| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Separation in Britian? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 27 2006, 05:20 AM (943 Views) | |
| David Burton | Nov 27 2006, 09:00 PM Post #51 |
|
Senior Carp
|
People of course HAVE been forced off their land in Great Britain, the problem was that it wasn’t their land to begin with, they were just there living on it, trying to earn a living for themselves, their families, etc. There wasn’t that much land and all of it was owned by … someone else. The people who owned the land and those others in London who supported them wanted to keep things running smoothly enough so the pressure for doing things differently was co-opted. Across the Channel a lot more people actually owned their land, people who had formerly just lived on it, and when it came time for them to pay up to … their betters, they raised a horrible row, overturned everything, made great sport of separating heads, crowned or otherwise, from the rest of their bodies. People in Great Britain noticed and decided that before things got going in too many of the same directions they were going to take action, and that usually was the most expedient – gentrify the place, get rid of excess numbers of people. Maybe they should consider doing this again. Where did the excess populations go? Places like America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Southern Africa, etc. In short, anywhere there was still a lot of land. There still is a lot of land. Trouble is who wants it? The core of Britain’s problem is and always has been the same; they have a brilliant system for promoting people of talent into their … influential circles. The trouble is, once they get there, they’re sort of ensconced as some sort of living memorials to whatever it was they achieved that gave them the distinction to become … influential. It’s not the system that is particularly wrong, it’s the way British society tends to treat it. Over on this side of the pond, during the late 19th century (and even before that), there were three big towns that had an informal competition going for which one would rule the world; Boston, New York and Philadelphia. The Bostonians thought that which church you belonged to was important. Philadelphians – with all that National history behind them – nevertheless found that which family you belonged to had to amount to something. They all had big ones too. But all New York has ever been about was how much money you have, and quite obviously, it’s solution won the day. As for Britain? I believe they are entitled to work out some kind of Federalism which would allow each portion to decide things as if they were separate countries. As for Ireland, the truth is that increasingly the place is getting so cosmopolitan that in a short time any particularly Irish national character may be swamped by the changes their own prosperity has secured for them. The notion that any particular group or race can be guaranteed of anything is an open question. Given enough might anything is possible as history has repeatedly shown. Does might make right then? Ask a modern political Liberal. Their philosophy boils down to “you may do as you please just so long as you get our permission first.” Real conservatives believe that right is right whether you have enough force to preserve it or not, and wrong is wrong whether you have enough force to prevent it or not. |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Nov 28 2006, 05:21 AM Post #52 |
|
MAMIL
|
That's one of the more subtle descriptions of the British class system that I've seen, and a pretty accurate reflection of what has led to many of Britain's problems. I'm not sure it's still true, there have been major changes in the last 50 years, and the British are still coming to terms with them. Whether the country will survive to see whether the final outcome is good or bad is open to question. I happen to think that further break up of the Union will be bad, particularly for the Scots and the Welsh, but who knows, maybe they can flourish? |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| 1hp | Nov 28 2006, 08:09 AM Post #53 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Why do you think it will be bad for the Scots - they are, by and large, not of the same opinion? The Scots consider that it is their oil that has bailed the UK out of it's misery for the past 30 odd years. Don't know if this is factual, but I do know that when I lived in London most people I knew were very ignorant of the situation in the N. Sea - especially the size of the industry. My understanding was that the #1 industry in the UK was N. Sea oil. Piece of trivia - ever heard of the Rockall? Now there's a place worth fighting over! (UK, Ireland, Iceland and Denmark are all fighting over it). |
| There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those that understand binary and................ | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Nov 28 2006, 08:29 AM Post #54 |
|
MAMIL
|
I spent a week offshore on a rig in the North Sea in the 1990's - they can bloody keep it. :lol: You're assuming that Scotland would automatically get the oilfields. Many of the companies that invested heavily in the offshore sector are not Scottish. There's a huge support structure based in Aberdeen, but as far as I know not a whole lot in the rest of Scotland. London may be ignorant of the oil industry, but most of the investment has come from there, so I doubt that cutting off the supply because of geographical location would really be feasible. I think about 70% of the British GDP comes from service industry rather than manufacturing. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| 1hp | Nov 28 2006, 12:51 PM Post #55 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Separate from all the investment is the money that goes to the government from all the leases, etc.... (outside companies originally put most of the money into the middle east, but the Saudis, etc... got wealthy). Yes - the Scots assume that they would get the fields as they are off the coast of Scotland! The main support is Aberdeen, but plenty of other support centers along the east coast (Montrose, Stonehaven, Peterhead) - all the way up to the Shetlands (where there are some major facilities). Also shipyards on the west coast, south of Glasgow, up at Loch Kishorn (across from Skye), etc... that used to be involved in platform construction. |
| There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those that understand binary and................ | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Nov 28 2006, 01:00 PM Post #56 |
|
MAMIL
|
Two words - Falkland Islands. :lol: You're probably right, the tax money would likely help the Scottish economy enormously, particularly if coupled with the well known Scottish penchant for extreme fiscal caution.
|
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Daniel\ | Nov 28 2006, 05:27 PM Post #57 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
I thought this was a thread about Charles and Camilla breaking up. I'm so disappointed. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |







4:41 PM Jul 10