Donald Trump wants to ruin Scotland

Thats horrible. Scotland is one of the few bits of the UK that isnt overpopulated and developed. Hope it doesn't go through.

Reply 2

EsStupido

Donald Trump is my new favourite person.

Reply 3

God forbid Trump actually brings some tax revenue to Scotland. And then Scots wonder why they're dirt poor. English imperialism indeed. :rolleyes:

Reply 4

Bismarck

And then Scots wonder why they're dirt poor.

They do well out of the union.

Reply 5

naivesincerity

They do well out of the union.

Thanks to 11 billion pounds in transfers from England each year. Perhaps Scotland can actually try to develop itself instead of leaching off England. So what exactly is wrong with trying to develop some rundown area in Scotland, which I doubt any one gave a damn about until Trump bought it?

Reply 6

The environments alot more important than some stupid golf course! Scotland is one of the few places in the UK that hasn't been ruined by loads of towns and cities being built there.

Reply 7

Lou76854

The environments alot more important than some stupid golf course! Scotland is one of the few places in the UK that hasn't been ruined by loads of towns and cities being built there.

Too bad no one cared about that environment until Trump bought it. So do tell why some desolate piece of land that no one cared about until now is more important than jobs for hundreds and extra tax revenue that can be used to pay for the Scottish welfare state.

Reply 8

BlackHawk

17

balmedie....idyllic? LOL. Sure.

Reply 9

Tyler Durden

17

Bismarck

Too bad no one cared about that environment until Trump bought it. So do tell why some desolate piece of land that no one cared about until now is more important than jobs for hundreds and extra tax revenue that can be used to pay for the Scottish welfare state.

Whilst I agree that Scotland leeches off England, surely the whole point of having a natural environment is that it's appreciated without anyone having to "care" about it?

Reply 10

Sehnsucht

Whilst I agree that Scotland leeches off England, surely the whole point of having a natural environment is that it's appreciated without anyone having to "care" about it?

Unless that environment gets so run down that it no longer serves its environmental purpose. Regardless, why is the existence of some rundown beach more important than jobs and more funding for the NHS/schools/transportation?

Reply 11

Bismarck

Too bad no one cared about that environment until Trump bought it. So do tell why some desolate piece of land that no one cared about until now is more important than jobs for hundreds and extra tax revenue that can be used to pay for the Scottish welfare state.

No one cared about it because it wasn't in danger of being ruined so there was no need to go on about saving a piece of land that was safe anyway. And its obviously not just a rundown piece of land seen as it has alot of wildlife in it. If you'd rather destroy the planet so a country can have a few extra quid then your obviously a completely selish person!

Reply 12

Lou76854

No one cared about it because it wasn't in danger of being ruined so there was no need to go on about saving a piece of land that was safe anyway. And its obviously not just a rundown piece of land seen as it has alot of wildlife in it. If you'd rather destroy the planet so a country can have a few extra quid then your obviously a completely selish person!

And what does preferring to have hundreds of people be unable to make a living just so you can be happy about the existence of wasteland in a place you've never been to make you?

Reply 13

seen as everyone in that area would rather have the land kept as it is they obviously don't want the jobs that desperately and 500 jobs over thousands of animals lives? And you wonder why so many animals are becoming extinct, its because people like you would rather have a few extra jobs.

Reply 14

Sehnsucht

Whilst I agree that Scotland leeches off England

I don't think thats entirely fair. They get a tiny bit more spent on them per head overall than England. But London gets more spent on them per head than Scotland if I recall correctly. And it has a larger population. Plus we took their oil money in the past.

Reply 15

naivesincerity

I don't think thats entirely fair. They get a tiny bit more spent on them per head overall than England. But London gets more spent on them per head than Scotland if I recall correctly. And it has a larger population. Plus we took their oil money in the past.

11 billion pounds a year go from England to Scotland each year; that's 2,000 pounds per person. And stop thinking like a socialist. Oil doesn't make a country prosperous. England simply has a better economy.

Lou76854

seen as everyone in that area would rather have the land kept as it is they obviously don't want the jobs that desperately and 500 jobs over thousands of animals lives? And you wonder why so many animals are becoming extinct, its because people like you would rather have a few extra jobs.

Is there a particular reason you value the lives of animals more than the lives of people?

Too late.

Ruin scotland?
Lol you have got to question what is he ruining, a couple of sand dunes were its cold msot of the year and nothing goes on
hes bringing business to the area, creating jobs investing in the economy, building possibly the best golf course in the world there

sorry but i dont see the problem?
its not like wildlife dont thrive just as well in a golf course.

Reply 18

Bismarck

11 billion pounds a year go from England to Scotland each year; that's 2,000 pounds per person.

And what's the converse statistic?

Reply 19