Jump to content

Carefull Dave -


observer

Recommended Posts

And the tit tat between the English and the Scottish starts. Playing right into the nationalist hands.

 

Take a look at a world map, then look at the size of Brittania. It is a tiny island smaller than some American states. Nationalists now want to spilt this tiny Island into 2 or 3 seperate country's because people who live only a couple of miles apart can't agree over the colour of Shi#e.

 

The British brought so much to the world in the last 300 years and as highlighted on Question time last night, Scotland and England apart would have no power in the rest of the world. Both countries would be weak. If that's the way everyone wants to go then fair enough but there will be no going back after the sh@t hits the fan and you will find the English and Scots at each other more as they fight for the crumbs of the EU table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Little Englander" - that's a laugh; England has ten times the population of Scotland, and that will be reflected in GDP. But I've never considered myself to be "English" - British yes, perhaps at times Northerner, but always a member of a population that inhabits the British Isles. I'm confident however, that the majority of Scots are too canny, to go down this route of National self harm and Balkanise the UK, so the sooner it's dealt with the better. :wink:

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Little Englander" - that's a laugh; England has ten times the population of Scotland, and that will be reflected in GDP. But I've never considered myself to be "English" - British yes, perhaps at times Northerner, but always a member of a population that inhabits the British Isles. I'm confident however, that the majority of Scots are too canny, to go down this route of National self harm and Balkanise the UK, so the sooner it's dealt with the better. :wink:

If you believe that, then you're going to be in for an almighty shock.

 

As for 'national self harm'. You carry on with the blinkers guff, there's a very big reason why all the UK parties don't want a seperate Scotland, and it's not to protect us from ourselves

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think most Banks were "well run", until they got caught up in the greed game! :wink:

I worked in banking way back, and you couldn't be more wrong, Nat West were a shambles for instance, in fact the two that were best run were RBS and Bank of Scotland, it's why they took on so much of the English companies like Nat West and Halifax for instance. But don't let me stop you once again showing your ignorance on every topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... afraid, that's your subjective opinion. :roll:

Erm, no it wasn't, they were widely accepted as poorly run, hence why they became victims to takeover by BoS and RBS, becasue they were much better run businesses who could make improvements to their systems and practices.

 

And on a day to day basis, you always knew if you had to deal with a Nat West, or a Clydesdale, or a Barclays, that it would be pulling teeth.

 

So on a personal basis, and from observing comment from people whose job it is to understand how businesses work, there was a pretty strong pattern that the best two were the Scottish two.

 

Sorry that doesn't tie in with your bigoted baseless arguments, but hey, you've never been a guy too worried about facts when trying to make a point, so why start now 30,000 posts down the line? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we didn't need to bail out RBS then? :roll:

 

It is simply amazing how often, in an attempt to get the last word on any topic, you forget what had gone before to lead you to that point, so just for you......

 

Funnily enough, a company that was very well run until it became a UK wide bank rather than just a Scottish one!

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking of "funny", is the idea that a private sector buisiness with exposure to global toxic debt, was efficiently run by a bunch of latter day Rob Roy's.

WAS efficiently run, until a bunch of latter day morris dancing Baldrick's came along and changed the company ethos. Again, (as you're finding this so incomprehensible), I've explained that and you wish to ignore it, that's fine, doesn't change a historical fact, and that's a recent historical fact, not a 300 year old one like you'd dredge up! :rolleyes::blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking of "funny", is the idea that a private sector buisiness with exposure to global toxic debt, was efficiently run by a bunch of latter day Rob Roy's. As George Osbourne has said; an Independent Scotland simply couldn't have afforded to bail out RBS. :roll:

Oh and an independent Scotland wouldn't have had a bank in that situation, funnily enough, it wasn't in that situation until it touched Guffland

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 300 year old one was the reason you signed up to the Union in the first place, so highly relevent. And, if you had been independent when the crash came, you'd have been back where you started. I remember Alex Salmond used to extoll the virtues of Iceland as an example of "independence", but alas that seems to have faded from his rhetorical menu! :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...