Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Robert said:
Language is such a funny thing, ain't it?
Since we're really off-topic, your comment reminds me about how during the Middle Ages, people outdid each other little language things; people who didn't interpret a certain word as "carpenter" instead of "magician" were summarily burned.
FrankS
Registered User
Definitely shot first and ask questions later.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Well said. That's why I agree with that Right.rvaubel said:
The problem is with those that abuse the Right. A Right is not to be used indiscriminately. People without conscience abuse rights.
When both sides paint each other with broad strokes they are not helping each other or themselves, they are just painting a larger chasm between them.
We all have the Right to breathe. It doesn't mean people should be able to go around and make people breathe a skunk just because somebody likes that or is trying to prove a point. And that is why there are laws. Laws are meant to clarify. When the government abuses its power to clarify, then the governed run around confused.
Tea?
BrianShaw
Well-known
With which camera/lens?FrankS said:
gareth
Established
I wonder if these subsidises were before, after or during the period that the English threw us of our fertile land, so that they could stick their sheep on it. How nice of them to throw the highlanders some grain now and again so that they would not starve to death having lost their land.
Of course the oil will run out, but not for many decades, plenty of time to build a healthy sustainable economy.
It’s interesting your figures mention Northern Ireland. Gosh look at that subsidy, if of course it is to be believed. Now what subsidy does the Republic of Ireland receive? Oh of course it doesn’t, it went independent. Who would have believed 30 years ago that Irelands economy would outstrip that of not only Northern Ireland, but Scotland as well. Of course nobody would have, you would be laughing, just as you laugth at the thought of your own country looking after it’s own affairs.
Of course going back to those figures, you notice that they exclude oil revenue. Why? That’s a massive distortion. Even assuming that taking into account the oil revenue will leave Scotland with a deficit, well the UK doesn’t have a deficit, oh wait a minute it has a multi-billion pound deficit. Yes governments borrow, governments run up debts, and Scotland in her first few years of independence will likely do the same.
Look around you at some of the smaller nations in Europe, and in particular countries like Norway that have oil reserves. There is no reason whatsoever that Scotland cannot survive independent of England, and in fact it should flourish.
Just months ago Gordon Brown congratulated Macedonia on their newly gained independence, he wished them well, and suggested that Macedonia could have a bright economic future. Weeks later he tells Scotland that we have a basket case economy, and independence will lead to economic melt down and widespread poverty in Scotland. Is this guy for real? Hello?
No the oil won’t last forever. Scotland has decades of oil left to extract, and at current prices there is money to be made. Every oil economy in the world will eventually have to face up to a world without oil, so Scotland won’t be unquie in that matter.
What the oil gives us is a transition cushion. Nor is Scotland in the complete economic wilderness that Ireland was when it went independent. We have a proud industrial tradition, we have excellent schools, colleges and universities. We also have obvious opportunities to explore. If Scotland can lead the industrial revolution, why then can Scotland not lead the new energy market? At the moment the brakes are on, Scotland’s economic and technological ambitions are reined in, Scotland can never be allowed to be more successful than England as long as we remain within the Union.
Well first of all they don’t. But with the government producing papers stating that they do, well exactly, English people will ask more and more, why are we subsidising these ungrateful Scots.
Political lies can always back fire. The thirty years rule is causing major problems for New Labour, as it’s plain to see we were fed lie after lie 30 years ago. These papers will come back to haunt the government time and time again in the next few months. The latest lies will create other new problems.
Another issue is, who exactly will decide when the Scot’s go independent? I would prefer that the Scots (those living and working in Scotland) decided our future. But talking of political lies, don’t be surprised if suddenly the Tory party launches an attack on Scotland weeks before the Scottish elections. The Tories are England’s natural party to rule. And indeed that is their only ideal, to rule and protect the establishment. At the moment they find themselves in the political wilderness. But they also know, dump Scotland, and automatically they are in power in England. Fearing they may never be in power again, and despite the dire economic consequences (which basically just means that England will have to give up it’s stupid posturing on the world stage) they may go for it, particularly as many believe that Scotland’s independence is only a matter of time. Better to take control of England before New Labour steals your underwear as well as your clothes!
Oh guns. We are talking about guns and cameras. Well Scotland’s independence will be great photographic opportunity (once I’ve recovered from the mother of all hangovers), I will be shooting away like crazy with my cameras. Guns, independence or no independence, hand guns will forever remain outlawed in Scotland. Anybody caught in possession of a hand gun will face a stiff custodial sentence. Such weapons have no place in a civilised society.
gareth
Established
Gabriel M.A. said:Language is such a funny thing, ain't it?
Since we're really off-topic
Are we? How did that happen.
OK, what do you say we close this down and start a Happy New Year, Yahoo for 2007 thread!!!!
Any objections?
Any objections?
FrankS
Registered User
None. It's stayed remarkably civil to this point, but no one's going to change anyone's mind on this hot button issue one way or the other.
peterc
Heretic
Maybe we should debate removing the sex crime references from photography next.
Anyway ... I'm off to grab a few exposures. ;->
Peter
Anyway ... I'm off to grab a few exposures. ;->
Peter
climbing_vine
Well-known
Nikon Bob said:
Semantics are pretty much all there is. It's the only way we have to communicate complex ideas...
rvaubel
Well-known
gareth said:
And so the two threads meet! Now the real reason that the American Bill of Rights lists the "Right to keep and Bear Arms" as the most important right of a free man, is no so much to act in self defence against a criminal individual as to act in offense against a criminal government. As the Colonist had just had a rather unfortunate experience with the British, it was felt prudent to enshrine in the Constitution the right to keep and bear arms. This right gives the citizens the tools they need to overthrow an unjust or illegitimate government.
That's why your discourse about Scottish independence is just talk. Nothing can ever come of it.
You point to former English territories as success stories. Lets take Ireland...born of a bloody revolution. How about India? How about the U.S. ? How about anywhere, anytime? Just where has a dominent state freely released a subject territory from their domination without the force of arms?
I don't know much about the situation in Scotland but I can guarentee you that civilized rational discourse will get you just about as far as it got the American colonialist 225 years ago! Most of those reading this forum probably think you are getting a little bit bent out of shape about not much of anything regarding Sctland, but the British felt the same way about us too!
Our founding fathers that that it was self evident that the citizens should have the means to remove an oppressive government. Otherwise the "rights" of free men is just "rights" that can be taken away by the whim of the state.
In the American experience, the citisens have the rights. And we, the citizens, grant to the government it's very existance, not the other way around.
Rex
FrankS
Registered User
How about India? How about the U.S. ? How about anywhere, anytime? Just where has a dominent state freely released a subject territory from their domination without the force of arms?
India? Gandhi.
India? Gandhi.
Last edited:
rvaubel
Well-known
FrankS said:
After about 100,000 people weren't killed
Rex
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
FrankS said:
I get your point FrankS, but it just seems kind of funny that you and I are living in a former colony released from domination by another state without the use of arms against the other star. I guess it just depends how long you are willing to wait for your independance. Exceptions don't prove the rule though.
Bob
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
climbing_vine said:
That is so true but semantics will not help you one bit survive in an assult on your person. The semantics come later in court when you have to explain why you so desperately wanted to survive and did not care much what happened to your attacker. Survival is not complex, either you do or don't, only the aftermath is.
Bob
FrankS
Registered User
Agreed, Bob.
Isn't it funny/tragic how humans go around creating their own problems.
Isn't it funny/tragic how humans go around creating their own problems.
rvaubel
Well-known
FrankS said:
Actually, the dissoution of the British Empire after the war is interesting because the major violence didn't start until after the independence. It would seem, on the face of it, that a violent war of independence leads to a more peaceful development as a free country.
I hope I'm not right about this new fangled theory of mine. As I said "on the face of it". But it doesn't seem Gandhi's pacifism took any kind of real roots after independence
. In fact the whole violence thing seemed to get worse.Well at least things settled down here for 85 years or so . At least until the Civil War! That was a fun one. More Americans died in that one than in all our other wars combined. Of course it helps if the causalities on both sides are Americans to start with.
I forgot....how did this tread start?
Rex
arf
Sparrow
Veteran
FrankS said:
Regrettably yes.
Sparrow
Veteran
rvaubel said:Actually, the dissoution of the British Empire after the war is interesting because the major violence didn't start until after the independence. It would seem, on the face of it, that a violent war of independence leads to a more peaceful development as a free country.
I hope I'm not right about this new fangled theory of mine. As I said "on the face of it". But it doesn't seem Gandhi's pacifism took any kind of real roots after independence
Well at least things settled down here for 85 years or so . At least until the Civil War! That was a fun one. More Americans died in that one than in all our other wars combined. Of course it helps if the causalities on both sides are Americans to start with.
I forgot....how did this tread start?
Rex
arf
I think someone was wondering if modifying the language would help stop Americans shooting themselves and each other..
FrankS
Registered User
Sparrow said:I think someone was wondering if modifying the language would help stop Americans shooting themselves..
Why would anyone want to do that?
joke- Status
- Not open for further replies.