Donald Trump

[ramAnag]

So the sermon on the mount was given 70 years after the death of christ because that is when Matthew allegedly wrote it down?

Stick to accountancy GP. You’re just hopelessly wrong on this one.
In the briefest possible terms, Shakespeare’s history plays were largely written to justify Elizabeth I’s accession to the throne.
In order to achieve that Prince Hal, later Henry V, had to be portrayed in a certain light.
The speech referred to is a piece of verse, of poetry...it was written by William Shakespeare in 1599 out of political necessity.
In the same way that Shakespeare’s portrayal of Richard 111 as villainous is questionable it is difficult to assess to what extent his other historical figures are remotely accurate.
You jumped in this morning to try and make a cheap ‘teacher jibe’. It backfired because, in this instance, you don’t know what you’re talking about...just for once accept it and move on.

[AdiSalisbury]

Stick to accountancy GP. You’re just hopelessly wrong on this one.
In the briefest possible terms, Shakespeare’s history plays were largely written to justify Elizabeth I’s accession to the throne.
In order to achieve that Prince Hal, later Henry V, had to be portrayed in a certain light.
The speech referred to is a piece of verse, of poetry...it was written by William Shakespeare in 1599 out of political necessity.
In the same way that Shakespeare’s portrayal of Richard 111 as villainous is questionable it is difficult to assess to what extent his other historical figures are remotely accurate.
You jumped in this morning to try and make a cheap ‘teacher jibe’. It backfired because, in this instance, you don’t know what you’re talking about...just for once accept it and move on.

Translation: eat my dirt bean counter!

[MadAmster]

Tricky, look at the stats in the digram below. It shows annual payments from Scotland to Wastemonster and how much they get back. The rest is "UK", mainly Englaish, spending.

On top of that Scotland gets lumbered with "debt". 8.4% of the costs of Crossrail which does not affect Scotland. Idem ditto HS2.

[Geoff Parkstone]

You've used those figures before and they prove nothing. As for crossrail, no it doesn't affect Scotland but nor does supporting the Highland railways whi h the English and Welsh kick in for. HS2 - aside from the fact that I think its wasted money, it does go north towards Scotland and, if if ever finishes all phases could well run to Scotland....

[swaledale]

Well seeing as it wasn't your question answer, we'll carry on with you.
So BJ is displaying all the traits of the rise of Hitler?
Ok go again comparing the rise of the EU with the Nazi's

I wish I understood a word of what you have just posted but I don't, must be thicker than i thought oh wise one. But it would be helpful just once if you could provide a response that a) addressed the point b) made any sense.

Who mentioned Hitler? I didn't I merely described some of the actions which could be interpreted as being similar to those of a dictator.

Oh and its a forum, which means not a private conversation!

[MadAmster]

You've used those figures before and they prove nothing. As for crossrail, no it doesn't affect Scotland but nor does supporting the Highland railways whi h the English and Welsh kick in for. HS2 - aside from the fact that I think its wasted money, it does go north towards Scotland and, if if ever finishes all phases could well run to Scotland....

But doesn't go there. Manchester or Leeds to the border is about 120 miles. That's not even close.

Could well run to Scotland? .......... but probably won't.

[swaledale]

But doesn't go there. Manchester or Leeds to the border is about 120 miles. That's not even close.

Could well run to Scotland? .......... but probably won't.

I have to back GP on this one because even if it doesn't reach Scotland, though a high speed line to there is whats needed, trains from Scotland will still be able to use the line between Manchester or Leeds and London and therefore up to an hour will be knocked off Glasgow/Edinburgh journey times and will therefore still benefit Scotland.

One can produce endless statistics which prove one way or another that Scotland has been propped up by/props up England but it doesn't necessarily demonstrate that scottish independence will be a a good thing for Scotland.

The economies of scale generally work in favour of larger nations or groups of nations working together will fare better, still if they wish to separate I've no problem with that, though economically they will suffer, as we will after leaving the EU.

[MadAmster]

Why would they suffer though Swale? They would still garner the best part of £60 billion a year in taxes and maybe a lttle more taking inflation into account. They would not be giving that to Westminster and getting less than 2/3 of it back.

On top of all that they would also be getting the tax on oil, whisky and gin, most of which currently goes into the UK accounts as "English" income, not Scottish, despite what, 80% of it being in "Scottish" waters.

I, and most Scots I know, do not buy this "Sotland will struggle financially without England". Norway has about the same population as Scotland, only about 3/4 of the oil reserves Scotland has and also doesn't have huge income from whisky exports. Norway gets along just fine.

Add in Scotland being able to sell electricity generated in wind farms to England and selling its water to England (something like 90% of England's drinking water comes from Scotland and Wales. More from Scotland than Wales).

I'm quite prepared to accept the Scotland won't cope argument if someone can if someone can explain, giving verifiable facts from a reliable source, why the comparison to a successful Norway doesn't work and why Scotland couldn't cope on a mere £60Bn a year plus all the extra revenue they will get from oil, whisky, gin etc.

[Andy_Faber]

Why would they suffer though Swale? They would still garner the best part of £60 billion a year in taxes and maybe a lttle more taking inflation into account. They would not be giving that to Westminster and getting less than 2/3 of it back.

On top of all that they would also be getting the tax on oil, whisky and gin, most of which currently goes into the UK accounts as "English" income, not Scottish, despite what, 80% of it being in "Scottish" waters.

I, and most Scots I know, do not buy this "Sotland will struggle financially without England". Norway has about the same population as Scotland, only about 3/4 of the oil reserves Scotland has and also doesn't have huge income from whisky exports. Norway gets along just fine.

Add in Scotland being able to sell electricity generated in wind farms to England and selling its water to England (something like 90% of England's drinking water comes from Scotland and Wales. More from Scotland than Wales).

I'm quite prepared to accept the Scotland won't cope argument if someone can if someone can explain, giving verifiable facts from a reliable source, why the comparison to a successful Norway doesn't work and why Scotland couldn't cope on a mere £60Bn a year plus all the extra revenue they will get from oil, whisky, gin etc.

My opinion for what it’s worth, has changed since I made friends with a Scottish resident with no axe to grind (he’s Greek). It’s been fascinating hearing his spin on what the people of Scotland think (remember not all are Scots), and I think they should be given a further vote, BUT only after having the minute details of separation thrashed out and published for all to see. One thing the Hoots don’t appear to be too fussed about is having their own currency and they could use Sterling, Euro or Dollar if they wished but after an hour talking even the Sterling option through with a foreign exchange guru at ‘a local blue chip company’ I think even doing that would potentially be a nightmare, mostly for Scotland but also partly for England. A statement on that issue alone with independently assessed likely outcomes would be an eye opener

[Geoff Parkstone]

Looking at it simplistically managing a stable currency involves having compatible common tax, budgetary, spending and borrowing policies - its the same argument about why we didnt go into the euro. if the scotch agreed to all this, they may as well be back in the Union as their financial fortunes would be inextricably linked to that of the residue of england, wales etc. Meantime, if you want to "leave the club" you cant take the membership database with you