Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
10 August 2010
21:3964868#1
I am for keeping the U.K. as it stands today ,but Scotland have been saying now for years they want independent from England at this time they have soming in beween both, but we still fund them some £60billion per year giving them more and better welfare then we have are selfs is this right/ sorry but I do not think so,I say let them have their independents if that is what they want but without any funding from London or any of their mps siting at Westminster.I love Scotland go there most years,but in the end of the day we could pay off all what we owe by stoping any funding for them and they stand on their own feet.Do you agree or not please post and tell me. thank you.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
10 August 2010
21:5364877#2
that argument will run and run vic, the other three countries in the kingdom have their own assemblies/parliaments and a say in the big one, us english have a bit part in the big one and no say in the other three.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
10 August 2010
21:5464879#3
I was hoping some one would jump on this one,you must all agree with what I have put.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
10 August 2010
23:4764900#4
No Vic - you cannot assume that a failure to respond to yet another of your threads is a sign that people agree with what you have written.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
11 August 2010
07:0564913#5
I agree with Ross, you cannot make assumptions Vic. If people agree or disagree they'll say so; if they are not bothered either way, they probably won't respond.
It may well reduce our debt by an enormous amount, but we are a UNITED Kingdom, I think that gives a clue.
Roger
12 August 2010
18:3665212#6
I agree with Vic if they want indipendence they can have it , but we should not fund them .
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
12 August 2010
19:3465228#7
Well I am geting some support on this one,Roger I am for keeping the UK but as Mr Clements said,if they want to go it alone then let it be done with their own funding not ours.As I said already they have more and better wefare then we do,and we are also paying for it.
Guest 660- Registered: 14 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,205
12 August 2010
19:4665230#8
How about all the Oil and Gas that we import from Scotland Vic,the Scots want to keep that because they raise more than what Westminster give them back,so we actually make a profit from Scotland.
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
12 August 2010
19:4865231#9
i see a compromise here, the scots give us their oil and gas, in return we give them richard digance, then we call it quits.
everyone is happy.
Guest 641- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 2,335
12 August 2010
20:3565236#10
Sounds fair
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
12 August 2010
20:4165239#11
if they start to mumble into their porridge we can offer to throw in john as a makeweight.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
12 August 2010
21:2065253#12
John that was all done before they asked to go it alone mate,please try and keep up.
13 August 2010
10:3065333#13
Can we give them our incompitent football manager as well ?