I don't know, comparing military is different. You could pick people out of their mudholes and hand them a staff back in the old days. In the old days you could also ransack whatever gold and treasures you captured once you won, unlike today. Militaries of the past and present are different, for example the English impressed US sailors which led to the start of the War of 1812. I don't see any country that forces another country's men and women to fight for them as slaves.
Most if not all of the colonial era powers have huge faults in their character because they wanted some sort of profit. The Opium Wars, Boer Wars, and etc are all examples of that. America itself is only a little bit better because we only screwed over the natives on our continent(although we do have some reasons for doing so besides want of land). That and America missed out on the whole colonial era thing.
halonachos wrote:I don't know, comparing military is different. You could pick people out of their mudholes and hand them a staff back in the old days. In the old days you could also ransack whatever gold and treasures you captured once you won, unlike today. Militaries of the past and present are different, for example the English impressed US sailors which led to the start of the War of 1812. I don't see any country that forces another country's men and women to fight for them as slaves.
Most if not all of the colonial era powers have huge faults in their character because they wanted some sort of profit. The Opium Wars, Boer Wars, and etc are all examples of that. America itself is only a little bit better because we only screwed over the natives on our continent (although we do have some reasons for doing so besides want of land). That and America missed out on the whole colonial era thing.
I think......That there may be a few million Africans that disagree?
Albatross wrote:Yeah, are we pretending that America isn't an imperial power now? Is that what's happening?
It is at least not the same sort of empire as Britain, France, and the rest.
Not that it matters though, as the US most certainly seeks to dominate the world.
Fixed. I mean, why else would the US government block moves to stop the militarisation of space?
You are, of course, correct in that the American Empire is most certainly a different, more insidious beast to the European empires, but when you look at how successive US regimes have carved up Central and South America, as well as the Middle East, it's hard to draw any other conclusion than 'Empire'. In the main, you generally no longer need gunboats to ensure access to your strategic resources - it's cheaper and more practical to buy a tinpot strongman to keep a lid on the situation. That difference of approach is the only real practical difference between the American Empire and it's European predecessors.
The USA has been, on balance, very successful at buying puppets, though the whole 'Arab Spring' bunfight will represent a little shift away from shoring up strongmen, I reckon. The new 'proto-democratic' Arab regimes that will replace them can, and will, be bought off.
Not that I think this is news to you dogma, by the way. Just wanted to make that clear.
SilverMK2 wrote:Besides which, Scotland is a county, not a country, despite what the "Scottish" want to believe
Not what our First Minister says, the man who runs most of Scotland. Have fun with whatever Oil and renewable Energy plants you have left after Independence comes through.
Woah there bullseye, that's a little bit of an aggressive response to what was obviously a joke. I in no way support a reformation, we'd be fethed without English support, all four nations have grown fairly dependent on each other. I like being part of the Uk, even though I consider myself a Scot before I consider myself a Brit. You may want to cool yourself down, or at least try a little harder to try instigate an argument.
Actually, I'll change that statement. Each nation has come to depend on England, it's just that Scotland could easily be self-sufficient, if a lot worse off than it is now. Wales and Ireland depend on English support, Scotland a whole lot less. That said, I'd much rather be governed by the SNP than the goonies down at Westminster.
If you guys call mel gibson, im sure that he'd be up for another bravehart movie/documentary. he could start a new revolt and the movie would be called Braveheart II: Revolt of 2011! I'd see that.
I am not siding with either side, because i have a very limited knowledge of UK politics(learned about UK politics for 3 weeks in comparative politics).
Even as a through and through Scot the answer is NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Scotland has long had a history of being their own worst enemies when it comes to nationalism and independence. The time for an independent, self supporting nation was at the time when the oil was first found, not now. Unless we can get over our reservations about nuclear energy and wind farms, we can't keep ourselves going. If we could, then we could quite happily support ourselves selling surplus energy to England.
The reason being we have more 'waste' space to utilise than our friends south of the border.
Matty, I sincerely hope that your post is a joke, because it doesn't read like it, it displays all the narrow minded nimbyism that plagues relations between Scotland and England, and yes we Scots have our own fair share.
Whats the problem with being a state (or mutliple states) of the UK? I'm confused. Its not good when I'm confused. Bad things happen (looks at the platypus). See!
Nothing. It's a deep in-bred philosophy on both sides of the border that the other is "bad" due to events that occurred several hundred years ago. It's ignorant to the fact that Scotland is better off in the UK than out.
Frazzled wrote:Whats the problem with being a state (or mutliple states) of the UK? I'm confused. Its not good when I'm confused. Bad things happen (looks at the platypus). See!
Historical resentment and traditional rivalry. Generally speaking, the UK was formed by English violence and oppression. An oversimplification, but enough to build and foster a resentment of the association for non-English member states.
iproxtaco wrote:Nothing. It's a deep in-bred philosophy on both sides of the border that the other is "bad" due to events that occurred several hundred years ago. It's ignorant to the fact that Scotland is better off in the UK than out.
And whats truly ironic is that one of those events were perpetrated by Scots against Scots, but we still blame the English.
Exactly, the actual specifics are either ignored, or aren't even known by the VAST majority of people who are against England. Like Culloden. An Italian guy, with French generals, leading a bunch of half french half Scot troops and highlanders, against a Dutch general with a lot of redcoat English troops and a larger number of highlanders than were on the "Scottish" side. And this is perceived by many as a massacre perpetrated by England, mercilessly slaughtering the good willed highlanders.
Frazzled wrote:Whats the problem with being a state (or mutliple states) of the UK? I'm confused. Its not good when I'm confused. Bad things happen (looks at the platypus). See!
Historical resentment and traditional rivalry. Generally speaking, the UK was formed by English violence and oppression. An oversimplification, but enough to build and foster a resentment of the association for non-English member states.
EDIT: iproxtaco be-ninja'd me there.
So help me out. Scotland wants to be the independent nation of Scotland - free and clear? If not whats being sought?
Frazzled wrote:Whats the problem with being a state (or mutliple states) of the UK? I'm confused. Its not good when I'm confused. Bad things happen (looks at the platypus). See!
Historical resentment and traditional rivalry. Generally speaking, the UK was formed by English violence and oppression. An oversimplification, but enough to build and foster a resentment of the association for non-English member states.
EDIT: iproxtaco be-ninja'd me there.
So help me out. Scotland wants to be the independent nation of Scotland - free and clear? If not whats being sought?
Well, most Scots say that they are in favour of independance, but the financial realities of it would leave them economically severely disadvantaged. It would hit England, Wales and Northern Ireland pretty hard too. So at this point, it's more of a national spirit kind of thing.
Actually, most voted indifferent to a reformation, about 50%, with about 20% saying it was wanted, the rest against, so really, not even Scotland wants the reformation that the SNP want to vote through.
halonachos wrote:I don't know, comparing military is different. You could pick people out of their mudholes and hand them a staff back in the old days. In the old days you could also ransack whatever gold and treasures you captured once you won, unlike today. Militaries of the past and present are different, for example the English impressed US sailors which led to the start of the War of 1812. I don't see any country that forces another country's men and women to fight for them as slaves.
Most if not all of the colonial era powers have huge faults in their character because they wanted some sort of profit. The Opium Wars, Boer Wars, and etc are all examples of that. America itself is only a little bit better because we only screwed over the natives on our continent (although we do have some reasons for doing so besides want of land). That and America missed out on the whole colonial era thing.
I think......That there may be a few million Africans that disagree?
The US also had colonies I believe.
Actually the only reason why we had slaves was because some other European nation decided to ship Africans to the colonies. America didn't send any ships to Africa for slavery and the first time any US ship was near the african coast was when they were fighting the Barbary pirates off of the barbary coast.
As far as colonies the US never had any true colonies, we created nations and had territories that we swore to protect. These 'colonies' were individual states that relied on us for support, no real income from them. Puerto Rico is one of them, we used to test weapons there and paid their government for it but when some kids were accidentally killed the Puerto Rican government cancelled the deal. They were a colony for some point in time, due to the Spanish giving them up after the Spanish American War but they quickly became a territory/commonwealth.
halonachos wrote:I don't know, comparing military is different. You could pick people out of their mudholes and hand them a staff back in the old days. In the old days you could also ransack whatever gold and treasures you captured once you won, unlike today. Militaries of the past and present are different, for example the English impressed US sailors which led to the start of the War of 1812. I don't see any country that forces another country's men and women to fight for them as slaves.
Most if not all of the colonial era powers have huge faults in their character because they wanted some sort of profit. The Opium Wars, Boer Wars, and etc are all examples of that. America itself is only a little bit better because we only screwed over the natives on our continent (although we do have some reasons for doing so besides want of land). That and America missed out on the whole colonial era thing.
I think......That there may be a few million Africans that disagree?
The US also had colonies I believe.
Actually the only reason why we had slaves was because some other European nation decided to ship Africans to the colonies. America didn't send any ships to Africa for slavery and the first time any US ship was near the african coast was when they were fighting the Barbary pirates off of the barbary coast.
As far as colonies the US never had any true colonies, we created nations and had territories that we swore to protect. These 'colonies' were individual states that relied on us for support, no real income from them. Puerto Rico is one of them, we used to test weapons there and paid their government for it but when some kids were accidentally killed the Puerto Rican government cancelled the deal. They were a colony for some point in time, due to the Spanish giving them up after the Spanish American War but they quickly became a territory/commonwealth.
They weren't our ships so its not our fault. It was nice of the US to keep them in such refined asylum after so accidentally coming across them.
As for these not colonies (created ), I fear that you may be about to recategorise them in the hope that no one thinks they are what they are (or were), ala enemy combatants (POWs), targeted killing (assassination) and external rendition (kidnapping). Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with any of these things but lets call a spade a spade.
Perhaps you should try "forcefully procured areas of commercial expansion interest"?
While all of this went on, i'd be willing to bet that this occurs in almost all territory expansion because there will always be those who violently oppose such action, whether it is the majority or minority depends on the case. So i would say that name applies to almost all "territories"
Frazzled wrote:So help me out. Scotland wants to be the independent nation of Scotland - free and clear? If not whats being sought?
God knows to be honest. There is a mentality that England has held back Scotland for hundreds of years and treated us badly. Now part of that is the normal mentality of "It's not my fault", but it's human nature. On top of which there is a genuine feeling of grievance against what is perceived as a pro english government. For example, as a % it is proposed that approx 66% of RAF bases in Scotland close against approx 10% in England. The Scottish Regiments have been amalgamated into a formless historyless blob. Going back further Margaret Thatcher implemented the Poll Tax and tested it in Scotland, but only rescinded it when 'London' rioted on the implementation in England.
Now at the same time, because of the 'West Lothian Question' we have a disproportionate say in English affairs when England has no say in Scottish ones. The Barnett(?) Formula was raised at a time of relative poverty in Scotland and allowed a large sum of money to be directly fed into the Scottish economy, that is a further aggravation to our southern neighbours.
While labour was in power, Scotland was their powerhouse for parliment, they could act with relative impunity because England couldn't oust the Scottish MPs, and so yet a further aggravation.
Scotland is a child who wants to leave home, but still needs the security of bank of mum and dad.
Pretty much spot on there. There's various theories on becoming self-sufficient be literally selling energy to England if we gained Independence. We've already got a lot implemented, and a lot of space, with a large amount of Tourism, fishing, farming, business in the central belt, and lets not forget the Oil in the north sea.
So your taxes can be apportioned unequally among the states, er territories, er what are they called? The crown is up to its old shenanigans I see (time throw some tea in the harbor, and by that I mean eat some nice ice cream).
If you look at it in very simple terms, the south-east of England funds the rest of the country in one way or another (e.g. 40% of jobs in Wales are in government, agricultural subsidies, social security benefits, etc.) I exaggerate for effect.
The Barnet Formula gives an extra wodge of money to Scotland to keep them on side.
I don't know how Alex Salmond plans to square this circle if he ever does achieve independence. Perhaps he can get the money from the EU.
The examples I stated. Selling energy to England and wales, and potentially Ireland. and the Oil, and Fishing, farming, and business in Dundee, Aberdeen and the central belt.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and tourism, which is quite big here.
From my own perspective I can't say as I think English particularly care that much about the England/Scotland situation.
Obviously it is a big issue for the Scots, but the English are the bad guys for everyone so why should be care about them particularly.
It only come into relief when the Scots (Salmond) moans about something (everything) and blames it on Westminster/England. The English will think he's an ungrateful oaf and go back to worrying about the East Enders or the Premier League, you know something relevant to them.
Ironically the Scots that live down here don't care either and just shrug when they hear about their home brethren fuming about whatever.
We have a relatively small population with a relatively large economy for the size of the country. By adopting an philosophy of spending to get out of the recession, we'd do much better than the constant saving and cuts that current goonies are instigating.
I agree, I live in Scotland, and outside of jokes or drunken patriotism, no one I know has any bad opinions towards England as a country, we just hate the government.
Kilkrazy wrote:The thread isn't about countries, it's about nations, which is a different concept.
It is?
Yes.
Not where I'm from.
Ooh, ooh, ooh, and you're from England which is where the American language originates.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
notprop wrote:They weren't our ships so its not our fault. It was nice of the US to keep them in such refined asylum after so accidentally coming across them.
As for these not colonies (created ), I fear that you may be about to recategorise them in the hope that no one thinks they are what they are (or were), ala enemy combatants (POWs), targeted killing (assassination) and external rendition (kidnapping). Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with any of these things but lets call a spade a spade.
Perhaps you should try "forcefully procured areas of commercial expansion interest"?
Truth be told about the slavery is the fact that they also started out as indentured servants(slaves for a time and after the work they received land). However, we didn't go to Africa and screw over the natives that was with Belgium, Germany, England... in fact Liberia was created for freed slaves who wanted to go back to Africa.
As I said, they used to be colonies, but Puerto Rico suffered from the Great Depression worse than America did and in the end it had its own government. Now its just a territory where we don't set their laws but they pay federal taxes for things like social security and medicare. If it was truly a colony then when they wanted us to stop weapons testing we would've said 'feth off we own you.', hell the fact that we paid them for the testing says something.
Kilkrazy wrote:The thread isn't about countries, it's about nations, which is a different concept.
It is?
Yes.
Not where I'm from.
... people often use words incorrectly en masse. One such example as this thread has demonstrated is nation. Another is peruse, people think it means to skim over and scan through something, it really means to examine it carefully.
If memory serves (which is usually doesn't) a country is a chunk of the earth that is walled by imaginary lines with a name? and a nation is a collection of people living in a country?
so the greatest nation on earth would be...........The Romans.
they basically made Europe. they gave the infrastructure, they gave the cities, they gave some history, they contributed to the language, they gave us wine......
pretty much the building blocks for all future western nations.
as to the whole Scottish independence, I think it's just going to be a failure if they do ever do it. they are too connected to the rest of the UK to simply up the planks and demand independence. plus, I think most Scots don't want it, its only the political willy-wavers of the SNP who truly want it. how he got into power i cannot fathom. it's like the BNP but they hate people in their own country.
Just because they have similar acronym to the BNP does not make them at all similar. They're much better than the spineless goons of the other three big players. Cameron? Yeah, he may look the part, cowardly moron. Milliband? We'll see with him, he at least appears to be half competent, still doesn't cut it in my opinion. The you have the little rat amongst the weasels. Nick Clegg should never have achieved a position of any influence. Gordon Brown at least tried exceedingly hard, his popularity was marred by the revelation of private affairs and unfortunate turns of fate.
Nah it doesn't. They're far from perfect, the cuts to the education system where I live are mind boggling, they are actually doing something about my city's current financial state, unlike the Labour council before them.
That is if you're talking in terms of parties in general, then I still disagree. The BNP are a whole lot worse than any other party, because they have become a house-hold name and are gaining popularity. They would ruin the UK, the SNP would just put all four states in a slightly worse position than before if they achieved independence.
To ruin what? Britain? The have better chances of achieving Independence than the BNP do have of coming to power, still doesn't mean that the SNP will ruin the UK. Scotland is more than capable of supporting itself, it wont be a well off as it is in the UK, neither will any of the nations, but they won't be ruined.
iproxtaco wrote:Nick Clegg should never have achieved a position of any influence.
For what reason?
I understand the wish that he wasn't deputy prime-minister, but thats (in my opinion) because if he wasn't we wouldn't have a coalition (a good thing in my opinion), but I can't think of reasons as to why he shouldn't be head of the Lib-Dems.
Well, for the fact that he has now made it back into a two party race. The Lib Dems will not get back into power for a LOOOOOOONG time, having gone back on every single election pledge they made except the least important one (in terms of what people actually wanted) - voting reform, which only got carried through because the lib dems thought it would help them get back into power.
And now they have pissed off the students (who are one of the major lib dem blocks) they have no chance.
the only reason scots have for wanting independence is ideological. they just want that 1UP over England. to say "we're not part of you now".
in terms of everything else (the stuff that matters like economy, jobs, social mobility and the like), everyone will lose out. so it's best just to leave the "Scots vs English" for sports and conversation, rather than splitting up a perfectly good country.
airsoftmanic wrote:the only reason scots have for wanting independence is ideological. they just want that 1UP over England. to say "we're not part of you now".
in terms of everything else (the stuff that matters like economy, jobs, social mobility and the like), everyone will lose out. so it's best just to leave the "Scots vs English" for sports and conversation, rather than splitting up a perfectly good country.
I am a Scot, I live in Scotland, I support the SNP on most things, this is not one of them. Scotland is better off in the UK than out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:The SNP won't ruin the UK, they'll ruin Scotland.
Nah, they'll make everyone worse off, ruin is too strong a word to use. Scotland will be perfectly fine, but it's not a thing that should happen just like that, even if it were wanted
