Hostility here is, to quote a senile melt-face Phillip (supposedly a prince) "vastly exaggerated"Neshant wrote:Not sure as to why the hostility towards the UK runs so deep here.
.
Scotland makes up about 8-9% of the UK's population. If they vote for independence, the economic impact on the rest of the UK and the larger world will be marginal. For example, North Sea oil & gas tax revenues amounted to less than £5bn (less than 1% of the UK's tax collection) in 2013-14. As for the political impact, I expect the Tories will find their position strengthened in England & Wales, leading (eventually, once the ongoing fiscal consolidation is over: maybe another 5-10 years) to lower taxes and lower government spending in the rest of the UK; Scotland will head towards higher taxation and higher spending (the SNP has made a big deal of its social commitments); and Scotland (like France) will continue to lose its most productive workers to London (further weakening Scotland's tax base). If Scotland is allowed to keep sterling as their currency (its the most sensible thing to do), they will lose the ability to regulate their financial sector, and indeed even their fiscal policies would have to work within constraints imposed by the Bank of England (which, ironically, may just save their economy from what the SNP would otherwise do to it). There is a chance the UK loses its security council seat (but the US would rather have the UK on the security council than India or Germany or Japan) and decides to not bother with building a new base for the nuclear submarines (as the Scots will not wish to lease Faslane to the rest of the UK permanently), all of which will further improve the rest of the UK's fiscal position. Certainly the rest of the UK will be diminished politically, but financially it will be a (marginal) positive for them.Neshant wrote:This could be as monumental as the fall of the Berlin wall with most not even realising it.
"ACH, the Sassenachs (English) be greet'in and gurn'in (moaning, groaning, wailing) most mightily."
Every so often, the Scots like to rise up and give the Sassenachs a big scare. This week, they are threatening to break their union with England and Wales which has been in effect since 1707. The United Kingdom may be no more.
Good for those rambunctious Scots! If Scotland goes independent, Britain will be left a shadow of its former shrunken self, deprived of oil, imperial pretensions, and much of its arrogance. Egad, the hated French will be stronger than England.
The British used to specialise in breaking up countries: Myanmar, China, India, South Africa, Nigeria, Sudan, Quebec, the Ottoman Empire, Iran, and many others.
If Scots decamp from the United Kingdom, many of these nations will savour sweet revenge. The Irish, who suffered centuries under the boot of British domination, will finally have their revenge.
Scotland has only 5 million people, but what a remarkable people they are, and what a history. First in war, the fierce highland regiments were covered in military honours. First in industry, science, economics and the Enlightenment. Scotland's capital, Edinburgh was rightly called "the Athens of the North". Scots brought commerce and culture to North America, the West Indies, and Australia. Their soldiers served the French kings.
Still, why would a notoriously practical, clear-thinking people like the Scots leave the United Kingdom and embark on an uncertain future that could bring financial crises and political isolation? Britain says it won't allow the Scots to use sterling as their currency; subsidies from London will be withdrawn.
Scotland's offshore oil has peaked and may be in decline. Its share of Britain's bloated debt is an estimated £143 billion (RM743.7 billion).
Nearly half of Scots will likely vote to stay in the United Kingdom. But Scots are an intensely proud people whose history goes back to Roman times. Their courage in fighting off British attempts to subjugate Scotland is legendary.
In 1707, Scotland's ruling elite opted for union with Great Britain against the wishes of most citizens. The reason was truly sordid: the Scot elite had invested much of their wealth in a daring scheme to turn Panama's narrow Darien gap between the Pacific and Atlantic into a nexus of trade. The scheme went bust, as did the first Panama Canal attempt by France in 1881. Financial loses in Scotland were huge.
Along came the British and cleverly offered to reimburse the losses of Scotland's ruling class if it would vote for union with Britain. London also promised the Scots trade access to its rich colonies. And so the deal was done.
Robert Burns, Scotland's poet laureate, wrote: "We're bought and sold for English gold."
Ordinary Scots bear a deep, historic grudge against London's ruling class which, like its colleagues in Washington, has lost all touch with the common man and local issues.
Proud Scots are sick of being lorded over, or plain ignored, by Britain's distant elite, which they see as insufferably arrogant and incompetent.
"Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven," wrote John Milton in Paradise Lost. Many Scots agree.
Traditionally to the left, Scots have never forgiven Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for wiping out much of their nation's old heavy industry and mines that while inefficient provided large number of good jobs. Many want revenge.
Interestingly, an independent Scotland would not, as Britons warn, float away to nothingness. The Scots might join the European Union and resume their close historic ties to France. Britain would lose its nuclear submarine bases in Scotland and be forced to relocate them further south.
The United States is not at all happy seeing its faithful British satrap laid low by the Scots. If the Scots hit new oil or gas deposits in the North Sea, the Brits will be livid.
Independence for Scotland is more an emotional than a practical issue. To the devil with the bean counters and toff politicians in London. Sharpen the broadswords and break out the whiskey. The spirits of Robert the Bruce and William Wallace are rising.
Any mass murderer and those who benefited from it (including future generations), who has not repented, has not answered for his crimes against humanity. This shit-stain of a country continues with the same style of administration and the same elites that have the legacies of mass murdering racists. They are nazis for any practical purpose. Is that so difficult to understand?eklavya wrote:
Who are you calling a nazi?
I dont know what you are trying to say here. I am not an expert in English, so pardon me if I did not understand.sanjaykumar wrote: Anyone who realizes the extent of damage that shit stain of a country has done to the world will have nothing but deep hostility towards it.
Hmmm...And this shit stain did this to us, several hundred million, 5000yrs of scientific and material achievements. What does that us?
You must be kidding. THere are enough and more jokers in India, including a former PM, who considers UK as a moral arbiter of India's action. Infact as recently as yesterday the Indian news paper, TOIlet paid respect to Brishit parliament for giving India a "moral victory".Neshant wrote:Most of that is in the past. British have little to no impact on India today.
They are long gone.
Unless America gets involved, nothing they do or attempt to do to India will make headlines.
Thus its a waste of time focusing focusing negative energy on them.
I'm watching the vote as the economic impact of the country fragmenting are unknown as yet. Some here are playing it down but should the markets believe that one side is economically damaged as a result of the split, there could be some fireworks as the country is financially heavily leveraged. All it will take is one rock tumble to start the avalanche.
I am trying to understand that. I have been resident in India and US and I have cursed both in more than one occasion. An injustice is an injustice, and you are culpable for it if you have benefited from it in any way. Again, I wonder why that is so hard to understand.Karan M wrote:LokeshC, hard for folks to curse the very country where they are resident.
So you are saying that it is okay to blame a weak woman for getting raped? Very Islam like thought my friend. Women should be blamed equally for getting raped, they were dressed provocatively onleeeeee.sanjaykumar wrote:India's civilisational system bears some responsibility for what Britain was able to do. To absolve Indians of this culpability is an injustice. A deeply stratified society, in awe of gora skin, despising half its own population may possibly have had someting to do with the ease with which a trading post became an empire. It was of course Indians who collaborated with the British, it was Indian sepoys who enforced the English yoke.
A large crowd gathered outside BBC Scotland's Glasgow HQ to protest about coverage of the referendum.
Police said up to 1,000 people took part although other observers suggested a much higher figure for the crowd.
The protesters said BBC coverage had been biased against independence.
A BBC spokesperson said: "We believe our coverage has been fair and impartial and has adhered fully to the requirements of our Editorial and Referendum Guidelines."
Protesters gathered outside the BBC's Pacific Quay offices at about 14:00.
They draped a banner over the entrance to the building calling for the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson to be sacked.
Thank you for turning into a attorney for meeklavya wrote: Then you should be taking the British people to court in an English court, because most certainly they have benefitted from the empire of their ancestors.
I hope that some day, maybe even on BRF with its wealth of detailed knowledge and insights, we will be able to move past this kind of broad-brush instant answer-production that takes the place of understanding complex historical processes. Such instant answers only promote self-hatred, and its obverse, blaming everything on the foreigner. It is better to look for a third option--step back emotionally, take a break from self-hatred or other-hatred, and study what happened and how. We have very little of that now.sanjaykumar wrote:India's civilisational system bears some responsibility for what Britain was able to do. To absolve Indians of this culpability is an injustice. A deeply stratified society, in awe of gora skin, despising half its own population may possibly have had someting to do with the ease with which a trading post became an empire. It was of course Indians who collaborated with the British, it was Indian sepoys who enforced the English yoke.
Sure, that's fine, I enjoy Brit-bashing as much as the next man, and that's why I visit this thread. Maybe some day I'll be too mature to enjoy Brit-bashing but maybe that day won't come in this lifetime.LokeshC wrote:KLNM,
You are correct that there is a third option and that is my official position in day to day life. A dispassionate analysis on what were the social/economic factors that caused us to be colonized. I have made my position clear on WU thread multiple times.
However, this thread is like the Baki thread. It is focused on Brishitstainis, the descendants of a mass murdering culture and beneficiaries of its ill gotten wealth. There is no need to be dispassionate here and we can call them for what they are.
Its okay for you come out of closet. If you think your agenda is very well hidden then you are not as smart as you think you are. India was persecuted for many centuries before the mofos from shit stain ruled India. We were under attack not just politically but militarily, economically, culturally. Even if you ignore that it is not that straightforward to try to square the blame on India along with the perpetrator. Look up for example a particular Jesuit who lived in south India trying to pass himself as Brahmin and actively tried to drive the wedge between the society to pave the way for the Church and ultimately for the political domination over India. Don't be so quick to blame India under the guise of being brutally honest and self inspection.sanjaykumar wrote:India's civilisational system bears some responsibility for what Britain was able to do. To absolve Indians of this culpability is an injustice. A deeply stratified society, in awe of gora skin, despising half its own population may possibly have had someting to do with the ease with which a trading post became an empire. It was of course Indians who collaborated with the British, it was Indian sepoys who enforced the English yoke.
Am I misreading you or are you actually using "shit stain" to mean India here?sanjaykumar wrote:Weak women? If you must use analogies, why not pick something more relevant-Japan, which had a coherent, unified society (albeit also strictly stratified), developed a trenchant critique of westerners/Xtians, was equally brutal in the pursuit of its own interests, enforced a centuries long isolation, followed by a rapid mastering of the west's own weapon-technology.
I ask again, who exactly is the shit stain?
Yep. For it to come from one of the posters whom I had considered to have a better understanding of history was a shock to me.KLNMurthy wrote: Sure, that's fine, I enjoy Brit-bashing as much as the next man, and that's why I visit this thread. Maybe some day I'll be too mature to enjoy Brit-bashing but maybe that day won't come in this lifetime.
But I was responding to a self-flagellating post. Quite a different thing.
By the way, what kind of sadistic human scum has ritualized fox-hunting as a sport for gentlemen? The British kind, that's what.
This is OT, but such superficial quoting of inept translation of important events from the epics requires a response:eklavya wrote: He reminded Ratnakar that although his family was eager to share the fruits of his bad actions, they would not share his sins.
But they also invented cricket, tennis and badminton. So, your point proves nothing about Britain as a whole. Many societies have cruel traditions and rituals, and not everyone in that society is culpable for the cruelty of the very few. After a very long campaign, fox hunting with hounds got banned by the British Parliament almost 10 years ago:KLNMurthy wrote: By the way, what kind of sadistic human scum has ritualized fox-hunting as a sport for gentlemen? The British kind, that's what.
Do you think all British kids are "sadistic human scum"? What is the point of this downright stupid generalisation?Boggis and Bunce and Bean
One fat, one short, one lean.
These horrible crooks
So different in looks
Were nonetheless equally mean.
Maybe no one was sadistic in Agatha Christies stories about N*ggers: http://thoughtcatalog.com/lakshmi-krish ... t-moments/He said: "My grandmother, Annie Grigg, taught at a school near here where they had rather racist Enid Blyton stories issued free by the author to all the pupils in the 1950s.
"The moral of one of the stories is: Don't leave any money around if there are any black children about as they will steal it. "She was anti-semitic and very racist. People don't believe me because she is too high an icon, but she was."
Thank you for clearing the air. It was getting a little stinky with too much colonial apology and justification.KLNMurthy wrote: This is OT, but such superficial quoting of inept translation of important events from the epics requires a response:
The actual story has nothing to do with dharma shastras relating to the inheritance of sin; it was a question of ethics and human psychology that Valmiki posed to his family, on the urging of Narada.
All of which begs the question. What steps to take, to prevent "India" replacing "Syria" in the news. Some checks on so-called British Citjens vijiting India? Esp. Kashmir, NE and other 'sensitive' areas? Tough checks on the "missions"?Cameron knows that the executioner holds other hostages from additional Western countries and that he is part of a larger group of British hostage-takers working for ISIS, nicknamed "the Beatles" by their captives. .. it underlines a sobering fact: British citizens have volunteered to go to Syria to fight at 25 times the rate that Americans have done so, when adjusted for population size.
Some 500 British citizens have traveled to Syria to fight, as have 100 Americans. ...British have already arrested 69 people this year for "Syria related terrorist offences" that include terrorist financing, preparing an act of terrorism, and attending a terrorist training camp. In 2013, 25 people were arrested in the UK on similar charges, bringing the total number of arrests to 94, .. By contrast, only eight have been arrested for similar Syria-related terrorist crimes in the States.
The war in Syria is attracting British fighters from all kinds of ethnic backgrounds, not just those of Syrian descent. .. the vast majority of British fighters going to Syria do not have any real links to the country other than a desire to fight in a holy war against the Bashar al-Assad regime.
..government has already refused to issue or has cancelled 23 passports and has also revoked the citizenship of eight British citizens
..other European citizens who have traveled to Syria, who can freely travel around the European Union, including the UK, and who can also travel to the States without visas as they are from so-called "visa waiver" countries.
According to the British government, 700 fighters have traveled to Syria from France; 400 from Germany; between 300 and 500 from Belgium; 130 from the Netherlands; over 100 from Denmark; 100 from Austria; 80 from Sweden; and between 50 and 100 from Spain.
..100 Canadians have left Canada to "support or train with terrorist movements abroad. .. 60 Australians fighting in Syria and Iraq and about 100 Australian "facilitators" helping to make this possible in Australia.
This brings the total number of Westerners who have fought in Syria to between 2,620 and 2,870, according to the British Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism assessment obtained by CNN, which is likely the most authoritative estimate yet.
and I can't disagree with that sentiment.There Inshallah goes the next Pakistan!
Evil little island has possible caused the deaths of more than half a billion people on this planet!LokeshC wrote:Are you quoting the racist POS Roal Dahl who invented Oompa Loompas ?
http://www.cracked.com/funny-6310-oompa-loompas/
Brishit kids grow up with reading about brishit class society with stuff like Oompa Loompas, Golliwogs, Dobby the house elf (Harry Potter). Very much a sign of an egalitarian non-sadistic society indeed.
Lets look at another author that the Brishit kids love: Enid Blyton.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/book ... -work.html
Maybe no one was sadistic in Agatha Christies stories about N*ggers: http://thoughtcatalog.com/lakshmi-krish ... t-moments/He said: "My grandmother, Annie Grigg, taught at a school near here where they had rather racist Enid Blyton stories issued free by the author to all the pupils in the 1950s.
"The moral of one of the stories is: Don't leave any money around if there are any black children about as they will steal it. "She was anti-semitic and very racist. People don't believe me because she is too high an icon, but she was."
Oh yes and nothing sadistic about the writer of Mowgli, that racist scum Rudyard Kipling who collected money for the butcher of Amritsar. That is also a favorite brishit children author? Maybe your favorite?
The kids may not be sadistic scum right now. But the Brishit society sure turns them into exactly the worse of the scum on planet earth after their education through such racist, prejudice filled work.