(September 16, 2014 at 7:22 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote:

(September 16, 2014 at 7:16 pm)Chas Wrote: Right, the term was used in the context of uniting the crowns of England and Scotland. The point being that this context is not the name "United Kingdom".

I was just saying that great britain was FIRST used to distinguish us from brittany, NOT to distinguish the post merger britain from the pre merger britain. I'd say that there's a good chance that the later title "great britain" is a derivative of the norman title "greater Britain", wouldn't you?

And I'm just saying that I am pointing out the misuse of the nomenclature by the OP.

And 'Great Britain' became officially the name in 1707.

(September 17, 2014 at 12:44 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: The Scots' national animal is the unicorn.

A fucking unicorn.

That is all.

And it's majestic as fuck.

(September 17, 2014 at 9:33 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote:

Quote: noticed you only addressed one of the two topics I posted, hmmm  wonder why that is.

Because the voices in your head are not audible to me, so I dont have the first idea what "unfair taxes" you're talking about. Neither I suspect do you. By all means drich, tell me what taxes are "unfair" to the Scottish. What do they have to pay which I don't.

I left two links smoothie, one provided data on the taxes the scots had to pay. Maybe if you took the time to review the data provided the little voice in your head could have read to you the same thing mine read to me.

(September 16, 2014 at 8:03 am)Chas Wrote: Except your terminology is wrong.

The term you want is Great Britain - that is England/Scotland/Wales.
The United Kingdom is the union of Great Britain with Northern Ireland.

(September 16, 2014 at 11:23 am)Chas Wrote:

(September 16, 2014 at 11:22 am)Chuck Wrote: Well, if Scotland were to leave Great Britain, it also leaves United Kingdom.

But the United Kingdom would remain.

Chas, you do not seem to realise how wrong you are. Dirch did not have his terminology wrong - Great Britain is the island on which are the territories of Scotland, England and Wales. The country is called "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", or more commonly shortened to "The United Kingdom". There is no way for Scotland to leave Great Britain as it is their physical location!

Consequently though you could no longer call your country "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" if part of GB is now an independent state, they would have to rename the country to "The United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland" or "The United Kingdom of Southern Great Britain and Northern Ireland" something like that.

Ur, no. There is the geographic islands of Britain of which Great Britain is the biggest, but there is also the political kingdom of Great Britain formed from the union of kingdoms of England and Scotland. Kingdom of Great Britain then formed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland by subsuming the kingdom of Ireland. So it is possible to leave the political Great Britain.

And no, it is possible for geographic Scotland, at least northern Scotland, to try to leave the geographic and geological island of Great Britain as well. It happened 450 million years ago. Loch Ness of the Nessie fame sits in part of the still prominent remains of the fault line of that attempted geological secession long ago. This fault is not dead. Since its formation it was reactivated several times in later geological epochs, and it is still mildly active. So northern Scotland may physically part ways with the island of Great Britain yet in some future geological date.

The Kingdom of Great Britain (18th century) was called that because they were on the island of Great Britain (called that since about the 15th century), kind of like how the country of Australia is named after the continent which makes up most of our land mass. GB was as you rightly point out a historic state, however it is now only the name of the island. The UK used to be called "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", until as you know part of Ireland declared their independence, I was simply pointing out that the UK, if the Scots go independent, will have to be renamed once again since it would no longer include all of GB.

Yes they could theoretically break their land mass off, however the vote for independence is a vote to leave the UK and declare independence, not a vote to use the UK's nuclear arms to create a division in the island.

(September 17, 2014 at 8:23 am)Drich Wrote:

(September 17, 2014 at 2:19 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote:
Drich, you fail so hard it's funny.

I'll speak slowly.

Just because there is an inequality in health does not mean the NHS has withheld healthcare.

Quite the reverse actually. In england we have prescription fees. That is that if your Dr prescribes you something you have to pay a flat rate of about ten dollars for it (whether it's a 2 dollar box of penicillin or a 500 dollar cancer drug). Scotland have not only free medical services in primary and secondary care, but also free prescriptions. Oh and free university tuition. Poor downtrodden souls that they are.

The health inequality owes more to the fact that Scotland invented the deep fried Mars bar!

I noticed you only addressed one of the two topics I posted, hmmm wonder why that is.

---

(September 17, 2014 at 6:06 am)Hoopington Wrote: I won't forgive your ignorance when you choose to base on opinion....on the "ignorance" you've just chosen to beg forgiveness for.

Stick to race issues... you seem much more up on that on that...what was that line about "burdening yourself with.."

Maybe not.

All of what you posted above is horse sh1t, all of it.

...and I am to take your assessment on faith!?!

Here I thought I was on an atheist forum. Where the proof you all are all so buggered about?

I guess proof only matters when you don't want to believe something, and no proof is needed when you do want to believe.

It's got fuck all to do with believing pal, I'm fucking Scottish.

(September 18, 2014 at 9:05 am)Aractus Wrote: the UK, if the Scots go independent, will have to be renamed once again since it would no longer include all of GB.

If Scotland is no longer part of the UK then the UK will be known not to include Scotland. Where's the problem?

(September 18, 2014 at 8:27 am)Drich Wrote:

(September 17, 2014 at 9:33 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Because the voices in your head are not audible to me, so I dont have the first idea what "unfair taxes" you're talking about. Neither I suspect do you. By all means drich, tell me what taxes are "unfair" to the Scottish. What do they have to pay which I don't.

I left two links smoothie, one provided data on the taxes the scots had to pay. Maybe if you took the time to review the data provided the little voice in your head could have read to you the same thing mine read to me.

Oh ok. In that case, my rebuttal can be found here

If you don't know exactly which bit of that text I'm referring to, then you may have figured out why argumentum ad Hyperlink does not really work in this context. In other words, if you can't be bothered to make the argument yourself, neither can I.

(September 16, 2014 at 11:57 pm)Drich Wrote: But, the more I read and the more this story clutters up my news reports the more and more I see a vast picture of inequality in (not so) great Britian.. The scots are second class citizens in their own country.. Wtf?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scot...s-20694453
Could you imagine the riots in America if we withheld health care to black people? Or the Hispanic community as the fussy mashers have to the scots???

http://www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/Inequality...-29182.pdf

Scroll down this one and look at the charts and graphs that show how (I'm dropping the term 'Great' from Britian from now on) ..how Britian has kept Scotland under it's thumb, financially, medically, and burdened with unfair taxes..

I live in Wales. Similar accusations are made about the inequalities of the health provision here, but my area doesn't contain the population necessary to support a local hospital. Like in Scotland, if you choose to live in the middle of nowhere then you're not going to get the benefits of city living. Likewise city dwellers have all of that lovely pollution and overcrowding. I know which I'd rather have.

I actually think that inequality is far greater in the US. Remember you're reading something from a socialist source in a socialist led country with an agenda. I'm left l leaning myself but I can still read between the lines. The corporate machine doesn't discriminate. We're all slaves to the elite.