Jamaldo Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 What does it mean? What situations can we look back on and say, "It's a good job we were in the United Kingdom when that happened". What is this safety net that being in the UK gives us? Is it purely a population argument? Bigger is better? I think that's a very lazy argument designed to manipulate voters that perhaps aren't as engaged in politics. There seems to be an assumption that the UK is incredibly rich. Well, the state is nearly one-and-a-half trillion pounds in debt and the vast majority of the country don't see this suppossed wealth. London does not equal the UK. Strength? In one city, aye. Does being in the UK protect us from terrorism? Well, I don't think I even need to go there. I'm looking for genuine responses from non-Yes folk. What is this "strength and security" that being in the UK gives us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 The problem with being in a large country is you're voice counts for less, and you're more likely to get governments that are less representative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well Well Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 damn saw the heading and thought there was a running joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted September 9, 2014 Share Posted September 9, 2014 It's the same as "pooling and sharing". It means f**k all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dryhorce Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Look at history of the UK though in Egypt in the fifties they invaded and after two days the yanks told them to come home and they took the back seat Israel after world war two fought to send the Brits home and now seem more allied to USA than UK is and seem stronger to Hong Kong after the lease failed China took them back if UK was a super power that would never have happened for a second Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTG Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 It's the same as "pooling and sharing". It means f**k all. correct. It's a load of shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haters Gonna Hate Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 What does it mean? What situations can we look back on and say, "It's a good job we were in the United Kingdom when that happened". What is this safety net that being in the UK gives us? Is it purely a population argument? Bigger is better? I think that's a very lazy argument designed to manipulate voters that perhaps aren't as engaged in politics. There seems to be an assumption that the UK is incredibly rich. Well, the state is nearly one-and-a-half trillion pounds in debt and the vast majority of the country don't see this suppossed wealth. London does not equal the UK. Strength? In one city, aye. Does being in the UK protect us from terrorism? Well, I don't think I even need to go there. I'm looking for genuine responses from non-Yes folk. What is this "strength and security" that being in the UK gives us? What do you think would have happened to RBS in an independent Scotland? Even Nichola Sturgeon seems to think that Scotland would have needed rUKs help to save the bank http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-17325032 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 What do you think would have happened to RBS in an independent Scotland? Even Nichola Sturgeon seems to think that Scotland would have needed rUKs help to save the bank http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-17325032 As opposed to the UK who was aided by the US, Holland and others... We are talking about globalised capitalism. RBS is as Scottish as Tony fucking Blair. Do your research eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 What do you think would have happened to RBS in an independent Scotland? Even Nichola Sturgeon seems to think that Scotland would have needed rUKs help to save the bank http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-17325032 We bailed the banks out using our tax money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haters Gonna Hate Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 As opposed to the UK who was aided by the US, Holland and others... We are talking about globalised capitalism. RBS is as Scottish as Tony fucking Blair. Do your research eh? If you could provide any links to expand on this I would appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
git-intae-thum Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 If you could provide any links to expand on this I would appreciate it. Oh for goodness sake. ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 We bailed the banks out using our tax money. No we didn't it was the Federal Reserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haters Gonna Hate Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Oh for goodness sake. Who pulled your chain? I would genuinely be interested to read further on the point this guy is making, is that alright with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Who pulled your chain? I would genuinely be interested to read further on the point this guy is making, is that alright with you? Is google beyond you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haters Gonna Hate Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Is google beyond you? aye found some articles on it eventually, nae need to be so torn faced about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassiveFanDan Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 If you could provide any links to expand on this I would appreciate it. The New Statesman, 2 December 2010: The Federal Reserve has released details of more than 21,000 transactions after being forced by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act to disclose which institutions it had bailed out in the financial turmoil since December 2007.The data reveals that British-based banks accounted for $1 trillion (£640bn) of the money the Fed issued to prop up the financial sector. Barclays took the biggest chunk of bailout money, borrowing $863bn from the Fed. Almost half of the money came in overnight loans thought the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, a programme intended to help banks dealing in US Treasuries. Barclays has since paid all of its loans, which came about because of Barclay's $1.75 purchase of Lehman Brothers. Royal Bank of Scotland borrowed $446bn, Bank of Scotland $181bn, Abbey National $19bn and HSBC less than $10bn. The figures show each institution's total borrowing, not the amount they had outstanding at any one point. http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/12/financial-british-money-fed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haters Gonna Hate Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 The New Statesman, 2 December 2010: http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/12/financial-british-money-fed Thank you. For anyone else interested I also found this article on the subject http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristocracy-got-1-2-trillion-in-fed-s-secret-loans.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassiveFanDan Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Cheers, a lot more detail in your article. Thought it was interesting that Barclays, who received the biggest slice of the bailout pie, were portrayed in the media as never having required a bailout at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I'm looking for genuine responses from non-Yes folk. What is this "strength and security" that being in the UK gives us? I can only say two things. 1, to talk about,the, "strength and security" of the UK is a phrase you made up and is cringeworthingly embarrassing. Wash yersel in carbolic soap.. 2. The only toe-curlingly embarrassingly phrase to trump it is to describe we Unionists as, "Non-yes" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEETHING Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Thank you. For anyone else interested I also found this article on the subject http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristocracy-got-1-2-trillion-in-fed-s-secret-loans.html ^^^ troll, not to be trusted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.