Tuesday, 11 May 2010

Let The Union Fail.

Progressive Politics Backwards?

As Labour tighten their Socialist grip on Scotland, which also guarantees a poisonous tentacle in England, I despair of my Unionism. If this fraud, perpetrated on us all, via The Royal Mail, is OK by The Scots, it's not by me. Screaming Independence whilst pissing on England shames the relationship of the peoples of each nation. So now I am beginning to change and seek a Conservative conservative England. Let the Welsh and Scots go it alone as satellite regions of an ever more corrupt Federal European Monster. We have sufficient North Sea reserves of our own and the investment capability to develop The Falklands. Never mind the cost it took to explore and harvest Scottish Oil. Forget UK funding and central financial strength. Let us witness an open competition between a Socialist Republic of Scotland and a Wet Welsh Wimpanation, versus England and see which triumphs. An England free from Labour and Socialists? Yes please, Mr Salmond. Before you go, however, may we have your golden handshake money back, please. Hypocrite.


subrosa said...

Oh OR, I'm not keen on the last sentence. :) That's a little petty isn't it? I mean, there are plenty well heeled tory ex-MPs who have taken the money. I suppose they're hypocrites too.

Oldrightie said...

Hi, Subrosa, all of those who said they were standing down but stayed to cash their "giros" (remember those?) I think are hypocritical! I am not myself, at the moment, of course!! Seeing Snotty remain for several more long interminable months at the behest of the small parties is not a pretty sight.

subrosa said...

Yes I remember those OR. He's certainly not a pretty sight. More nightmarish really.

INCOMING!!!!!!! said...

Hi SR OR has rattled a bit of memory here regarding the Falklands. I don't think any part of UKplc will be getting a red cent from Falklands oil someone else will be dining on caviar and wild pacific salmon.

a bit of history 1981:
British Nationality Act removes British nationality from any Falkland Islander who does not have a parent or grandparent born in Britain. Falkland Islands Government protest to British Parliament over sovereignty negotiations. British Parliament reaffirms 'paramountcy' of Islanders' wishes. Argentina protests to UN over lack of progress on sovereignty dispute. [1] http://www.us-uk-interventions.org/Falkland_Islands_fullchron.html

From around 2002 http://boards.fool.co.uk/Message.asp?mid=8235137

Feb this year http://www.fox-davies.com/media/122053/falklandreportfeb12010webversion.pdf

Peron was warned off causing trouble down there "Back in 1942 Argentine special envoy Goyeneche met Ribbentrop. Specifically at Ribbentrop’s estate in Westfalen on November 30th 1942. Goyeneche is looking for support for a forthcoming nationalist coup in Argentina. However the really interesting thing that Ribbentrop says is that keeping the USofA out of the Malvinas question is paramount for Argentina" quoted from yours truly earlier this year.

The interesting thing in all this is that the 2002 source mentions an Exxon exloratory well, no other info ref'd, down their 1981.

No one else mentions this. A 1981 survey is also rumoured to exist indicating oceans of hydrocarbons down there that make the Mid East look like a parched desert, oops;-)

Anyway when there is no more US Navy, no more RN or RAF who's going to be getting the revenue streams? A clue is in the 2010 prospectus I think.

Who's based in Hong Kong and Shanghai?

Jim Baxter said...

Not with you on this one OR. You don't just lop off a part of the country when you don't like how it votes. The Scots didn't take that attitude during 18 years of Tory rule. If they had the SNP would have had their way a long time ago.

You want rid of Tyneside too, Liverpool, etc.?

INCOMING!!!!!!! said...

SR did you receive a longwinded comment from me?

Apogee said...

Having watched the circus of politics
in the last few days,particularly the reported actions of the SNP, one wonders if eventually the only solution may be political asylum in Cornwall.

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

C'mon OR, that's the voice of despair.

I want England to prosper, after all I live in the place. But the demographics of the countries involved just don't pan out in a Union that's so imbalanced by factors of 85% against 10 and 5% and by divisions that have no relevance to any of the countries involved other than the alchemy of Westminster. That's what you should
be aiming your angst at.

Sure, on separation each of the nations will have advantages and suffer disadvantages, that's the nature of any divorce. But the sensible approach is not to let greed set in and make it as equitable and amicable as possible.

And just to set the record straight, England paid no more pro rata than Scotland did under the Union. The development of the oil fields were funded by the developers with Westminster pocketing the licence fees, production and fuel duties.

Carry your argument in logic and Scotland would be looking for a return on 10% of the assets of England; especially of the assets syphoned off for the benefit of the politicos and bureaucrats of Londonstan.

And, no you cannot counter by arguing the same calculation but at 90% would apply by England. For three hundred years you have taken all of the earnings of Scotland and only returned the amount Westminster considered was necessary.

Finally what's so bad about socialism as opposed to the capitalism we've been flattened by. In any well governed country there's room for both as long as stupid doesn't prefix them. Rail against the stupidity of venal greed, of profit without social responsibility, about the stupidity of governments claiming to be democratic when the plough they furrow is of totalitarian obfuscation in order to keep their citizens stupid.

Clarinda said...

Mr Crinkly - spot on.

As an avid reader of selected blogs - yes, I don't get out as much as I should - this hamstrung parliamentry thingy has galvanised the debating prowess of the blogs but I'm not so sure this is being mirrored by our elected representatives. I suspect 'elected representatives' is now an oxymoron.

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

Clarinda, I don't suppose they're all bad, but I suspect the 'elected representative' label has never developed beyond the role of self or party serving.

Corruptions problem is that it has never known when to stop and take a breather.

subrosa said...

Hi Incoming!!!!

Great comment and much food for thought. Thanks.

subrosa said...

Jim, this is OldRightie's post not mine. :)

subrosa said...

Yes Incoming, I received it. It's on here.

subrosa said...

Cornwall would be fine Apogee. It's rather pleasant down that way.

Jim Baxter said...


I know m'dear. I said 'OR' above did I not? I usually recognise OR's style.

subrosa said...

Auch Jim, sorry. You were the first I read and I wasn't paying attention obviously.

I hope I'm forgiven.

Jim Baxter said...


I would fogive you anything, you know that.

Oldrightie said...

it was a despairing post, I know. However it provoked excellent response and I really learnt a great deal from all of you. Thank you. I am now restored as a full blown Unionist and lover of Scotland and most of it's peoples. Same for The UK per se!! As for socialism versus capitalism, like all things human, they always end up meeting in the middle.

Related Posts with Thumbnails