Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
I'm not afraid of the truth, nor am I afraid of breaking up the world order, which sucks as far as I'm concerned, anyway. Smaller countries with more responsive leadership and greater individual liberty sounds good to me.
Give me liberty, or give me death!!
Hey JL, you're no Patrick Henry!
Here is a column by Bret Stephens (he is more Jewish than you) that may make you curb your enthusiasm...
Memo to Wannabe Bravehearts
William Wallace should stay in the 13th century.
By Bret Stephens
Sept. 15, 2014 7:12 p.m. ET
Not for nothing did Robert Lansing believe that the idea of the "self-determination of peoples" was "a phrase . . . simply loaded with dynamite." Woodrow Wilson's Secretary of State, mostly forgotten today, was a man ahead both of his president and his time.
As chief of the U.S. delegation to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, Lansing had looked on uneasily as the peacemakers—Wilson most enthusiastically—cavalierly carved out new nations from the wreckage of fallen empires. National self-determination, in Wilson's optimistic view, would advance the cause of liberty, adding cultural, ethnic and linguistic freedoms to the civic freedoms of democratic states.
Or not. The creation of these states "would raise hopes which can never be realized," Lansing warned. "It will, I fear, cost thousands of lives. In the end, it is bound to be discredited, to be called the dream of an idealist who failed to realize the danger until too late to check those who attempt to put the principle into force. What a calamity that the phrase was ever uttered!"
In that paragraph is written the history of every thuggish national "liberation" movement that would follow, from Algeria and Vietnam to Zimbabwe and Gaza. Self-determination promises freedom in theory but exclusion in practice. It replaces the right of the individual with the right of the group, the faraway colonial power with the local despot. It substitutes myth for history, identity for individuality, "narratives" for facts. It is a doctrine of convenience for local elites who want to wrest power from distant elites.
And it sets a precedent.
In his 1993 book "Pandaemonium," the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan observed that nations are almost endlessly divisible into smaller entities. In 1919 Yugoslavia was conjured into a single nation; today, after several bloody wars, it is six. The cause of an independent South Sudan was dear to Western hearts for many years, but now that South Sudan is independent it is at war with itself. Will anyone there be better off should the competing Dinka and Nuer tribes form their own independent states? Don't count on it.
Nations are not the irreducible unit of political identity. Within a nation there are regions, provinces, tribes, faiths, factions, clans. And then it's every man for himself. "The central idea of secession is anarchy." That's Lincoln, in his first inaugural address.
Which brings me to Scotland.
No English army will march on Falkirk should the Scots vote "Yes" in Thursday's referendum. Both sides will be at pains to say whatever needs to be said to soothe financial markets and begin setting the terms for a Czechoslovak-style velvet divorce. If there are any coups, they will be of a strictly parliamentary kind—against the two Downing Street toffs, David Cameron and George Osborne, who lost Great Britain in a fit of absent-mindedness.
But note that even before Thursday's vote, Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond is already arguing that Wales, too, would be well-served by breaking up with England. The current Welsh first minister is against a referendum, but that could change at the next election. Northern Ireland already has been largely, if uneasily, self-governing since 1998. One secession encourages another. Once Britain has been reduced to its smaller parts, Flanders and Wallonia, Corsica, northern Italy, Catalonia, the Basque country and even Bavaria may follow. A European Union of 40-odd states? People will inevitably be tempted to ask, why not?
The better question to ask is: Why? Very occasionally, small countries can be great countries, boutique states with reputations for excellence like Switzerland, Singapore and Israel. More often, small countries are merely insignificant countries; petty in their politics and limited in their horizons. Think of Slovenia, Slovakia and soon, perhaps, Scotland.
And sometimes small countries are dangerous countries, because they are militarily aggressive (Serbia), or financially irresponsible (Greece), or inviting targets for outside meddlers (Cyprus, Moldova or the Baltics) or consumed by internal rivalries that overspill national borders (Bosnia) or in the grip of an illiberal leader (Hungary). It's no accident that World War I started where it did: The incomprehensible squabbles of the periphery quickly become the tragedies of the core.
A Scottish vote for independence doesn't necessarily portend all—or any—of this. And it would surely mean less if Europe were in a better way economically, and were it politically able to accommodate Scotland into an overarching European superstate of regions. But Europe is not in that kind of shape. Should the Scottish economy implode five or 10 years down the road, as Ireland's or Portugal's did, neither Brussels nor Berlin will be bailing it out. And London won't either.
Some Scots may imagine that by voting "Yes" they are redeeming the memory of William Wallace. Maybe. The other way of looking at it is as a vote for medievalism over modernity.
Memo to wannabe Bravehearts: The 13th century wasn't all that fun.
Interesting, Scotland is UK's largest welfare state; a tremendous amount of wealth transfer goes from England to support Scotland's welfare state. In addition, Scotland is extremely liberal. Should Scotland vote for independence, those welfare benefits will no longer continue, in addition, the Labor Party in England will be sidelined.
Life for the English could be greatly enhanced should Scotland vote yes. The welfare state greatly reduced, wealth transfer stopped, and a more conservative electorate in control of England's destiny.
Actually, although the Scots receive very slightly higher tax revenues, they also pay higher taxes. So its a wash.
Scots represent 8.3% of the UK's population, and receive 9.3% of public spending. Meanwhile, in 2012 Scotts paid 10,700 pounds per capita in taxes versus 9,000 pounds per capita in the UK.
The question of independence really comes down to oil revenues. In recent years, even the most conservative estimate of revenue generated from North Sea oil estimates that Scotland's geographical share of oil revenues at around 78% at the lowest. Now, compare that to the 9.3% of public spending that the Scots receive.
An independent Scotland would have no trouble meeting their spending obligations provided that shares of North Sea revenues are allocated according to geographic share, which will be the critical negotiating point if Scotland votes in favor of independence.
I think your stats are wrong; it isn't a wash.........but here is a link that says 9 out of 10 Scottish households receive more in welfare benefits than they pay in taxes.........12 per cent of households are net contributors, where the taxes they pay outweigh the benefits they receive through public spending. Compared to all of Britain – only 53.4 per cent of homes receive more in state benefits and services than they pay in taxes.
Falling north sea oil revenues will only worsen the balance sheet and ability to pay for the welfare state
I think your stats are wrong; it isn't a wash.........but here is a link that says 9 out of 10 Scottish households receive more in welfare benefits than they pay in taxes.........12 per cent of households are net contributors, where the taxes they pay outweigh the benefits they receive through public spending. Compared to all of Britain – only 53.4 per cent of homes receive more in state benefits and services than they pay in taxes.
Falling north sea oil revenues will only worsen the balance sheet and ability to pay for the welfare state
Well, I am curious to know where Ruth Davidson got her numbers from. Here is how the tax system breaks down in Scotland. Pay particular attention to the second link, which covers North Sea Oil revenue shares. For years, revenue from North Sea oil reserves have gone directly into UK's public fund, from which Scotland derives 9.3% of the total revenue. Yet, Scotland's geographical share of NS revenues amount to 77% at the most conservative estimate, or up to 94%. In other words, they've been getting ripped off for decades, as the revenue from NS oil alone if apportioned by geographical share would nearly equal their current tax receipts.
What Independence are they talking about? They are voting to split from one socialist country, only to be ruled themselves by a different socialist party, which is led by a guy that only Hugo Chavez could top as being more socialist. Why do you think they have the highest welfare recipients in the union? It still sounds like enslavement to me.
But they will be better off financially, at least in the short term due to the North Sea Oil. They will also be able to "reallocate" ownership of the refineries and kick the labor unions out of the oil industry which Britain has used as a weapon against the Scots forever.
In fifty years, I bet you still won't be able to tell them apart no matter which way they vote tomorrow.
Look, you rude potato farmer/sand mucker, it is a small, tiny and essentially irrelevant country of 5 million people if they break off, much like your leprechaun loving cousins back in the old country.
Q. How many Irishmen have won the Nobel Prize in science?
A. Let's go to a Pub and not worry about it..top of the mornin' to you!
Bigot much? How about I start calling you "kike" or "heeb" from now on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer
If they are indeed union loving liberal socialists, why not let them break off and try their experiment with pure socialism, let it fall on its face, and prove out the conservative ideas you and I apparently, somehow have in common?
And when it collapses, how do you put the UK back together again. nimrod?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer
I'm not afraid of the truth, nor am I afraid of breaking up the world order, which sucks as far as I'm concerned, anyway. Smaller countries with more responsive leadership and greater individual liberty sounds good to me.
Yeah, sounds good IF that's what you get. But what if instead you just get a bunch of smaller, poorer countries with authoritarian governments?
Well, I am curious to know where Ruth Davidson got her numbers from. Here is how the tax system breaks down in Scotland. Pay particular attention to the second link, which covers North Sea Oil revenue shares. For years, revenue from North Sea oil reserves have gone directly into UK's public fund, from which Scotland derives 9.3% of the total revenue. Yet, Scotland's geographical share of NS revenues amount to 77% at the most conservative estimate, or up to 94%. In other words, they've been getting ripped off for decades, as the revenue from NS oil alone if apportioned by geographical share would nearly equal their current tax receipts.
North Sea Oil is declining ra;idly and may be nearly gone in 20-30 years. What then?
And why should it be split geographically rather than by population? The NS lies off the coast of Great Britain and its exploration was financed by British companies and the British government. Why should Scotland get the lion share? Because their part of the island is closer to the oil? Will they pay back England for the money England invested to develop the oil fields?
North Sea Oil is declining ra;idly and may be nearly gone in 20-30 years. What then?
And why should it be split geographically rather than by population? The NS lies off the coast of Great Britain and its exploration was financed by British companies and the British government. Why should Scotland get the lion share? Because their part of the island is closer to the oil? Will they pay back England for the money England invested to develop the oil fields?
I am not advocating one way or the other. Simply stating the reasoning behind the push for independence, which is greater control over the North Sea oil revenues. You are correct that production is already dropping off, and in another 20 years will have dried up considerably.
Before you know it, thousands of wee Scottish children will be pouring over the border into Texas!
It's obvious your dumb, lib-retarded ass has already forgotten about how "Bowie" and "Houston" poured over the border into Texas, you Hitler-worshiping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.
What does that even mean? They were freedom fighters. My comment was related to, oh, never mind. You just won't admit that you didn't get it and fly off Into another snarling flame fest.
Fuck, you'll do that anyway.
What'll it be, Corpy, a Texas History lesson (right), a photoshopped button from the Book of Mormon or a nonsensical paragraph calling me the same 15-word insult three or four times?
Bigot much? How about I start calling you "kike" or "heeb" from now on?
You do that, and it will expose you for the anti-Semite that you are.
And when it collapses, how do you put the UK back together again. nimrod?
Don't be so dramatic - they lose 5% of their population, the UK will survive. If the new Scotland collapses, it is their fucking problem, not mine. I don't have a say. I imagine everything will work out, though.
Yeah, sounds good IF that's what you get. But what if instead you just get a bunch of smaller, poorer countries with authoritarian governments?
I would advocate the poor fuckers move - I hear your country will let almost anyone in these days.
Before you know it, thousands of wee Scottish children will be pouring over the border into Texas!
You know, I've been here (virtually, as it were) for a long time.
That is the first decently funny comment you have made to satirically illustrate your point.
It pains me to say it, but....nice job.
Let's see, you call me insulting Irish slur words and that is OK, but if I retaliate by calling you a Heeb, I am a bad guy?
Do I have that right, kike?
And you still haven't identified any "oppression" the Scots are suffering to justify secession - unless you count insufficient welfare payments from England as oppressive.
Self-Determination or Balkanization?
