejudiced, xenophobic, self righteous ignorance. Although you know that and are doing it on purpose so it's easy to disregard.
I missed this or I would have revisited it earlier. If you are referring to my light hearted description of the Scots, then i am sorry if you are so easily offended.
If you are referring to my desire that Scotland be given FFA, it is after all what they are asking for.
If you are referring to my belief that they get a good deal through Barnett, but are constantly whining, the YES campaign was fought on the basis that Westminster was shafting Scotland.
Another example of Scotland/SNP's whining comes from the newly elected member for East Lothian, coincidentally where my family hails from, who seems to want to get FFA but also keep a subsidy fro rUK.
"For Scotland to accept fiscal autonomy without inbuilt UK-wide fiscal balancing would be tantamount to economic suicide. However, all federal systems have mechanisms for cross subsidising regions in economic need by regions in surplus. To deny that to Scotland suggests a disingenuous Mr Cameron is hoping to derail any move to Scottish Hole Rule within the UK. Either way, May 7 is a forking of the constitutional road."
http://www.thenational.scot/news/george ... owers.2787
They seem to want their cake and eat it. Or more accurately, someone else to buy the cake.
I did not say whether I was offended or otherwise. I'm criticising what you wrote not complaining about it's effect on me. Saying you're sorry if I'm so easily offended is nothing but obfuscation.
If you're trying to make an objective rational argument then make one. When you start calling people wretches, porridge eaters and sticking in stuff like your "It isnae fair" jibe, you're revealing a distinct prejudicial streak.
Did you really not know what I was referring to or is that just more manoeuvering?
I repeated the word 'wretches' in response to Orraloon, who had used it in his post.I thought I had used the word sarcastically but, hey ho.
I used the vernacular because it was the Scots who were complaining that they were continually getting a raw deal from Westminster/England, even though they were doing very well out of the Barnett formula.
If that marks me down as being xenophobic or prejudiced I can live with it.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Ai_1 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Ai_1 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:........eaters FFA.Wow, that just drips with prejudiced, xenophobic, self righteous ignorance. Although you know that and are doing it on purpose so it's easy to disregard.
"For Scotland...manoeuvering?
I used the vernacular because it was the Scots who were complaining that they were continually getting a raw deal from Westminster/England, even though they were doing very well out of the Barnett formula.
If that marks me down as being xenophobic or prejudiced I can live with it.
If you want to keep the Union, there is a price to pay. Are you expecting the Scots to say 'Give us less, we're fine thank you' ?
I agree with the sentiment about a UKIP inward looking, non-progressive mentality. Funny how the press seem to find plentiful UKIPers to interview - they are either retired or unemployed Alf Garnett's.
I think this journalist gets paid by the column inch:
http://www.thenational.scot/news/george ... owers.2787
He could have summed it up in 2 paragraphs, not that I agree about all that he says.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
pinarello001 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Ai_1 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Ai_1 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:........eaters FFA.Wow, that just drips with prejudiced, xenophobic, self righteous ignorance. Although you know that and are doing it on purpose so it's easy to disregard.
"For Scotland...manoeuvering?
I used the vernacular because it was the Scots who were complaining that they were continually getting a raw deal from Westminster/England, even though they were doing very well out of the Barnett formula.
If that marks me down as being xenophobic or prejudiced I can live with it.
If you want to keep the Union, there is a price to pay. Are you expecting the Scots to say 'Give us less, we're fine thank you' ?
I agree with the sentiment about a UKIP inward looking, non-progressive mentality. Funny how the press seem to find plentiful UKIPers to interview - they are either retired or unemployed Alf Garnett's.
I think this journalist gets paid by the column inch:
http://www.thenational.scot/news/george ... owers.2787
He could have summed it up in 2 paragraphs, not that I agree about all that he says.
I did want to keep the Union, but accept now that it is probably going to break up, unless the porridge ea... er, sorry, the Scots are satisfied with devo max.The genie may be out of the bottle with Barnett and the rUK may be all for Scotland having FFA.
Of course, when Wee Nippy's sums don't add up, the Scots may still realise what a lucky escape they had in September.
Funny how during the run up to the referendum the SNP were adamant that everything could be done and dusted by next year, but now seem to think that FFA will take longer to implement.0 -
Long live the People's Federal Republic of Great Britain. There's Devo Manc on the cards now.
Jehova, Jehova, Jehova...seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Now was that so hard?Ballysmate wrote:.....
I did want to keep the Union, but accept now that it is probably going to break up, unless the porridge ea... er, sorry, the Scots are satisfied with devo max.The genie may be out of the bottle with Barnett and the rUK may be all for Scotland having FFA....
0
