The end of The Union ?

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri May 01, 2015 5:51 am

Maybe you Scots should come down here and show these imbeciles in Westminster HOW to balance the books, but SLOWLY though, using SMALL words....

Totally agree about "Clagnut"! (thinks ethics is a county...):wah:

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri May 01, 2015 9:41 am

Still, the same old rhetoric about the glorious North Sea Oil comes out. Just what is expected to happen when it runs out once & for all, as it is rapidly doing. It's already at the stage when it's estimated as only having a financially viable life of no more than about 30 years, tops. It's a short term cream topping on the top of your doughnut. There's only so much you can lick away.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri May 01, 2015 11:19 am

FourPart;1478405 wrote: Still, the same old rhetoric about the glorious North Sea Oil comes out. Just what is expected to happen when it runs out once & for all, as it is rapidly doing. It's already at the stage when it's estimated as only having a financially viable life of no more than about 30 years, tops. It's a short term cream topping on the top of your doughnut. There's only so much you can lick away.

Hence all the "hustle and bustle" about "fracking". I have very mixed feelings about "fracking", especially near aquifers and watercourses/lakes etc. This technology is still in it's relative infancy, and hence, unpredictable.

I would also like to know what chemicals are used in this process, and the associated health/environmental risk involved with their usage.

Apologies for the "sidetrack", but it occurs to me,IF we can somewhat perfect this technique, such as predicting/controlling accurately WHERE these cracks will "run", it may turn out to be a boon, especially in this "high energy demand" world. Possibly. Needs loads of research and development,, though.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri May 01, 2015 1:36 pm

FourPart;1478405 wrote: Still, the same old rhetoric about the glorious North Sea Oil comes out. Just what is expected to happen when it runs out once & for all, as it is rapidly doing. It's already at the stage when it's estimated as only having a financially viable life of no more than about 30 years, tops. It's a short term cream topping on the top of your doughnut. There's only so much you can lick away.

That's because it's actually true and if iot wasn;t why did the westminster parties start panicking at the thought of losing it to an independent scotland. We're also sittimngb on large quantities of shale oil, they stopped mining it in the 60's because it became uneconomic not because it ran out. I live in west lothian where the world's oil industry actually started there cae huge shale bings all over the place.

posted by smaug

Hence all the "hustle and bustle" about "fracking". I have very mixed feelings about "fracking", especially near aquifers and watercourses/lakes etc. This technology is still in it's relative infancy, and hence, unpredictable.

I would also like to know what chemicals are used in this process, and the associated health/environmental risk involved with their usage.

Apologies for the "sidetrack", but it occurs to me,IF we can somewhat perfect this technique, such as predicting/controlling accurately WHERE these cracks will "run", it may turn out to be a boon, especially in this "high energy demand" world. Possibly. Needs loads of research and development,, though.

Niot a sidetrack at all. The tories short circuited the planning process to make it harder for people to oppose fracking. While we're at it who dcided that the ownership od chemicals under out feet would belong to a few individuals or companies? I didn't vote for that and I bet you didnl;t either. Can't wait till they start trying it in tory heaartlands

Not the wonderful success that they would have us believe. The UK is not an empty land in the way they have in the states.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri May 01, 2015 3:50 pm

gmc;1478412 wrote: That's because it's actually true and if iot wasn;t why did the westminster parties start panicking at the thought of losing it to an independent scotland. We're also sittimngb on large quantities of shale oil, they stopped mining it in the 60's because it became uneconomic not because it ran out. I live in west lothian where the world's oil industry actually started there cae huge shale bings all over the place.

posted by smaug

Niot a sidetrack at all. The tories short circuited the planning process to make it harder for people to oppose fracking. While we're at it who dcided that the ownership od chemicals under out feet would belong to a few individuals or companies? I didn't vote for that and I bet you didnl;t either. Can't wait till they start trying it in tory heaartlands

Not the wonderful success that they would have us believe. The UK is not an empty land in the way they have in the states.

Too right I didn't vote for the "subterranean land-grab"! No, I can't imagine them fracking in tory hearlands, either! And,typical of Westminster, you can't even object effectively on a legal level, due to the many changes made to planning and consent laws recently.

I believe they've had various problems associated with fracking in the US, such as gassification of mains drinking water by methane, to inflammable levels, subsidence and seismic activity. If things do go wrong in the US, they can just abandon that particular area and re-locate. They've got the room to do this.

If we do go in for fracking, we've got to get it right FIRST TIME, we can't just abandon a large area of land here, with our limited space available.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri May 01, 2015 4:22 pm

Geologically the UK is quite stable. Ever since fracking started there have been seismic tremors detected. The fact that these tremors occured in the regions where fracking was taking place was pure co-incidence - of course.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri May 01, 2015 5:12 pm

FourPart;1478421 wrote: Geologically the UK is quite stable. Ever since fracking started there have been seismic tremors detected. The fact that these tremors occured in the regions where fracking was taking place was pure co-incidence - of course.

Of course, of course...mere coincidence! If these disturbances were in the US, it may be(partly) down to the unstable, stratified, sink-hole prone nature of some regions, especially towards the south, I believe;though I'm by no means certain!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat May 02, 2015 2:16 am

Too right I didn't vote for the "subterranean land-grab"! No, I can't imagine them fracking in tory hearlands, either! And,typical of Westminster, you can't even object effectively on a legal level, due to the many changes made to planning and consent laws recently.

Sometimes capitalism really IS theft and the poor have no lawyers.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Sat May 02, 2015 3:51 am

gmc;1478429 wrote: Sometimes capitalism really IS theft and the poor have no lawyers.

Rather like a game of "no holds barred" rugby, with arbitrary, changeable rules and moveable goalposts!

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Sat May 02, 2015 6:08 am

gmc;1478429 wrote: Sometimes capitalism really IS theft and the poor have no lawyers.

Seems like I've been a bit hasty in my opinion of you,GMC. My apologies.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat May 02, 2015 8:01 am

Smaug;1478435 wrote: Seems like I've been a bit hasty in my opinion of you,GMC. My apologies.

He is Scottish but apart from that he is alright.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat May 02, 2015 10:29 am

Smaug;1478435 wrote: Seems like I've been a bit hasty in my opinion of you,GMC. My apologies.

Don't tell me you thought I was a tory :-5

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat May 02, 2015 12:02 pm

It's a bit like a politician making a promise that they would make a law making it impossible to change the tax levels as part of their electioneering gumph. Do they really think that we don't realise that those that make make the laws (if they were really to follow through on their promise in the first place) would also be in a position to revoke them.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Sat May 02, 2015 12:30 pm

FourPart;1478450 wrote: It's a bit like a politician making a promise that they would make a law making it impossible to change the tax levels as part of their electioneering gumph. Do they really think that we don't realise that those that make make the laws (if they were really to follow through on their promise in the first place) would also be in a position to revoke them.

They are, they do, and they could, but there's not enough money in being moral or just, certainly not in Westminster!

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Sat May 02, 2015 12:33 pm

gmc;1478445 wrote: Don't tell me you thought I was a tory :-5

Good grief no! Isn't that a notifiable affliction, anyway?

Check out the dictionary definition of "tory"! Most apt.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun May 03, 2015 3:21 pm

Smaug;1478453 wrote: Good grief no! Isn't that a notifiable affliction, anyway?

Check out the dictionary definition of "tory"! Most apt.

I have a soft spot for the tories - it's a bottomless bog on rannoch moor. No point oputting labout in there as turds float. I hate them all imagine having one of them as your neighbnour

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon May 04, 2015 2:25 am

Different insight in to what this election is about.

Alasdair Gray: Toward Democracy? The Final Chapter | Comment | The National

When politicians bang on about the threat from the left just remember it was the laft that gave us things like the nhs and welfare state at a time when the nation was bankrupt.

'We look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation'

('Nous nous tournons vers l’Ã‰cosse pour trouver toutes nos idées sur la civilisation')

Voltaire, French philosophe

For the first time I might actually vote snp just to stop the tories and ukip. Why would any ordinasry peron vote for parties (toreis and ukip that is) that want to do so much harm to our nation?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon May 04, 2015 5:49 am

The National won't let me see that article unless I register, and won't let me register because it doesn't recognise my genuine post code.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Mon May 04, 2015 10:09 am

gmc;1478501 wrote: I have a soft spot for the tories - it's a bottomless bog on rannoch moor. No point oputting labout in there as turds float. I hate them all imagine having one of them as your neighbnour

You speak for me, also!!:wah:

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon May 04, 2015 3:07 pm

Bruv;1478533 wrote: The National won't let me see that article unless I register, and won't let me register because it doesn't recognise my genuine post code.

You should be able to see five articles without registering. I wipe the history on my browser and remove any cookies when it closes try that - other than that I don't know why you wouldn't be able to see it nothing to dopm wiyj yopur location I'm sure. I use firefox - internet explorer used to cause me problems and i couldn lt read it even if I did clear the history.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Tue May 05, 2015 3:14 am

gmc;1478613 wrote: You should be able to see five articles without registering. I wipe the history on my browser and remove any cookies when it closes try that - other than that I don't know why you wouldn't be able to see it nothing to dopm wiyj yopur location I'm sure. I use firefox - internet explorer used to cause me problems and i couldn lt read it even if I did clear the history.

I don't use IE, too many problems with it, neither do I use Firefox. Google chrome seems pretty reliable...so far.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue May 05, 2015 5:42 am

gmc;1478613 wrote: You should be able to see five articles without registering. I wipe the history on my browser and remove any cookies when it closes try that - other than that I don't know why you wouldn't be able to see it nothing to dopm wiyj yopur location I'm sure. I use firefox - internet explorer used to cause me problems and i couldn lt read it even if I did clear the history.

I managed to register so read the article.

I have a daughter that lives in Scotland, so feel I have some insight. I have always admired that her children went to school with the local Doctor's kids, and how socially the different strata of locals met as equals, the refuse collector and the solicitor for example. Perhaps this is because she lives in a small rural area I don't know.

I did have plans to move north after I retired.....................but its too bloody cold.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue May 05, 2015 12:02 pm

Bruv;1478629 wrote: I managed to register so read the article.

I have a daughter that lives in Scotland, so feel I have some insight. I have always admired that her children went to school with the local Doctor's kids, and how socially the different strata of locals met as equals, the refuse collector and the solicitor for example. Perhaps this is because she lives in a small rural area I don't know.

I did have plans to move north after I retired.....................but its too bloody cold.

How else would you have it?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue May 05, 2015 1:42 pm

gmc;1478677 wrote: How else would you have it?

Are we talking about the weather ?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed May 06, 2015 3:36 am

Bruv;1478693 wrote: Are we talking about the weather ?

No the schooling. Why do you find it cause for commen?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed May 06, 2015 5:29 am

gmc;1478728 wrote: No the schooling. Why do you find it cause for commen?

Conmen ? OK CommenT, I am used to living in a big town where all the kids are mixing with other kids from across the street.

In my grandchildren's Scottish school it all appeared more egalitarian. They would go to parties with the local solicitors/bank managers/doctors kids and my daughter would speak of them on first name terms. It struck me as different to what I have been used to, the interaction between different 'classes' for want of a better word.......... I tend to notice such things.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed May 06, 2015 7:41 am

Bruv;1478729 wrote: Conmen ? OK CommenT, I am used to living in a big town where all the kids are mixing with other kids from across the street.

In my grandchildren's Scottish school it all appeared more egalitarian. They would go to parties with the local solicitors/bank managers/doctors kids and my daughter would speak of them on first name terms. It struck me as different to what I have been used to, the interaction between different 'classes' for want of a better word.......... I tend to notice such things.

I find that really odd you think it in any way unusual. Maybe scots have a more egalitarian streak or something - we're all jock thomsons bairns after all or if you prefer "a man's aman for all that".

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed May 06, 2015 9:20 am

gmc;1478735 wrote: I find that really odd you think it in any way unusual. Maybe scots have a more egalitarian streak or something - we're all jock thomsons bairns after all or if you prefer "a man's aman for all that".

As I said I was brought up in London, it might be different in a small village in England.

I am telling you my first impressions, spending hogmanay in the ghillies bothy with a fair mixture of the local citizenry all mucking in together.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu May 07, 2015 10:56 pm

I see cameron is promising to deal with further devolution for scotland asap, bit different from his pre-election rhetoric thanks to him the snp vote has rocketed every time he opened his mouth with anti-scottish comments more people joined. Like I said if the union ends it will be because of cameron

rimce44 · Post by **rimce44** » Sun May 10, 2015 5:08 pm

Union will survive ,no doubt about that. I think there is enough smart people in this island to keep GB as it is. In regards of the whole voting system, I think it's right and wrong. Wrong in the way of less democratic, but right in the way of more stable and predictable. Only this kind of system can keep away all the extreme parties like UKIP. Especially in London, where such a diverse multicultural masses of smart people live and parties like UKIP would destroy it.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon May 11, 2015 1:54 am

rimce44;1479062 wrote: Union will survive ,no doubt about that. I think there is enough smart people in this island to keep GB as it is. In regards of the whole voting system, I think it's right and wrong. Wrong in the way of less democratic, but right in the way of more stable and predictable. Only this kind of system can keep away all the extreme parties like UKIP. Especially in London, where such a diverse multicultural masses of smart people live and parties like UKIP would destroy it.

One of the reasons for having PR is that it prevents an extreme parties getting control because they will not be able to get enough seats and parliament would reflect what people actually want. We have a right wing government that is about to impose policies that most people do not want - especially in scotland - and can ignore the way people voted because our electoral; system let's them. Now labour are talking about moving to the right to gain votes in england - guess why they lost so much in scotland. Stable and predictable a good thing You're taking the piss aren't you?

It was smart people that got us in to this mess have you seen any bankers go to jail? It was smart people that stirred up anti-scottish sentiment to try and stop people voting for labour, really smart people would have looked at what the snp actually were saying. It was smart people that said what they thought people would believe to get them to vote no in the refrendum and the day after go back on their "vow" smart peope presumably don't bother making promises they intend to keep. It's smart people that are pandering to racism and xenophobia and looking to leave the eu rather than have a rational discussion. It's smart people who shout the loudest. It's smart pople who blame the poor for the poor state of the economy and give tax cuts to the rich and allow companies free rein. It's smart people who tell us the human rioghts act gets in the way of justice and they want to be able to throw people in jail without trial and refuse appeals - the police are never wrong are they. Smart people have made sure people won;t be able to stop companie fracking regardless of the consequences it is likely to have. Smart people believe global warming is a left wing myth and scientists closet tree huggers.

It was smart people that got us involved in iraq being smart enoughh to tell lies that all the stupid people fell for.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 68512.html

Smart people who believe in an imaginary friend are creating havoc all over the world.

Smart people mighhty just decide the union has had it's day unles of course the rest of the union waken up and get their act together. You may put your trust in smart people but what does that make you?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon May 11, 2015 6:00 am

Blair is answerable to a higher power? makes me hope the Pope is right.

Even Sugar has dropped out now.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Mon May 11, 2015 8:21 am

rimce44;1479062 wrote: Union will survive ,no doubt about that. I think there is enough smart people in this island to keep GB as it is. In regards of the whole voting system, I think it's right and wrong. Wrong in the way of less democratic, but right in the way of more stable and predictable. Only this kind of system can keep away all the extreme parties like UKIP. Especially in London, where such a diverse multicultural masses of smart people live and parties like UKIP would destroy it.

For me, its not quite as simple as that. Take UKIP, for example. Love 'em or loathe 'em, is it right to ignore the wishes of so large a segment of the electorate? Or the "Greens"? Sure, "first past the post" may be more "stable"(for "stable", read predictable, rather like the idea of PRIMOGENITURE). Unfortunately, when you add gerrymandering of electoral boundaries to this scenario, you've not truly representing the voting populace, and hence, have only the ESSENCE of democracy (the Conservatives polled about 30% of votes, hardly a legitimate Government...). Spot has provided some hard facts and figures on the "Election Guessing Game" thread that make for interesting reading, especially as they show UKIP with over 80 seats in the house under PR, and various other parties making "headway".

It cannot be right that so many people go unrepresented, and their wishes ignored.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Mon May 11, 2015 8:31 am

gmc;1479066 wrote: One of the reasons for having PR is that it prevents an extreme parties getting control because they will not be able to get enough seats and parliament would reflect what people actually want. We have a right wing government that is about to impose policies that most people do not want - especially in scotland - and can ignore the way people voted because our electoral; system let's them. Now labour are talking about moving to the right to gain votes in england - guess why they lost so much in scotland. Stable and predictable a good thing You're taking the piss aren't you?

It was smart people that got us in to this mess have you seen any bankers go to jail? It was smart people that stirred up anti-scottish sentiment to try and stop people voting for labour, really smart people would have looked at what the snp actually were saying. It was smart people that said what they thought people would believe to get them to vote no in the refrendum and the day after go back on their "vow" smart peope presumably don't bother making promises they intend to keep. It's smart people that are pandering to racism and xenophobia and looking to leave the eu rather than have a rational discussion. It's smart people who shout the loudest. It's smart pople who blame the poor for the poor state of the economy and give tax cuts to the rich and allow companies free rein. It's smart people who tell us the human rioghts act gets in the way of justice and they want to be able to throw people in jail without trial and refuse appeals - the police are never wrong are they. Smart people have made sure people won;t be able to stop companie fracking regardless of the consequences it is likely to have. Smart people believe global warming is a left wing myth and scientists closet tree huggers.

It was smart people that got us involved in iraq being smart enoughh to tell lies that all the stupid people fell for.

Blair: 'God will be my judge on Iraq' - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

Smart people who believe in an imaginary friend are creating havoc all over the world.

Smart people mighhty just decide the union has had it's day unles of course the rest of the union waken up and get their act together. You may put your trust in smart people but what does that make you?

PRECISELY, GMC! My Grandpa always said we'd come to this one day. He said that the "clever devils" would have their day, and end up in charge...

That day is here.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun May 17, 2015 11:35 am

Campaign for north of England to join Scotland now has more than 37,000 supporters | Herald Scotland

#TakeUsWithYouScotland

#TakeUsWithYouScotland: 1000s in N. England sign petition to join 'future independent Scotland' — RT UK:-2

Don't be silly You wouldn't have to bevome scottish

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun May 17, 2015 11:54 am

What about having Kent as a dominion ?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun May 17, 2015 1:45 pm

Bruv;1479366 wrote: What about having Kent as a dominion ?

Withhold your hops that'll bring the country to it's knees. I refuse to buy french cider.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun May 17, 2015 2:04 pm

gmc;1479368 wrote: Withhold your hops that'll bring the country to it's knees. I refuse to buy french cider.

You mean Cidre........whats the matter with a pint of heavy anyway ?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun May 17, 2015 11:24 pm

Bruv;1479370 wrote: You mean Cidre........whats the matter with a pint of heavy anyway ?

Nothing just don't like it that's all - prefer the continental lagers.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Mon May 18, 2015 4:54 am

gmc;1479365 wrote: Campaign for north of England to join Scotland now has more than 37,000 supporters | Herald Scotland

#TakeUsWithYouScotland: 1000s in N. England sign petition to join 'future independent Scotland' — RT UK:-2

Don't be silly You wouldn't have to bevome scottish

I can quite understand why a growing minority of Northern English would want this, as Westminster is so poor at grasping fundamental issues. It's not without it's risks, though. If this country fragments into smaller nations, fine, but we do NEED a common defence policy, otherwise we become easy to "pick off" by a predatory power, such as Russia. Just look at the way the Russkies dealt with Chechnya, Georgia and the Ukraine (excepting the Crimea).

Centuries ago, we had a nearly universal custom in this country (England) of primogeniture (the sole right of the firstborn Son to inherit the father's estate and wealth in its ENTIRETY). The French often used to split the father's estate amongst the male siblings, which lead to the estates being split into smaller and smaller holdings. These much-reduced holdings were vastly poorer, and as a consequence struggled to raise both taxes for the Crown, and soldiers for France, thus greatly weakening France's economic and military "clout".

My point is that whatever we do decide in these unhappy isles, we must still act in unity for the defence of our lands. Anything else would be greatest folly.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon May 18, 2015 12:39 pm

Smaug;1479373 wrote: I can quite understand why a growing minority of Northern English would want this, as Westminster is so poor at grasping fundamental issues. It's not without it's risks, though. If this country fragments into smaller nations, fine, but we do NEED a common defence policy, otherwise we become easy to "pick off" by a predatory power, such as Russia. Just look at the way the Russkies dealt with Chechnya, Georgia and the Ukraine (excepting the Crimea).

Centuries ago, we had a nearly universal custom in this country (England) of primogeniture (the sole right of the firstborn Son to inherit the father's estate and wealth in its ENTIRETY). The French often used to split the father's estate amongst the male siblings, which lead to the estates being split into smaller and smaller holdings. These much-reduced holdings were vastly poorer, and as a consequence struggled to raise both taxes for the Crown, and soldiers for France, thus greatly weakening France's economic and military "clout".

My point is that whatever we do decide in these unhappy isles, we must still act in unity for the defence of our lands. Anything else would be greatest folly.

I can quite understand why a growing minority of the UK would want this, as Brussels is so poor at grasping fundamental issues. It's not without it's risks, though. If this European union fragments into smaller nations, fine, but we do NEED a common defence policy, otherwise we become easy to "pick off" by a predatory power, such as Russia. Just look at the way the Russkies dealt with Chechnya, Georgia and the Ukraine (excepting the Crimea).

Just saying. You're a bit inconsistent - just like ukip. It's OK to break away from europe but not OK for the constituent parts of the british union to recleim their lost nationhood. Looks like you are suggesting a common european defence union -0 realistuically going from past performance waiting in the americans to get involved might be a wait too long, which is why the french (in particular) and british wanted their own nuclear weapons.

Centuries ago, we had a nearly universal custom in this country (England) of primogeniture (the sole right of the firstborn Son to inherit the father's estate and wealth in its ENTIRETY). The French often used to split the father's estate amongst the male siblings, which lead to the estates being split into smaller and smaller holdings. These much-reduced holdings were vastly poorer, and as a consequence struggled to raise both taxes for the Crown, and soldiers for France, thus greatly weakening France's economic and military "clout".

Primogeniture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The law of primogeniture in Europe has its origins in Medieval Europe; which due to the feudal system necessitated that the estates of land-owning feudal lords be kept as large and united as possible to maintain social stability as well as the wealth, power and social standing of their families.[13]

Adam Smith, in his book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, explains the origin of primogeniture in Europe in the following way:

[W]hen land was considered as the means, not of subsistence merely, but of power and protection, it was thought better that it should descend undivided to one. In those disorderly times, every great landlord was a sort of petty prince. His tenants were his subjects. He was their judge, and in some respects their legislator in peace and their leader in war. He made war according to his own discretion, frequently against his neighbours, and sometimes against his sovereign. The security of a landed estate, therefore, the protection which its owner could afford to those who dwelt on it, depended upon its greatness. To divide it was to ruin it, and to expose every part of it to be oppressed and swallowed up by the incursions of its neighbours. The law of primogeniture, therefore, came to take place, not immediately indeed, but in process of time, in the succession of landed estates, for the same reason that it has generally taken place in that of monarchies, though not always at their first institution.[19]

We killed our king and then let the monarchy back much chastened and no longer spouting any nonsense about the divine right of kings - unlike the french who took till 1797 to sort them out. What really did it fot the french is they picked wars with the first nation to industrialise and kept losing why we were the first to industrialise has a lot to do with accidents of geography and necessity. Henry the 8th encouraged immigration from europe becaused he wanted skilled craftsmen to develop his cannon.

What exactly is the point you are making? If you are suggesting that an independent scotland and northern england would be some kind of helpless backwater I think you are very much mistaken. If we don't get something like PR or the westminster mafia don't loosen tbheir grip and start listening to people then a break up of the union os very much on the cards. It's not just ukip supporters that are dieemfranchised two thirds of the electorate got shafted at the last election.

To be blunt why are you rambling on about primogeniture and keeping big estates

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Tue May 19, 2015 3:29 am

gmc;1479395 wrote: I can quite understand why a growing minority of the UK would want this, as Brussels is so poor at grasping fundamental issues. It's not without it's risks, though. If this European union fragments into smaller nations, fine, but we do NEED a common defence policy, otherwise we become easy to "pick off" by a predatory power, such as Russia. Just look at the way the Russkies dealt with Chechnya, Georgia and the Ukraine (excepting the Crimea).

Just saying. You're a bit inconsistent - just like ukip. It's OK to break away from europe but not OK for the constituent parts of the british union to recleim their lost nationhood. Looks like you are suggesting a common european defence union -0 realistuically going from past performance waiting in the americans to get involved might be a wait too long, which is why the french (in particular) and british wanted their own nuclear weapons.

Primogeniture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We killed our king and then let the monarchy back much chastened and no longer spouting any nonsense about the divine right of kings - unlike the french who took till 1797 to sort them out. What really did it fot the french is they picked wars with the first nation to industrialise and kept losing why we were the first to industrialise has a lot to do with accidents of geography and necessity. Henry the 8th encouraged immigration from europe becaused he wanted skilled craftsmen to develop his cannon.

What exactly is the point you are making? If you are suggesting that an independent scotland and northern england would be some kind of helpless backwater I think you are very much mistaken. If we don't get something like PR or the westminster mafia don't loosen tbheir grip and start listening to people then a break up of the union os very much on the cards. It's not just ukip supporters that are dieemfranchised two thirds of the electorate got shafted at the last election.

To be blunt why are you rambling on about primogeniture and keeping big estates

I would have thought that was very obvious, but I'll spell it out. DIVIDE AND CONQUER!! If Scotland has not much army, a tiny navy, a negligible air force and no nukes, it DOES make it a "backwater", and easy prey. Britain's Achilles heel. If the Russkies came round the North Cape now, with something the size of "The Red Banner Fleet", Britain AS A UNITED WHOLE would struggle to repulse it, as for Scotland/Northern England managing this on it's own, don't make me laugh! As for the rest of my previous post, it was merely a history lesson of sorts. If we don't learn the lessons of history, we repeat the same mistakes.

They say a wise man learns from his mistakes, but a wiser one learns from other peoples mistakes. In this case, let us learn from history. As for inconsistency (divide and conquer...), the EU manages to break this rule by being UNWIELDY,DIVIDED IN AGENDA,FINANCIALLY "CHALLENGED" and WEAK MILITARILY. Every rule has it's exception and the EU is the exception here (large territory, small military, financial problems). I know that if I were Putin, I'd be licking my fangs at the state of European disorganisation, and a mewling, divided, petty Britain frightened of it's own shadow. WE SHOULD ALL BE ASHAMED OF HOW WE TAKE CARE OF THE RIGHTS OUR GRANDFATHERS WON FOR US WITH THEIR BLOOD!!!

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue May 19, 2015 4:57 am

Smaug.........are you not a little paranoid ?

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Tue May 19, 2015 5:17 am

Bruv;1479427 wrote: Smaug.........are you not a little paranoid ?

You think so? With the wishy-washy American foreign policy, the "my decision is maybe" British foreign policy, a disorganized, Russian gas-bribed EU, a "smoke and mirrors" tory rabble in charge, a rapidly nationalizing and disintegrating UK and an aggressive Russia on the prowl, not to mention a barbaric, merciless bunch of ISIS butchers on the rampage, and starting to threaten European, indeed WORLD peace, I could ask you "Are you not being naive and complacent?"

The crash of Russian jackboots in London might just wake us up...

Or ISIS/Iranian nukes...

In fact, before many of our historical major conflicts, Britain was SERIOUSLY underfunded and understaffed, militarily, rather like now. I'm afraid that with the world "as it stands", freedom IS maintained at sword-point (pun intended). To overlook this basic necessity is foolishness too picayune for further comment.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue May 19, 2015 5:27 am

Smaug;1479432 wrote: You think so? With the wishy-washy American foreign policy, the "my decision is maybe" British foreign policy, a disorganized, Russian gas-bribed EU, a "smoke and mirrors" tory rabble in charge, a rapidly nationalizing and disintegrating UK and an aggressive Russia on the prowl, not to mention a barbaric, merciless bunch of ISIS butchers on the rampage, and starting to threaten European, indeed WORLD peace, I could ask you "Are you not being naive and complacent?"

The crash of Russian jackboots in London might just wake us up...

Or ISIS/Iranian nukes...

In fact, before many of our historical major conflicts, Britain was SERIOUSLY underfunded and understaffed, militarily, rather like now. I'm afraid that with the world "as it stands", freedom IS maintained at sword-point (pun intended). To overlook this basic necessity is foolishness too picayune for further comment.

A simple yes would have done.

There ARE many conflicts that concern me, Russian jackboots in London has never featured......and that is what I was referring to.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Tue May 19, 2015 5:38 am

Bruv;1479434 wrote: A simple yes would have done.

There ARE many conflicts that concern me, Russian jackboots in London has never featured......and that is what I was referring to.

Maybe you should think about those Russian jackboots then...after all, there are rather a lot (about 1.5 million of 'em) all under the control of an autocratic, intelligent, manipulative, advantage-seeking, land-grabbing tyrant called Putin!

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue May 19, 2015 5:40 am

Land reclaiming tyrant Putin............maybe.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Tue May 19, 2015 5:52 am

Bruv;1479438 wrote: Land reclaiming tyrant Putin............maybe.

Only if you're talking about the Crimea. What about Georgia? They tried to "annex" that about 10 years ago, by invading it, and re-naming it (North Ossetia/South Ossetia) EVEN THOUGH it was a member of the EU! Some tough Europe we have here...and Chechnya? What about the rest of the Ukraine(NOT Crimea)? Talk about "brinksmanship"!

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue May 19, 2015 6:15 am

Smaug;1479441 wrote: Talk about "brinksmanship"!

No I was talking about paranoia.

The only Russian invasion I worry about is the likes of Roman Abramovich

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Tue May 19, 2015 6:44 am

Bruv;1479444 wrote: No I was talking about paranoia.

The only Russian invasion I worry about is the likes of Roman Abramovich

Says it all, really. I do hope that you're in the minority, or we are finished as a "free" country!