Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Two (+) gearboxes (for the rotors) required to operate together.One gets fckd then it takes the other out ...
Lack of maintenance = catastrophic falure. Ask MI5.
+50 Xeno Geek Points Come back Toolpusher, scotspine, Voodooflux. Pogle
As for the rest of you - DILLIGAF
Purveyor of fine quality smut since 2005
CUK Olympic University Challenge Champions 2010/2012
Elizabeth Tudor was most concerned that religious massacres should not break out again amongst her subjects, therefore, she wanted a protestant to take the throne. Also, having got shot of the Pope's control, there was no desire to let that come back.
King James VI of Scotland was one of the potential successors to Elizabeth and he made it clear he would remain protestant. Other potential successors were either Catholic, or could be turned.
Also, unity of Scotland and England had been desired by much of the nobility and the merchant classes for centuries; nobody really benefited from the perpetual feuding.
King James VI saw the chance to take the English throne. Queen ELizabeth I (and her advisors) saw the chance for stability despite Elizabeth having no child heir.
The deal was: he was not to criticise or feud with England and to be a devout protestant, and should he outlive Elizabeth, he would get the throne.
He did, and he did.
Thus did King James VI of Scotland become King James I of England.
Elizabeth Tudor was most concerned that religious massacres should not break out again amongst her subjects, therefore, she wanted a protestant to take the throne. Also, having got shot of the Pope's control, there was no desire to let that come back.
King James VI of Scotland was one of the potential successors to Elizabeth and he made it clear he would remain protestant. Other potential successors were either Catholic, or could be turned.
Also, unity of Scotland and England had been desired by much of the nobility and the merchant classes for centuries; nobody really benefited from the perpetual feuding.
King James VI saw the chance to take the English throne. Queen ELizabeth I (and her advisors) saw the chance for stability despite Elizabeth having no child heir.
The deal was: he was not to criticise or feud with England and to be a devout protestant, and should he outlive Elizabeth, he would get the throne.
He did, and he did.
Thus did King James VI of Scotland become King James I of England.
Brown is a Scot governing the English, now who the hell thought that was gonna work?
Anyway, the problem is not that Brown is a Scot. The Scots are perfectly capable of managing a country, have repeatedly demonstrated political expertise and are renowned for their financial management capabilities.
The problem is that Brown is utterly incompetent.
I doubt they'd let such a poor money manager back over the border, and I wouldn't blame them.
Comment