Referendum for Scottish Independence

Referendum for Scottish Independence The referendum for the Scottish independence will take place on the 18th of September 2014. This would most definitely lead to the breakup of the United Kingdom. There have been a series of arguments supporting the break up, and other not supporting the break up. The independence of Scotland is mainly supported by the Scottish National Party. According to this party, achieving independence from the United Kingdom is beneficial to Scotland, because the Scottish will be able to implement policies that are of great concern to them[1]. On this basis, Scotland will be able to achieve self-determination. The Scottish National Party believes that by achieving independence, the people of Scotland will be able to make the right policies, concerning their economy, and society at large. The Scottish National Party further believes that the government situated in Westminster is not a representation of the Scottish people, and this is because the many of the Scots did not vote for the government under consideration. Despite this factor, this government makes major decisions concerning issues that affect the Scottish families, and communities[2]. The Scottish National Party finds this situation unacceptable. On this basis, proponents of independence argue that with an independent government, the country can focus on issues that affect the Scottish people, and also one that would protect the interests of the Scots, and anybody living in Scotland. Furthermore, the Scottish National Party believe that the policy initiated by the UK government reducing taxes on the wealthiest is not of the Interest of the Scots, and on this basis, it aims at reversing such laws, and initiating a universal tax system that would serve the entire Scottish population. However, there are counter arguments developed by people who are strongly opposed to the independence of Scotland[3]. One reason advanced is that a strong Scottish parliament, entrenched within the political structures of the United Kingdom enables Scotland to experience the very of both world. That is the ability to make decisions in Scotland, as well as the ability to play an importan t role in creating a secure and strong United Kingdom. On this basis, people who do not support independence argue that Scotland is strong when it is entrenched withi8n the political structure of the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom is strong and secure with Scotland as its member. Furthermore, anti-independence proponents argue that important British institutions such as BBC and the Bank of England were created by Scotsmen[4]. On the other hand, the UK pension system was developed by a Briton, while the NHS was created by a Welsh man. On this basis, if the Scots and other members of the Kingdom work together, then chances are high that they would make the Kingdom a better place to stay. To accelerate the strength of the unity, the Scots, together with other members of the union fought together to destroy Nazism, fascism, and other ideologies that were a danger to the unity and prosperity of other members of the Kingdom. These proponents further argue that the Scots are justifying independence on the basis of protecting their social welfare and interests. However, this is difficult, when the Scots leave the British connection[5]. This is because chances are high that there will be barriers to trade, uncertainties, and political and economic instability. To protect themselves from these uncertainties, the best method is to maintain the British connection. This would ensure more prosperity, more jobs, and more economic growth in Scotland. Furthermore, the world is moving to regional integrations, and examples include ASEAN, and the European Union[6]. This therefore proves that states needs to corporate in the international system, and negotiate as one community, for purposes of protecting their interests. This would prove virtually be impossible if Scotland decides to gain independence. For instance gaining membership in the European Union is a very difficult process that normally takes so many years. Furthermore, the economy of UK is strong, stable, and very big. This is a very big advantage to various business organizations in Scotland, and this is because they can easily access this market, without facing an y barriers. Furthermore, the Currency of the United Kingdom is the most successful and oldest in the world, and on this basis, it is a good currency for trading with[7]. These proponents further argue that it would be very difficult for Scottish organization to competitively conduct business in the international arena. This is because other countries are negotiating as a block, and on this basis, Scotland needs to be under the UK in order to compete effectively in these foreign markets. Under United Kingdom, Scottish businesses will be able to find new markets, and improve on their existing ones[8]. Scotland security will further be strong, and this is because they will be under the protection of the British armed forces. Lon this note, the Scots will have a say in the UN Security Council, as well as NATO. These anti-independence proponents further denote that Scotland and English have interacted with each other, for many years. This interaction amongst each other promotes multi-ethnicity, and it is therefore strength for Scotland. These proponents argue that thousand of Scots, and the English have intermarried with each other, they have formed famil ies, and are neighbors. On this basis, voting for independence is not a wise decision, and this is because the disadvantages of independence outweigh the advantages of independence[9]. In conclusion, Scotland should not vote for independence. This is because the arguments brought forth by the Scottish National Party are not sincere. For instance, the British political system is democratic, and everybody is responsible for electing the person they want. On this basis, the Scots also had a chance to participate in the elections and elect their representatives. Arguing that the government at Westminster is not representation is there undemocratic and not sincere. Furthermore, the decision to gain independence from UK is not wise, and this is because Scotland will lose many trading opportunities that they enjoyed while under the UK. This would make the economy of Scotland vulnerable to manipulations from the international community, and other powerful economies. On this basis, arguments brought forth by anti-independence proponents are valid. Bibliography: BBC News. Salmond calls for independence referendum in 2014. BBC News. BBC, 1 Oct. 2012. Web. 28 Apr. 2014. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-16478121>. Crawford, R., Bannockburns: scottish independence and the literary imagination, 1314-2014.. S.l.: Edinburgh Univ Press, 2014. Print. Gordts, E., Scotlands Secession Vote: Indecisive Independence. The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 5 Sept. 2013. Web. 28 Apr. 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/scotland-secession vote_n_3876007.html>. Market, J., The economic implications for the United Kingdom of Scottish Independence: 2nd report of session 2012-13. London: The Stationery Office, 2013. Print. Saunders, B., Scottish Independence and the All-Affected Interests Principle. Politics 33.1 (2013): 47-55. Print. [1] J, Market., The economic implications for the United Kingdom of Scottish Independence: 2nd report of session 2012-13. London: The Stationery Office, 2013. P. 44 [2] B, Saunders., Scottish Independence and the All-Affected Interests Principle. Politics 33.1 (2013): 49 [3] J, Market., The economic implications for the United Kingdom of Scottish Independence: 2nd report of session 2012-13. London: The Stationery Office, 2013. P. 32 [4] BBC News. Salmond calls for independence referendum in 2014. BBC News. BBC, 1 Oct. 2012. Web. 28 Apr. 2014. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-16478121>. P. 7 [5] BBC News. Salmond calls for independence referendum in 2014. BBC News. BBC, 1 Oct. 2012. Web. 28 Apr. 2014. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-16478121>. P. 4 [6] E, Gordts., Scotlands Secession Vote: Indecisive Independence. The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 5 Sept. 2013. Web. 28 Apr. 2014.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/scotland-secessionvote_n_3876007.html>. p. 6 [7] Saunders, B., Scottish Independence and the All-Affected Interests Principle. Politics 33.1 (2013): 51. [8] R, Crawford., Bannockburns: scottish independence and the literary imagination, 1314-2014.. S.l.: Edinburgh Univ Press, 2014. [9] E, Gordts., Scotlands Secession Vote: Indecisive Independence. The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 5 Sept. 2013. Web. 28 Apr. 2014.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/scotland-secessionvote_n_3876007.html>. p. 8

Life of a Sensuous Woman Essay

Throughout the story the narrator describes several intimate moments she has shared with men in her past, which is seemingly braggadocios, but as it continues, it’s actually about a woman who desires to love herself. She begins by explaining how she is not from a low class family because her dad descended from middle ranking, stated on page 594, but by the age of 13 years old she had experienced many lovers. How ironic, because aristocrats are held in such high regards, and would never be caught being so promiscuous, but she somehow seems to blame the reason for her tenacious desire for lovemaking on the aristocratic woman and men she witnessed. Another proud moment for the narrator was when she spoke about being the only woman, in a village of 170 attractive women, that was thought to be pretty enough to be taken back to the domain lords attention. As stated on page 598,†When I got there, the old retainer thought I was even better than the woman in the painting, so the search was called off. She continues to emphasize her abilities regarding lovemaking with the monk on page 601, the man she wrote letters for on page 605, and finally the 500 disciples on page 610. Ultimately, the narrators decides to abandon her commitment to be of pure mind and heart to meditate and enter the way of the Buddha, as stated on page 611, because she is overpowered by her eminent desire to relive all o f the adventures she experienced though her lovemaking, the proudest moments of her existence.

Lucent Technologies Case

The financial statement for Lucent Technologies is for September 30, 2003 and 2004. After reviewing the balance sheet I could determine Lucent Technologies Total Assets had increased by 1,052 million. This shows Total assets are in an upward trend and the company has steadily built assets the last year and not decreased them. The company’s goal is to raise profits and one way of raising profits is to increase their assets. Total Liabilities have decreased by 940 million. Total current liabilities have decreased over the year while long term liabilities have increased. In 2003, Lucent Technologies debt to asset ratio was . 83 and in 2004 the debt to asset ratio was . 92 which means . 92 of Lucent Technologies assets were paid for by borrowing money. What this shows is Lucent Technologies may pay a higher interest on money borrowed because their debt to asset ratio is so high. By reducing their debt load and controlling purchases the company can reduce their total debt to asset ratio. Companies acquiring too much debt may have trouble paying creditors which could force them into bankruptcy. Total shareowners’ deficit has decreased over the year. While the company is currently looking at a deficit, they are heading in an upward trend where shareholders could start receiving dividend payouts. Investors reviewing Lucent Technologies current balance sheet may have a hard time investing in the company as much of the assets owned by the company were purchased on credit. Creditors may loan Lucent Technologies money for future investments, but it would be at a higher interest rate as the current debt to asset ratio is high. Another problem creditors and investors may have with the current balance sheet is that Lucent Technologies is only providing them with information from one year. Even though the balance sheet reflects improvements in company profits over the past year it doesn’t provide creditors and investors with enough information to make an informed decision. Creditors and investors would need financial statements for multiple years before investing in the company. By viewing the statement of cash flows, investors are able to determine how much cash comes in and goes out of the company during the year. It shows investors how the company is able to pay for its operations and future growth. Lucent Technologies provided a balance sheet for September 30, 2003 and 2004. There is limited value in the data provided by Lucent Technologies, for investors and creditors to make informative decisions before investing in or leading money to this company. Other financial statements investors and creditors need to view are the income statement and the statement of cash flows. The income statement provides the revenue earned minus expenses incurred over a specific period of time. Investors need to view the statement of cash flow to determine the increases and decreases in cash made by Lucent Technologies.

History Has Presented The World - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 4 Words: 1302 Downloads: 10 Date added: 2019/03/19 Category Society Essay Level High school Tags: Gun Control Essay Did you like this example? History has presented the world with a multitude of controversies. It is up to the world then, to decide how these conflicts are resolved. America itself has worked through crises such as illegal immigration, abortion, separation of church and state, and many more. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "History Has Presented The World" essay for you Create order Recent suggestions have added yet another contentious subject to the long list of controversies of the twenty-first century. The new hot topic of America is gun control, and whether or not it should be enforced. This, like many others, is a two-sided argument in which many American citizens are truly passionate. This, like many others, is a topic that by no means should be taken lightly. The notion of (extreme/total) gun control must be put to an end. Many United States citizens are ignorant of the meaning of gun control. Prior to the debate, gun control was the regulation of the use of firearms by civilians. These laws affected the means of buying, selling, manufacturing, or ownership of guns. Current gun control advocates background checks and other means of regulation. The idea of gun control was first thought up in 1934 by President Roosevelt. A bill was passed simply to curtail minimal street crimes. Since then, ideas are beginning to spiral out of control. Extreme gun-control advocates are beginning to put forth a theory that guns should be removed altogether from the citizens of America. While basic gun control can be deemed acceptable, this view certainly cannot. Americas ongoing laws of gun control are acceptable as they stand. How can countries like America retain freedom when those freedoms are being stripped away? Initially, extreme gun control will not take all the rights of citizens away. Eventually, however, if left unchecked, the passing of gun control would result in more and more rights of American people to be taken away. The snowball of gun control and its laws could potentially become an avalanche headed straight at liberty. Each year, hundreds of thousands of refugees escape their tyrannical governments in order to reach America, the so-called city on a hill. Without freedom, America will become just like the countries it is trying not to be like. If more and more rights such as gun ownership get taken away, then these refugees would simply be going from one absolutist government to the next. As stated in the second amendment of the constitution, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It is stated very clearly, in the foundational laws of America, that citizens have the right to bear arms. Freedom and democracy are what built this country and shaped the founding fathers. Freedom and democracy are what allowed America to become the reigning power of the world. Will America then, brush off a primary foundation of the country itself? Will the very right of citizens to possess arms be stripped away? No, if the notion of extreme gun control is removed, then the country and people of America will continue to have freedom and prosperity. Upstanding citizens must be able to protect themselves from harm with guns. A prime example of protection by use of guns comes from Ms. Jessie from Philadelphia. According to the Institute of Legislative Protection, her shop was vandalized by three armed men in the year 2016. Fortunately, she had a gun and was able to fight off these criminals, killing one and scaring off the others. Her store, and perhaps even her life, was put in extreme danger. A gun, however, is what saved her. If those supporting gun control got their way, many good people would be put at risk. Home Security Statistics presented America with some scary evidence, saying, 2,000,000 home burglaries are reported each year in the United States. Imagine, however, if all two million of those homes were rendered defenseless by gun control. Attacks on citizens are real. Crimes are real, and they are not just fun stories to tell at the dinner table. Guns are what give many citizens of America the ability to sleep, knowing that their family and possessions will be safe. The use of guns for protection, however, can easily be deprived by the implementation of extreme gun control. Advocates of gun control hold many tenable beliefs of their own. Through deeper thought, however, these assumptions of a world with gun control can be seen as misguiding. One important stance that supporters of gun control hold is that, if there is no gun control, tragedies such as school shootings will continue to occur. It can be said just as easily, however, that these tragedies will always occur, regardless of gun control. Likewise, regardless of gun control, people will always find ways around the law. No matter what laws are put in place, they can never stop a truly bad person from getting what they want. Take a look at illicit drug use, in 2013 alone, a total of twenty million Americans admitted to illegal drug use. Simply put, even if guns are deemed illegal by gun control, people will continue to cheat the law. Furthermore, current technology has allowed schools to begin a process of high security meant to prevent shootings from happening. Schools such as North Cobb Christian have begun to bullet-proof their glass, lock all doors, and fence off the campus. Not only this, but armed security guards have been placed at hundreds of schools across the country. It can be said then, that is more schools choose to take precautions, then these tragedies can be prevented before ever even happening. Disasters such as school shootings most likely would be handled better without gun control, than with. Another firm belief of gun control supporters is that the gun itself is the killer of people. This would explain then, why these supporters are so mind bent on being rid of them. This very thought itself, however, is illogical. How can an inanimate object choose to kill a person? The sad truth is, that man is the killer of man. Guns, then, are simply another tool used by man to make this killing more proficient. Also, guns arent the only weapons that can be used for bloodshed. Prior to the invention of guns, there were millions of murders instituted by all number of weapons. The Mongol conquests are known as one of the bloodiest affairs known to earth. Guns were never used throughout this time period, and yet, five percent of the worlds total population was killed. Finally, there are thousands of cases in which mass shootings have been carried out by people who are mentally ill. According to the Los Angeles Times, at least 59% ofmass shootings that took place in the United Stateswere carried out by people who had been diagnosed with a mental disorder. These facts then, clearly spell out the fact that many mass shooters can be deemed mentally deranged. Normal people, then, should not be deprived of their gun rights. Gun control should not be put into place because guns are not killers, people are. What makes something important to humans? Usually, as is the case with gun control, something becomes important to people when there is an incentive presented. America has become filled with an incentive to either go through with or revoke gun control. Ending the thought of extreme gun control is so important because if current laws change, the result would be an inferior and unsafe America. Retaining the right to bear arms will do better in the end for this nation. The citizens of America need to focus less on the use of guns by bad people, and more on the safety given by guns to good people. Total gun control must not be instituted! If freedom and safety still have any value in this world, then the idea of strict gun control must be forgotten.