Re: [OM] (OT) United United KIngdom

Subject: Re: [OM] (OT) United United KIngdom
From: Bob Whitmire <bwhitmire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:59:36 -0400
Hummm, I think that’s a little rough. Westminster is not the most gracious of 
places, and never has been as far as the Scots are concerned. And, while 
Scotland reportedly spends more than it collects, I still wouldn’t go so far as 
to say the Scots depend on the rest of the UK for “hand outs”. Scotland does 
contribute, for example, the best troops in the British Army, among other 
things. You can’t put a price on that. 

Scots have voted to remain a United kingdom, and I hope this campaign and this 
vote will shake up Westminster a wee bit and also let the Scots concentrate on 
helping the entire nation pull itself out of the Tory pits. The campaign and 
vote has strained Labour, I’m told, and perhaps now the nation’s most liberal 
area will do its part to give the old heave ho to Conservatives. I’d like that. 
It would set a precedent for us to do the same thing.

And now we may concentrate on excoriating The Washington Post for its pre-vote 
article on the potential effects on Scotland’s whiskey (sic) industry. Really, 
you’d think The Washington Post would know better. Effing heathen colonists! <g>

--Bob Whitmire
Certified Neanderthal

On Sep 19, 2014, at 2:17 PM, Nathan Wajsman <photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Scotland certainly has Scandinavian connections, as does NE England. But the 
> best description I have read of the Yes campaign’s economic program was in 
> The Economist a few months ago: the Scots want a Scandinavian welfare state 
> but pay US-level taxes. Just does not add up. In the end they did the 
> sensible thing and voted for the hand that feeds them.

Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>