Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 6

[Rollin]

Strocky said:

Rollin said:

Strocky said:

LMAO at the impotent wailing of the demented regarding Scotland only contributing to the "Union" over the past 30 years (I dare them to say that to the face of any of the families who lost relatives in the 2 Great Wars) and the digging up of Darian, which was initially a joint venture between the English, Scots & Dutch until the vested interests of the East India Company allied with a complicit English Parliament scuppered the initial proposal

The Darian episode illustrates how duplicitous and cowardly the English where then and in the future, bottled it from fighting the Spanish, English Parliament blocking Scotland from trade routes/communications etc and bribing the Scottish Nobles as they had no appetite to enter into another war with Scotland

The great thing is this bitterness from the BritNats is the main reason why the Union will ultimately fail and the vestiges of a once great empire will be laid bare for all to see and all that will be left is England's green and pleasant land

So Scotland tries to put one over on the English. Scotland's plan was crap to start with. England acts to protect it's interests. Scottish plan fails. Nationalists blame the English for not giving Scotland help.

Nope, read it again

Can't be arsed. The plan failed and you look to blame anyone but Scotland. Nothing's changed.

[barryrs]

Strocky said:

barryrs said:

Strocky said:

simoid said:

Strocky said:

LMAO at the impotent wailing of the demented regarding Scotland only contributing to the "Union" over the past 30 years (I dare them to say that to the face of any of the families who lost relatives in the 2 Great Wars) and the digging up of Darian, which was initially a joint venture between the English, Scots & Dutch until the vested interests of the East India Company allied with a complicit English Parliament scuppered the initial proposal

The Darian episode illustrates how duplicitous and cowardly the English where then and in the future, bottled it from fighting the Spanish, English Parliament blocking Scotland from trade routes/communications etc and bribing the Scottish Nobles as they had no appetite to enter into another war with Scotland

The great thing is this bitterness from the BritNats is the main reason why the Union will ultimately fail and the vestiges of a once great empire will be laid bare for all to see and all that will be left is England's green and pleasant land

Fiscally speaking, we've spent more than we've taxed in the last 30 years. Did you know that?

Who dealt out the pocket money?

Who took it knowing full well it was on credit?

The Barnett Formula is credit now?

Can Scotland get it's missold PPI claim money back then?

Course it is you plum; it all comes out of the same pot or do you believe that the funds allocated for the Barnett payments are made from elsewhere?

[McWigglebum4th]

Strocky said:

McWigglebum4th said:

Strocky said:

The Barnett Formula is credit now?

Can Scotland get it's missold PPI claim money back then?

Care to explain to us what the Barnett formula is and how it works

It's Unionist shampoo for slapheads

You moan about it and you are too fking stupid to understand what you are moaning about

[James P]

Edinburger said:

simoid said:

Edinburger said:

What a lot of nonsense.

Anyway, in a more recent survey (2015) Edinburgh was voted the fourth most beautiful city in the world behind Paris, Florence and Rome and ahead of every other city in the UK.

So?

Exactly what I thought about the so-called second city point.

Did the fourth most beautiful city on the planet vote to remain part of or leave the union?

[James P]

Strocky said:

The Barnett Formula is credit now?

Can Scotland get it's missold PPI claim money back then?

If you can, most of it will probably need to be paid by your own banks - or do you expect us to pay that for you too?

[AstonZagato]

Edinburger
Now you are back can you explain why land mass is important for representation rather than funding. You were too busy last night.

[Axionknight]

How should he know? He didn't even have the stones to vote Yes.

[Edinburger]

AstonZagato said:

Edinburger
Now you are back can you explain why land mass is important for representation rather than funding. You were too busy last night.

I never said it had any relevance towards representation. I said land mass is important for funding as it necessitates increased expenditure.

[barryrs]

That's not how it came across imo.

Edinburger said:

Troubleatmill said:

Scotland is a region of the United Kingdom.
It has exactly the same representative rights and ratios to every other region.

There 650 seats divvied up per 90,000 or so people of the United Kingdom.
How do you make it more fair and equal than that?

There have also been a lot of very prominent Scots in the top jobs over the years too.


You need to explain why you don't the this as fair and equal.

Scotland is a country of the UK representing 1/3 of the UK's land mass and less than 10% of the UK's population.

That's relevant.

[Edinburger]

barryrs said:

Oh, ok. Wasn't meant that way.

No reason for lightly populated area such as the Highlands to be over-represented. That's why the 'regions' are so big there

[barryrs]

Edinburger said:

Oh, ok. Wasn't meant that way.

No reason for lightly populated area such as the Highlands to be over-represented. That's why the 'regions' are so big there

No probs.

Easy to misunderstand; bit like the difference between yes and no

[Edinburger]

barryrs said:

No probs.

Easy to misunderstand; bit like the difference between yes and no

[Edinburger]

barryrs said:

No probs.

Easy to misunderstand; bit like the difference between yes and no

We'll no, that's black and white!

[Mojocvh]

barryrs said:

Edinburger said:

Oh, ok. Wasn't meant that way.

No reason for lightly populated area such as the Highlands to be over-represented. That's why the 'regions' are so big there

No probs.

Easy to misunderstand; bit like the difference between yes and no

[AstonZagato]

Troubleatmill said:

Edinburger said:

Troubleatmill said:

As I said - it is a small point - but an important one ( I'm not looking to score points on it )

But - it would be interesting to understand why you think land mass is important here.
The EU Parliament does not have land mass as a metric for representation.
Neither does the UK Parliament.
Nor any other country that I am aware of.

However - from your statement - there is clearly a point you wish to make on it.

Could you elaborate further.

It costs money to manage land, provide services to those who live there, integrate dwellings and communities, etc.

For instance, look at a town like Fort William and consider the cost of roads to/from there compared to say Cheltenham.

One of the reasons for the extra funding which Scotland receives is in recognition of those enhanced costs.

I can elaborate some other time as I'm heading out just now.

And I agree that is why areas of Scotland get more money.
It costs more to empty bins etc etc.
The system works!!!

But when it comes to representation.
Why does land area correlate to electoral representation?

Funny. But it does look like you knew we wanted answers specifically on representation. That was what TaM asked about when you were too busy to answer.

[Edinburger]

AstonZagato said:

Troubleatmill said:

Edinburger said:

Troubleatmill said:

As I said - it is a small point - but an important one ( I'm not looking to score points on it )

But - it would be interesting to understand why you think land mass is important here.
The EU Parliament does not have land mass as a metric for representation.
Neither does the UK Parliament.
Nor any other country that I am aware of.

However - from your statement - there is clearly a point you wish to make on it.

Could you elaborate further.

It costs money to manage land, provide services to those who live there, integrate dwellings and communities, etc.

For instance, look at a town like Fort William and consider the cost of roads to/from there compared to say Cheltenham.

One of the reasons for the extra funding which Scotland receives is in recognition of those enhanced costs.

I can elaborate some other time as I'm heading out just now.

And I agree that is why areas of Scotland get more money.
It costs more to empty bins etc etc.
The system works!!!

But when it comes to representation.
Why does land area correlate to electoral representation?

Funny. But it does look like you knew we wanted answers specifically on representation. That was what TaM asked about when you were too busy to answer.

perhaps that's how you interpreted it, but where did I suggest that land area correlates to electoral representation?

[Sway]

The whole conversation was around representation. Whether Scotland had appropriate levels and such.

Then you came in with your statement about population and land mass.

Seeing as funding wasn't a part of the conversation at that point, why would you feel adding in statements about funding was useful?

It does smack of another squirrel moment...

[AstonZagato]

Edinburger said:

perhaps that's how you interpreted it, but where did I suggest that land area correlates to electoral representation?

Well you started with this:

Edinburger said:

Troubleatmill said:

Scotland is a region of the United Kingdom.
It has exactly the same representative rights and ratios to every other region.

There 650 seats divvied up per 90,000 or so people of the United Kingdom.
How do you make it more fair and equal than that?

There have also been a lot of very prominent Scots in the top jobs over the years too.


You need to explain why you don't the this as fair and equal.

Scotland is a country of the UK representing 1/3 of the UK's land mass[b] and [b]less than 10% of the UK's population.

That's relevant.

So you answer a question specifically about representation with an answer that land mass is "relevant".

You then were asked why land mass was relevant to representation. You answered with a funding argument but the question to you was clearly one of representation:

Troubleatmill said:

Edinburger said:

Troubleatmill said:

As I said - it is a small point - but an important one ( I'm not looking to score points on it )

But - it would be interesting to understand [b]why you think land mass is important here.
The EU Parliament does not have land mass as a metric for representation[/b].
Neither does the UK Parliament.
Nor any other country that I am aware of.

However - from your statement - there is clearly a point you wish to make on it.

Could you elaborate further.

It costs money to manage land, provide services to those who live there, integrate dwellings and communities, etc.

For instance, look at a town like Fort William and consider the cost of roads to/from there compared to say Cheltenham.

One of the reasons for the extra funding which Scotland receives is in recognition of those enhanced costs.

I can elaborate some other time as I'm heading out just now.

And I agree that is why areas of Scotland get more money.
It costs more to empty bins etc etc.
The system works!!!

But when it comes to representation.
Why does land area correlate to electoral representation?

[///ajd]

I think thats another nationalist flawed argument comprehensively demolished.

[Edinburger]

AstonZagato said:

Edinburger said:

perhaps that's how you interpreted it, but where did I suggest that land area correlates to electoral representation?

Well you started with this:

Edinburger said:

Troubleatmill said:

Scotland is a region of the United Kingdom.
It has exactly the same representative rights and ratios to every other region.

There 650 seats divvied up per 90,000 or so people of the United Kingdom.
How do you make it more fair and equal than that?

There have also been a lot of very prominent Scots in the top jobs over the years too.


You need to explain why you don't the this as fair and equal.

Scotland is a country of the UK representing 1/3 of the UK's land mass[b] and [b]less than 10% of the UK's population.

That's relevant.

So you answer a question specifically about representation with an answer that land mass is "relevant".

You then were asked why land mass was relevant to representation. You answered with a funding argument but the question to you was clearly one of representation:

Troubleatmill said:

Edinburger said:

Troubleatmill said:

As I said - it is a small point - but an important one ( I'm not looking to score points on it )

But - it would be interesting to understand [b]why you think land mass is important here.
The EU Parliament does not have land mass as a metric for representation[/b].
Neither does the UK Parliament.
Nor any other country that I am aware of.

However - from your statement - there is clearly a point you wish to make on it.

Could you elaborate further.

It costs money to manage land, provide services to those who live there, integrate dwellings and communities, etc.

For instance, look at a town like Fort William and consider the cost of roads to/from there compared to say Cheltenham.

One of the reasons for the extra funding which Scotland receives is in recognition of those enhanced costs.

I can elaborate some other time as I'm heading out just now.

And I agree that is why areas of Scotland get more money.
It costs more to empty bins etc etc.
The system works!!!

But when it comes to representation.
Why does land area correlate to electoral representation?

Aah, I see...

So you thought that:

"Scotland is a country of the UK representing 1/3 of the UK's land mass and less than 10% of the UK's population"

actually meant

"Scotland is a country of the UK representing 1/3 of the UK's land mass and just 10% of the UK's population which is outrageous because we're surely entitled to 1/3 of the electoral representation"?

Nope, it didn't. That would just be stupid.