[DISCUSSION] Scottish Independence - It's a No!

Ironhide wrote:The northern counties of England should join Scotland if it gets independence.

Faust wrote:The reserve side of that is that we will probably never have to suffer through another Labour government if the Scottish do leave. So i'm all for Scottish independence.

Are you mentally ill?

Every time the Conservatives get in power they utterly strawberry float up the entire country, thanks to them I now have to give back around 30% of my disability benefit every month as part of their so-called 'Fairer Contributions' scheme.

Bad policy and financial decisions from years of labour mismanagement left us in a worse situation when the financial crisis hit. Don't get me wrong, I think the current bunch of Tories are corrupt and weak and terrified of the media, but i'd still pick them over labour any day of the week. Yeh your disability benefits being cut sucks, but it's hardly the biggest issue and everyone has had to tighten their belts recently. I think it will be much worse with another labour government, maybe they won't cut your benefit, they just won't be able to pay it at all when the country goes broke.

Did it not Corazon? I understand that the Scottish landowners all invested in a fictional country then sold Scotland to us to recoup their losses.

Oops, quoted myself instead of editing my post, sorry.

>tightening belts
>cutting the only income for a disabled person

Hard times is hard times. Whether your disabled or not.

I'm posting from memory here and my area of 17th century expertise is the Cromwellian period, so you'll need to excuse me if I'm a bit vague, but here's my understanding:

England and Scotland were first brought together through the Union of the crowns in 1603 - England had no royal successor to Elizabeth I and the only suitable heir was James VI of Scotland who qualified through his grandmother. They still existed separately in the political sphere until 1707 when they were officially brought into Union.

Scottish financiers had indeed made bad investments and it was certainly a reason for the union from some perspectives, but Scotland would have recovered from the Darien scheme(not financing a fictional country so much as a disastrous attempt at a Scottish colony in Panama). The idea of a formal union was discussed in parliament from the late 1680s(over a decade before Darien), and the countries had been de facto unionised for a time during the Cromwell era IIRC(Godly Britannic Empire and all that shite).

If the Union had been made only to mitigate Scotland's debts, there wouldn't have been any point - the English had to make sure that the Scottish didn't pick a different successor to Queen Anne than England, one who might have formed alliances against the English crown - this is what I'd say was the overwhelming factor in the act of union.

So to say that the Union was formed because of the Darien Disaster is a bit ill informed.

Faust wrote:Hard times is hard times. Whether your disabled or not.

I'm sorry but that's a load of gooseberry fool. It's disabled people who - through no fault of their own - are getting the most cutbacks. When the Tories came into power I - as a disabled man - had to start working 55 hour weeks to try and make ends meet. I'm now back in a wheelchair after grinding myself into dust, running on empty. And yet more cuts are coming, with DLA being abolished, universal credit replacing all benefits.

And it's "you're". "You are" is shortened.

Tax the rich, dont cut from the people who need it.

Though politics thread is thattaway >>

Faust wrote:Hard times is hard times. Whether your disabled or not.

That's why millionaires have had tax reduced. Hard times and all that.

Fatal Exception wrote:

Faust wrote:Hard times is hard times. Whether your disabled or not.

That's why millionaires have had tax reduced. Hard times and all that.

Don't be silly, we are all in it together.



As to Scotland, it is none of my business really. If they want to go independent then good luck to them, if they don't want to go independent then they are welcome to stay.

I'd take the attitude more seriously if it wasn't for the complete historical ignorance accompanying it

Most millionaires work bloody hard for their money though, and they don't do it just to fund the underclass. Punishing success seems so backwards to me, high taxes for big earners just drives people and their money out of the country and economy. Yeh it's pretty annoying to see rich 'arseholes' driving around sports cars whilst people through no fault of their own (the disabled etc) struggle, but it's still the lesser 'evil', or the necessary 'evil'.

The disabled are a minority, so I cannot and will not prioritize their needs over the majority, and these cuts are not done for 'fun'.

Poor people The underclass dont work hard?

Falsey wrote:Poor people dont work hard?

If poor people truly worked hard they'd be rich, and not disabled

Irene Demova wrote:

Falsey wrote:Poor people dont work hard?

If poor people truly worked hard they'd be rich, and not disabled

Fair point. We should tax them proportionally more on everything they earn until they work themselves out of it.

Did he just refer to the disabled as the underclass?

I think he also unironically said the needs of minorities are unimportant.

Yeah. Conservatives.

Faust wrote:Most millionaires work bloody hard for their money though, and they don't do it just to fund the underclass. Punishing success seems so backwards to me, high taxes for big earners just drives people and their money out of the country and economy. Yeh it's pretty annoying to see rich 'arseholes' driving around sports cars whilst people through no fault of their own (the disabled etc) struggle, but it's still the lesser 'evil', or the necessary 'evil'.

The disabled are a minority, so I cannot and will not prioritize their needs over the majority, and these cuts are not done for 'fun'.

The problem is, none of that is true. Closing the tax loopholes would have made sense if we want to actually tax millionaires, rather than giving the few honest ones a massive bonus. The cuts were done to please the Cabinet and their friends, who are mostly self serving millionaires. Some of whom avoid tax. This isn't about jealousy, it's about equality and fairness. Tax those who can afford it. You aren't punishing them. They aren't about to starve. They are still far better off.

If that means we miss out on a few Dubai oil barons driving around London in Bugattis then so be it. Trickle down economics are bullshit. Don't piss on me and tell me it's champagne.

Ohhh dear.

Faust wrote:Most millionaires work bloody hard for their money though, and they don't do it just to fund the underclass. Punishing success seems so backwards to me, high taxes for big earners just drives people and their money out of the country and economy. Yeh it's pretty annoying to see rich 'arseholes' driving around sports cars whilst people through no fault of their own (the disabled etc) struggle, but it's still the lesser 'evil', or the necessary 'evil'.

The disabled are a minority, so I cannot and will not prioritize their needs over the majority, and these cuts are not done for 'fun'.

Whose alt is this? I can vote but am undecided. Yet to hear anything convincing.