So whats the dealio up there? NPR noted there are like 5mm Scots. Thats it?
How will Britain remain free if vital haggis supplies are cut off. Zombie Hitler's out there, just waiting for his chance to strike!
It's a shame to toss away 300 years of history but to be honest, I'm fairly sick of Jocks whinging about how much better off they'd be without being part of the UK. Which is fine; they may well be, but I'd like to see how they plan on paying for all their sweeping social polices like free prescriptions, no tuition fees etc etc without the rather large subsidies they currently receive from Westminster.
The lazy answer has always been to say that North Sea Oil will pay for it if they aren't paying that into UK treasuries but we shall see.
If I recall correctly Scotland leaving the UK will not be economically beneficial for Scotland. Every region of the UK is loss making with the exception of London and the South East.
Just 300 years of history not more like 700+ (probably more I'm just being lazy)? Or do we not count those because they were pre Acts of Union?
I have my doubts this referendum will succeed, but hey who knows right?
The jocks are muttering that they may have to stop the extent of free education, perscriptions etc due to costs. Something about there being a budget black hole?
If they do away with all that then my sis may come back across the border. Which won't be pleasant for me. The longer the Scots keep her up there the better.
'Jock' is a Scottish diminutive of John or sometimes James (through Jacob). Scots are sometimes called 'Jocks' the way the Irish are sometimes called 'Paddys' (from Patrick) or the Welsh 'Taffys' (from the Welsh form of David). David and Patrick are the patron saints of these countries hence their widespread popularity - Andrew is Scotland's patron but during the war of succession with England the Scots supported King James and the jacobite cause, linking Scotland firmly with 'Jocks'.
The origins of Jock go back hundreds of years, with some of the first recorded references coming in the 18th and 19th Centuries.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as slang for a Scottish or northern English sailor or soldier, as well as for any Scotsman.
The OED also notes its first appearance as a "jeering appellation" for a north-country seaman, but it was the 20th Century and World War I which cemented it into the British psyche, along with Tommy and Taff.
The army connections are strong and indeed the Black Watch are proud to call themselves The Jocks.
Andrew Pierce, the assistant editor of the Daily Telegraph, said: "Jock is just a term of affection in the same way Paddy is a term of affection for the Irish.
.... Growing up I have vague memories of being told it was related to the Jaocbites, no idea as to the veracity of this.
I think most people dont want to end the union, its just a vocal minority, as always.
People who dont much care dont much talk. The haters, say about 10-20% of Jocks whinge and whine and are clearly and vocally bigoted towards English people.. generally the people who have never been South and think that we eat babies.
In turn, some English people have seen how the minority of Scots act, and absolutely despise the Scots in turn. Its alright jesus saying "offer your other cheek" but most people repay hate with hate.
Meanwhile the majority of both nations are not as bothered either way.
I cant see it affecting my life so I don't much care. However for the sake of history, and the many Scottish Royal Marines, who would possibly have to leave and join a Scottish regiment (Pretty much all of them would renounce their Scottish citizenship given the choice!) I will say I hope they dont bother.
I have never seen the need personally.. you can be aggresiveely English/Scottish/Welsh and still be British.
You can call yourself Scotty McHaggis, sword dance, sit on a bucket, wear a kilt seven days a week and never eat vegetables, and be first and foremost Scottish without needing to not be British as well, so why bother?
Also, if Scotland and England were separate Olympic teams, both England and Scotland would be down the medal table several places... so maybe were both better off eh?
The bigger the better.. Imagine if the USA was 50 separate nations? Bye bye that Olympic number one spot!
d-usa wrote: Now the Texans will just get ideas again.
Well you do have oil, and we do have a destroyer, U Boat, carrier, and a working B17. Someone please tell when the referendum is official. We can preplan the flight and have the B-17 over Edinburgh fifteen minutes after...
The origins of Jock go back hundreds of years, with some of the first recorded references coming in the 18th and 19th Centuries.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as slang for a Scottish or northern English sailor or soldier, as well as for any Scotsman.
The OED also notes its first appearance as a "jeering appellation" for a north-country seaman, but it was the 20th Century and World War I which cemented it into the British psyche, along with Tommy and Taff.
The army connections are strong and indeed the Black Watch are proud to call themselves The Jocks.
Andrew Pierce, the assistant editor of the Daily Telegraph, said: "Jock is just a term of affection in the same way Paddy is a term of affection for the Irish.
.... Growing up I have vague memories of being told it was related to the Jaocbites, no idea as to the veracity of this.
I would not say Paddy is a term of affection to the Irish, unless you think being punched in the face is how the Irish greet everyone. (well, that might be accurate actually...)
Welcome to Ireland, we'll punch you in the face boyo!
mattyrm wrote: I think most people dont want to end the union, its just a vocal minority, as always.
People who dont much care dont much talk. The haters, say about 10-20% of Jocks whinge and whine and are clearly and vocally bigoted towards English people.. generally the people who have never been South and think that we eat babies.
In turn, some English people have seen how the minority of Scots act, and absolutely despise the Scots in turn. Its alright jesus saying "offer your other cheek" but most people repay hate with hate.
Meanwhile the majority of both nations are not as bothered either way.
I cant see it affecting my life so I don't much care. However for the sake of history, and the many Scottish Royal Marines, who would possibly have to leave and join a Scottish regiment (Pretty much all of them would renounce their Scottish citizenship given the choice!) I will say I hope they dont bother.
I have never seen the need personally.. you can be aggresiveely English/Scottish/Welsh and still be British.
I don't hate the Scots, but I do dislike the fact that because of the votes of Scottish MPs in Westminster we English now have to pay for University (even if we go to a Scottish university, something students from Europe don't have to do). And the fact it's a drain on resources (not Northern Ireland level but still...).
Aye I think it will have came about in the military. Tommy, Jock, Taffy and Paddy.
There are gak loads of military ones, I reckon they contribute to about half of our slang in general. A great many of the words in my "jackspeak" (Naval dictionary) are words I used anyway growing up.
Other good ones, probably not known to Americans, are the common ones for sirnames.
Like if your surname is Taylor, you get called Tug. And all of the common surnames have nicknames that get used instead of your name in the military, such as Smith - Smudge, White-Knocker, Bell - Dinger, Gardner - Digger, and one I never ever figured out was Collins - Jumper.
The really common ones such as Smith and White actually make things confusing. You will be in the galley and someone will say "Have you seen Smudge?" and get about 8 different answers.
Why is it that independence movements are always popular with people who are reliant on the people they want independence from? Why is it never London or New York that want to break away to keep the leeches from stealin' their money?
ShumaGorath wrote: Why is it that independence movements are always popular with people who are reliant on the people they want independence from? Why is it never London or New York that want to break away to keep the leeches from stealin' their money?
If London had independance its not just Scotland is fethed. Its absolutely all of us..The North East is totally screwed en-masse, and Yorkshire would be forced to invade Scotland to ward off starvation.
mattyrm wrote: Aye I think it will have came about in the military. Tommy, Jock, Taffy and Paddy.
There are gak loads of military ones, I reckon they contribute to about half of our slang in general. A great many of the words in my "jackspeak" (Naval dictionary) are words I used anyway growing up.
Other good ones, probably not known to Americans, are the common ones for sirnames.
Like if your surname is Taylor, you get called Tug. And all of the common surnames have nicknames that get used instead of your name in the military, such as Smith - Smudge, White-Knocker, Bell - Dinger, Gardner - Digger, and one I never ever figured out was Collins - Jumper.
The really common ones such as Smith and White actually make things confusing. You will be in the galley and someone will say "Have you seen Smudge?" and get about 8 different answers.
We definitely don't have the slang names like you guys apparently do, Call sign and nickname culture is very much to the individual. Like one Corporal in my flight team was squirrel because he was always munching on fruits, nuts and granola... like a squirrel. I was Glock due to my last name, and so forth. It is funny talking to civilians or non-Marines after you learn to talk like a proper Marine "I gotta hit the head, it's down the ladder well and through the left hatch right?" "What did you just say?"
ShumaGorath wrote:Why is it that independence movements are always popular with people who are reliant on the people they want independence from? Why is it never London or New York that want to break away to keep the leeches from stealin' their money?
New York needs us a hell of a lot more than we need New York, Unlike California which has an actual economy NYC is dependent on the national economy to work. Without the rest of us it's 8 million starving people in an urban sprawl; that we can gouge even deeper on goods and services they can't produce themselves, which is pretty much everything.
Eveytime I play England...I invade Scotland first......then Ireland...then I have a policy of "scortch earth" for the france. Capture Paris and destroy everything and abandon the city.....wait...thats a game I'm talking about...
ShumaGorath wrote:Why is it that independence movements are always popular with people who are reliant on the people they want independence from? Why is it never London or New York that want to break away to keep the leeches from stealin' their money?
New York needs us a hell of a lot more than we need New York, Unlike California which has an actual economy NYC is dependent on the national economy to work. Without the rest of us it's 8 million starving people in an urban sprawl; that we can gouge even deeper on goods and services they can't produce themselves, which is pretty much everything.
It could pull that off alone, you don't need to produce food to get it cheap.
Every scotsman just needs to pull out his Bagpipes and march on London. A hundred thousand bagpipers in the streets, and behold, the Scottish annexation of the southlands is complete.
It'd be nice to have an actual discussion on Scottish independance rather than just flaming on national stereotypes. If you want to do so then fine, as long as you're making an actual point.
I think that the referendum will fail, just like the first devolution referendum but eventually the treaty of union will be dissolved. The SNP have done apretty good job of showing people that they can actually govern and that was the first major hurdle. The next 2 are tradition and the shock of the unknown, eventually I think that they will be overcome.
There is a shocking amount of casual racisim in this thread.
ShumaGorath wrote:Why is it that independence movements are always popular with people who are reliant on the people they want independence from? Why is it never London or New York that want to break away to keep the leeches from stealin' their money?
New York needs us a hell of a lot more than we need New York, Unlike California which has an actual economy NYC is dependent on the national economy to work. Without the rest of us it's 8 million starving people in an urban sprawl; that we can gouge even deeper on goods and services they can't produce themselves, which is pretty much everything.
It could pull that off alone, you don't need to produce food to get it cheap.
Sorry it took so long I laughed so hard I nearly suffocated.
That must be why it's so cheap to live in new York. Tell me about New Yorks ability to get natural gas and oil cheaply too.
You live in a fantasy world if you think New York could become independent and thrive. It would be the New Detroit.
Testify wrote: It'd be nice to have an actual discussion on Scottish independance rather than just flaming on national stereotypes. If you want to do so then fine, as long as you're making an actual point.
OK Mom.
Whats the reason for independence at this point?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Palindrome wrote: I think that the referendum will fail, just like the first devolution referendum but eventually the treaty of union will be dissolved. The SNP have done apretty good job of showing people that they can actually govern and that was the first major hurdle. The next 2 are tradition and the shock of the unknown, eventually I think that they will be overcome.
There is a shocking amount of casual racisim in this thread.
There has always been an argument for independence, Robert Burns even wrote a poem about it. As it stands Scotland is doing relatively well financially (even without the oil revenues) and will be able to be self sufficent, devolution has shown Scots that we are at least capable of running our own affairs and there seems to be increasing ideological divisions between Holyrood and Westminster (but that may be short lived).
The reasons against are tradition and a lack of confidence that it would benefit Scotland.
There has always been an argument for independence, Robert Burns even wrote a poem about it. As it stands Scotland is doing relatively well financially (even without the oil revenues) and will be able to be self sufficent, devolution has shown Scots that we are at least capable of running our own affairs and there seems to be increasing ideological divisions between Holyrood and Westminster (but that may be short lived).
The reasons against are tradition and a lack of confidence that it would benefit Scotland.
What are the ideological divisions? Who keeps the oil - UK or Scotland? If I'm the UK why would I let Scotland have the oil?
If London had independance its not just Scotland is fethed. Its absolutely all of us..The North East is totally screwed en-masse, and Yorkshire would be forced to invade Scotland to ward off starvation.
There has always been an argument for independence, Robert Burns even wrote a poem about it. As it stands Scotland is doing relatively well financially (even without the oil revenues) and will be able to be self sufficent, devolution has shown Scots that we are at least capable of running our own affairs and there seems to be increasing ideological divisions between Holyrood and Westminster (but that may be short lived).
The reasons against are tradition and a lack of confidence that it would benefit Scotland.
What are the ideological divisions? Who keeps the oil - UK or Scotland? If I'm the UK why would I let Scotland have the oil?
Here is an electoral map of the UK:
Look how many Conservative (blue) there is in Scotland. 1 or 2? And there are about 30 Labour seats. That's why they oppose independance.
What are the ideological divisions? Who keeps the oil - UK or Scotland? If I'm the UK why would I let Scotland have the oil?
The Scottish goverment is more left wing while the UK government sits firmly on the right, Historically Scottish politics on the whole favour the left while England tends to favour the right.
Oil revenues go to the UK exchequer (and tax revenues IIRC) while Scotland gets a sum of money in return to run its public services etc. I'm not an expert though so its enitely possible that I am wrong.
There has always been an argument for independence, Robert Burns even wrote a poem about it. As it stands Scotland is doing relatively well financially (even without the oil revenues) and will be able to be self sufficent, devolution has shown Scots that we are at least capable of running our own affairs and there seems to be increasing ideological divisions between Holyrood and Westminster (but that may be short lived).
The reasons against are tradition and a lack of confidence that it would benefit Scotland.
What are the ideological divisions? Who keeps the oil - UK or Scotland? If I'm the UK why would I let Scotland have the oil?
I remember hearing that during Blair's time he moved the boundaries of England to cover the bit of the North Sea where the oil is, so if that's the case then it's England's. Even with the oil Scotland would struggle to keep up it's more socialist aspects.
That map is generally correct, but would normally be a little more red in England. After 3 terms of Labour, they haven't done very well. Although even when they did it's broadly the same.
Ratbarf wrote: Would they keep the monarchy? And lastly, would this result in a similar situation as the Irish troubles after they got their independence?
IIRC they would keep the monarchy as head of state, since the original union between England and Scotland was monarchal. The Queen of England *is* the queen of Scotland.
I doubt there'd be a civil war after independance Ireland was different, since you had an Irish majority, and a Scots minority who were fiercely pro-British (ironic, given what we're discussing )
Ratbarf wrote: Would they keep the monarchy? And lastly, would this result in a similar situation as the Irish troubles after they got their independence?
The union of the crowns predates the union of the parliments so the short answer is yes. Besides Australia and Canada keep the monarchy.
The Irish Troubles have religious roots, Protestants tended to be pro unionist while Catholics tended to be pro home rule/independence. Once religion becomes involved in something like this it can't fail to get ugly. There was also a lot of bad blood built up over the English occupation of Ireland that didn't get a real chance to heal. Basically the two are completley different.
We (the people living in Scotland) haven't been given any definitive or solid information on why we should leave the Union. The only thing I know about Alex's plans are to increase immigration and pull money out of his arse... I think he is trying to drive Scotland as a leader in renewable energy... perhaps a cultural hub (oi! no laughing in the back!)... something else fairly flowery.
We've had nothing solid actually. We'll probably get dragged into the EU and will be in such a terrible situation we'll go back to painting ourselves blue and waving our genitals at our English neighbours...
In fact it would be better for English students if Scotland became independent as you'd get to study here for free like all the other EU blighters!
I'd vote for Independence... from the EU. The UK should be getting the pits back open, no more relying on dodgy Russian Gas. We'll need Nuclear at the very minimum as a stop gap solution until then because we're heading for an energy crisis. Better we tackle it together, eh chaps?
We've had nothing solid actually. We'll probably get dragged into the EU and will be in such a terrible situation we'll go back to painting ourselves blue and waving our genitals at our English neighbours...
On the Daily Politics they went over some aspects of the referendum. Salmon wants to stay with pound sterling, but if he did then he would have no control over interest rates, they also mentioned that the question may well be "Do you think Scotland should be a separate state?" or something like that.
Yeah, I'll be honest MoD, the 'get out of the EU' vote would interest me a lot more.
As a note, I would rather Scotland stayed in the UK, too much proud history we've done together since the union overall in my mind, mainly concerning wars and Scottish regiments, plus the jack. Would be a real shame to loose it.
We've had nothing solid actually. We'll probably get dragged into the EU and will be in such a terrible situation we'll go back to painting ourselves blue and waving our genitals at our English neighbours...
On the Daily Politics they went over some aspects of the referendum. Salmon wants to stay with pound sterling, but if he did then he would have no control over interest rates, they also mentioned that the question may well be "Do you think Scotland should be a separate state?" or something like that.
The government of the UK also has no control over interest rates. They are determined by the independent Bank of England. I think it would be VERY unusual where Scottish fiscal policy would need to be radically different from English fiscal policy, given how similar our economies are.
Ratbarf wrote: Would they keep the monarchy? And lastly, would this result in a similar situation as the Irish troubles after they got their independence?
The difference largely being that the Irish had a war for their independence, and that war just kept on rolling. I don't think the climate exists for a Scottish Troubles.
"Do you believe Scotland should be an independent country?". I think the question tends to a yes answer... I think an independent Scotland could be a good thing. Now definitely isn't the time, Alex isn't the man and I partly think the time for independence was back when North Sea Oil was discovered. Scotland is better off in the Union and we always have been. We have enough of a say in how our country is run. We should be looking to revitalise the UK economy and industry.
Children as young as 16 will also help decide the fate of the Union, after Mr Cameron caved in to Scottish National Party demands on the date of the vote and the age of the electorate.
No ex-pats get the vote, not to worry the fate of the Union will rest on the shoulders of the kids... and immigrants...
Scottish independence would seem to be a good thing for England and a bad thing for Scotland.
I mean, if Northern Ireland were to go "independent" it'd be up gak creek without a paddle, and no mistake. Scotland's in a better position, but I still think there'd have to be some austerity if they went independent.
I really, really hope the UK doesn't back out of the EU. It seems more based on xenophobia to me than anything rational. Xenophobia and pride.
thenoobbomb wrote: Reading through the stereotype jkes, I figured out I should leave dakka and put on my fancy wooden shoes and smoke weed between the tullips. Thanks!
Your flag must be wrong then, because according to it you should hang out in a Haufbrau eating sausage, drinking beer, and carousing with the Fraulines.
Medium of Death wrote: The EU is just another level of bureaucracy that the UK doesn't need.
Other than trade, which would definitely happen anyway, what is the point in being part of the EU?
The UK can definitely go it alone.
I'd agree. The EU should have stayed a trade agreement, not some kind of superstate. I don't particularly see the advantage of the UK splitting up other than some strange sense of "nationalism". I think it would be an utter nightmare to arrange as well, especially given I forsee anything that might even slightly favour [insert the name of whatever the UK would be without Scotland] being screamed about by the MSP's as "those damn English!".
AustonT wrote:Sorry it took so long I laughed so hard I nearly suffocated.
Such a terrible loss that would be.
That must be why it's so cheap to live in new York. Tell me about New Yorks ability to get natural gas and oil cheaply too.
You live in a fantasy world if you think New York could become independent and thrive. It would be the New Detroit.
I don't think you know the slightest thing about national or urban economics. Why does it need to produce oil to have oil? Most countries on earth don't. Why does it need to be able to produce it's food to be able to eat? Most countries on earth don't. New York is a global financial center, not an industrial center.
I mean, it's not like there are examples of independent city state financial centers with booming economies and high cost of living we can look to...
Jumping out of the EU can save the NHS some money, don't know if you caught that panorama program about Health Tourism? Should still be on iPlayer, I recommend it.
What worries me is the fallout. What happens when Unionists get stuck in a Nationalist and Independent Scotland?
Conversely if the Nationalists don't get their way, what then? Bitterness and even more anti UK sentiment, clearly something that Scotland doesn't need.
Well, if you opt out of the EU, you're opting out of free trade, free travel and right to live in the EU.
You're also opting out of most of your chance to effect what happens in the EU, and are essentially giving the finger to the diplomatic efforts of almost all your neighbours.
It seems like a huge backward step. YMMV. I think most british people who think they can "go it alone" have an over inflated sense of britain's current international influence.
It seems like a huge backward step. YMMV. I think most british people who think they can "go it alone" have an over inflated sense of britain's current international influence.
Medium of Death wrote: As for this New York debate that seems to have arisen IIRC NY State has Shale Gas fields so it could theoretically be it's own energy supplier.
As for this New York debate that seems to have arisen IIRC NY State has Shale Gas fields so it could theoretically be it's own energy supplier.
Might be mis-remembering this.
NY has a good portion of the Marcellus shale formation underneath it, but so far as I know they've been hesitant to engage in drilling near any population centers.
So you're saying that the wealth of newly resident immigrants have had no opportunity/will not have the opportunity to be registered?
What I am saying that that if they are on the register, and are eligable to vote (which most immigrants aren't given that you must be a UK or Irish citizen) then they can. If they aren't on the register, like most ex-pats, they can't vote. i fail to see whats wrong with that.
Plenty, if you want to stay as relevant in world affairs as you are. How is the UK not self governed right now? If you're talking about bailing out bank debt and so on, I suggest doing some reading about who owes what to who- because right now, you guys are getting a pretty sweet deal for a lot of your private interests who are avoiding bankruptcy by socialising their losses.
Any legal immigrant can get British citizenship is my point. Somebody that has absolutely no basis in the history of the country but can be swayed by a parties generous benefits offered to them. It might not be a massive amount, but it could be enough to swing the vote in such a small pool.
The 16 to 17 year old vote is much more worrying anyway imho.
Medium of Death wrote: Any legal immigrant can get British citizenship is my point. Somebody that has absolutely no basis in the history of the country but can be swayed by a parties generous benefits offered to them. It might not be a massive amount, but it could be enough to swing the vote in such a small pool.
The 16 to 17 year old vote is much more worrying anyway imho.
I doubt that many immigrants will vote and even so its their right. How many 16-17 year olds do you realistically expect to vote?
Medium of Death wrote: Any legal immigrant can get British citizenship is my point. Somebody that has absolutely no basis in the history of the country but can be swayed by a parties generous benefits offered to them. It might not be a massive amount, but it could be enough to swing the vote in such a small pool.
The 16 to 17 year old vote is much more worrying anyway imho.
I doubt that many immigrants will vote and even so its their right. How many 16-17 year olds do you realistically expect to vote?
I should imagine a lot of youngsters will vote, they are yet to be disillusioned. I can see this opening the floodgates to a reduced voting age, which might be good, youngsters tend to be liberal in their outlook. Or might be bad, as they haven't a clue about anything.
This is something that Canadians will be watching very intently..... The Quebecois movement there would see a win by the seperatists as a sign to try again.
dæl wrote: I should imagine a lot of youngsters will vote, they are yet to be disillusioned. I can see this opening the floodgates to a reduced voting age, which might be good, youngsters tend to be liberal in their outlook. Or might be bad, as they haven't a clue about anything.
I'm guessing they wanted the 16-17 year old vote as they would be the easiest to sway with patriotic rhetoric.
In all fairness though at 16 you can serve in the military, get married and leave school, so if you're mature enough for that why aren't you mature enough to vote?
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote: In all fairness though at 16 you can serve in the military, get married and leave school, so if you're mature enough for that why aren't you mature enough to vote?
I think the problem here is assuming 16 year olds ARE mature enough to serve in the military, get married, and leave school. The vast bulk of them are not mature enough for those things.
Having the voting age be 18 is just fine. And even then many 18 year olds STILL arn't mature enough to do some of these things.
Gotta say that as a Scot I have no desire to leave the Union.
Alex Salmond seems to see himself as the next Robert the Bruce or William Wallace, when leaving the Union will have absolutely no benefits for the country.
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote: In all fairness though at 16 you can serve in the military, get married and leave school, so if you're mature enough for that why aren't you mature enough to vote?
In fairness they are planning to change things so you can't actually leave school at 16 any more and in order to get married and join the army (as a basic soldier) you must have your parent's permission. So why exactly should you be able to vote at 16-17?
dæl wrote: I should imagine a lot of youngsters will vote, they are yet to be disillusioned. I can see this opening the floodgates to a reduced voting age, which might be good, youngsters tend to be liberal in their outlook. Or might be bad, as they haven't a clue about anything.
I'm guessing they wanted the 16-17 year old vote as they would be the easiest to sway with patriotic rhetoric.
Exactly yeah, when you are 16 you have fire in your belly and know jack gak about life.
feth me, I think the voting age should be RAISED to 18! Really.. what the feth do most of us know about politics at 18?
I would say that the independance vote foo those aged 16-17 will be far, far higher than for everyone else. A 16 year old will be easily swayed by nonsense and bigotry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote: In all fairness though at 16 you can serve in the military, get married and leave school, so if you're mature enough for that why aren't you mature enough to vote?
You aren't mature enough to do all that.. just because you can doesnt mean its a good idea.
Married at 16? People do it.. its a feth up 99% of the time, and said 16 year old will admit it when he hits 30.
The problem is, at 16 you think are ready for all of those things.. when I was 16 I was convinced I was a genius, I had testicles like basketballs and ego of the size of Yugoslavia.
I looked back at my 16 year old self when I was 26 and thought "What a fething dick that guy was"
dæl wrote: I should imagine a lot of youngsters will vote, they are yet to be disillusioned. I can see this opening the floodgates to a reduced voting age, which might be good, youngsters tend to be liberal in their outlook. Or might be bad, as they haven't a clue about anything.
I'm guessing they wanted the 16-17 year old vote as they would be the easiest to sway with patriotic rhetoric.
Exactly yeah, when you are 16 you have fire in your belly and know jack gak about life.
feth me, I think the voting age should be RAISED to 18! Really.. what the feth do most of us know about politics at 18?
I would say that the independance vote foo those aged 16-17 will be far, far higher than for everyone else. A 16 year old will be easily swayed by nonsense and bigotry.
I believe a recent poll showed that they were more likely to vote to stay in the Union, because they don't know as much, but know that the current system is working fine.
Maybe I'm just stupider and more rash than most.. but I think I my mouth was always a gallop before my brain was in the saddle until I was well into my twenties.
More than likely, the point was a serious one though, everyone thinks they know it all when they are 16, thats why teenagers are so fething horrible!
But how many grow up and say to their parents "Sorry about the teens folks..."
The point is, you think you know everything as a teenager, you think your old man is a square and he knows nothing, because at that age you cant see the painfully obvious fact is that your Dad did all the same gak you did. I was simply saying that really, is 16 old enough to vote? I don't think 18 is, and would happily settle for 21.
In fact, judging by what the average Joe knows about politics, I think you should be 21, and have to pass a psychological evaluation and an IQ test before you can fething vote!
Castiel wrote: I believe a recent poll showed that they were more likely to vote to stay in the Union, because they don't know as much, but know that the current system is working fine.
Well, the current 14 and 15 year olds are now going to be subjected to 2 years of propaganda and it's a lot easier to put across "SCOTLAND HUR!" than something more complex, such as the benefit of being in the union.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: I agree, heck I think that should be mandatory for citizenship. You take a test at 21 to see if you can become a full citizen.
mattyrm wrote: I noticed a typo as well, I meant raised to 21.
Maybe I'm just stupider and more rash than most.. but I think I my mouth was always a gallop before my brain was in the saddle until I was well into my twenties.
Maybe thats why I got punched so often?
Hmm.. I thought that was just Middlesbrough!
Minimum voting age should be 30, and proof made that you have a basic understanding of economics...
mattyrm wrote: I noticed a typo as well, I meant raised to 21.
Maybe I'm just stupider and more rash than most.. but I think I my mouth was always a gallop before my brain was in the saddle until I was well into my twenties.
Maybe thats why I got punched so often?
Hmm.. I thought that was just Middlesbrough!
Minimum voting age should be 30, and proof made that you have a basic understanding of economics...
Every Scotsman just needs to pull out his Bagpipes and march on London. A hundred thousand bagpipers in the streets, and behold, the Scottish annexation of the southlands is complete.
I believe that's what happened in 1707 and started all this trouble in the first place.
How many 16-17 year old's do you realistically expect to vote?
Actually quite a lot. In Scotland we have a much higher membership of junior political parties than the rest of the UK.
And I don't like how they took out the "No to independence but yes to more political powers" option.
This x1k, when the consultation was out this was one of the many options I suggested as its obvious us Scots aren't very happy with our current situation.
But to what degree, that is what we Really need to find out.
when leaving the Union will have absolutely no benefits for the country.
Then from this comment I take it one hasn't read the GERS report, no not the one about the football club but, the Governments Economic Spending Review Scotland. Some very interesting reading to be had believe you me.
I'm not going to deny I'm a nationalist and an SNP member. For years I've voted and added my voice to the independence movement as much as I can and I'm delighted that this is all finalised. My nationalism isn't born from some petty hatred of our English neighbours. I have had many great times with and met many lovely people from south of our border and I'm proud to call some of them my friends. None of that for me is going to change when independence does come.
For me its the problems that we have in Scotland that are effectively being ignored. The chronic health problems, the drink situation,(we've had these for decades and nothing has been done) the cocaine epidemic that's sweeping our country, the utter lack of investment in Scottish infra-structure over the last 30 years, the slow privatisation of our NHS, the inherent corruption within our police, the dumbing down of our children and our education system, the scandalous PFI agreements, the systematic withdrawal of almost all military bases and personnel from Scotland over the last 10 years( if you want to know more about that I recommend the MOD review on what Scottish independence means for the UK Military).
For too many years I have watched Scotland get stripped apart little bits at a time. No More. Its now Scotland's time to take responsibility for her own failings. We have no-one but ourselves to blame for the current S T state Scotland is in and I can only hope that when the time does come we stand up and believe in ourselves and as cheesy as it may sound, be a nation again.
=/ Teenagers may not know much, but see what they're feeling are after another two years under Tory rule in a recession.
...I foresee the "Thatcher" card being pulled a few times in the coming years.
* Also, why is it that with every independence related article there's plenty of derogatory comments thrown about, and yet no one seems to care? I'm sure the Irish dislike being called Paddies, and I'll tell you that I'd be none to happy about a foreigner calling me a Jock in a similar manner. =P
Teenagers are fething idiots. I'm irritated enough that 18 year olds can vote (it should be 21 imo), if my country's future was decided by the opinions of children...I'd be pretty pissed, regardless of the outcome.
^^' Yeah, but I'm sure its just another way of the SNP squeezing out some more votes.
I do agree with the Ex pats thing though. To my recollection you're now only allowed to vote if you return to the country and live there for two years.
Also, how will soldiers vote? Are they even allowed to?
...Gary Tank Commander. There, that's the way we'll politicise Scottish independence .
Testify wrote: Teenagers are fething idiots. I'm irritated enough that 18 year olds can vote (it should be 21 imo), if my country's future was decided by the opinions of children...I'd be pretty pissed, regardless of the outcome.
A vote is a vote. I don't see what the problem is. Adults are just as mindlessly biased and temperamental in their decisions as teenagers. You sound like a serious dip-stick.
Testify wrote: Teenagers are fething idiots. I'm irritated enough that 18 year olds can vote (it should be 21 imo), if my country's future was decided by the opinions of children...I'd be pretty pissed, regardless of the outcome.
A vote is a vote. I don't see what the problem is. Adults are just as mindlessly biased and temperamental in their decisions as teenagers. You sound like a serious ass.
16 year olds are idiots. If you don't see the difference between the actions of a 30 year old and a 16 year old then you know some very odd people.
Testify wrote: Teenagers are fething idiots. I'm irritated enough that 18 year olds can vote (it should be 21 imo), if my country's future was decided by the opinions of children...I'd be pretty pissed, regardless of the outcome.
A vote is a vote. I don't see what the problem is. Adults are just as mindlessly biased and temperamental in their decisions as teenagers. You sound like a serious ass.
16 year olds are idiots. If you don't see the difference between the actions of a 30 year old and a 16 year old then you know some very odd people.
Er, I thought you were talking about 18 year olds. I didn't read into it enough. Sorry.
For an issue this serious, I don't think 16-17s should have a legitimate say in the matter, as they aren't full citizens, and most likely don't pay taxes. I'm sure there at least a couple of them that have an educated opinion, but they're probably outnumbered by people who have a biased, emotionally skewed position.
16 year olds are pretty dumb though. They basically believe what ever their parents tell them OR exactly the opposite. Trying to educate them on topical issues is like explaining to a child which power ranger is the best. They won't listen, and they'll have the same opinion that they started with
¬¬ So kids are stupid? So are adults. Why not base it off of IQ levels then? No, that's discriminating. Experiences? How many people walk into their polling offices and just tick the same box year after year without listening to any of the parties waffle? Its going to effect their immediate futures more than toddlers, so no use in complaining that the vote's going to cover a later demographic.
Oh, and kids in the Uk are citizens. Sure they don't have full rights, but I know a fair few people who've been living on their own since they turned 16. If you can hold a job then why can't you vote?
Wyrmalla wrote: ¬¬ So kids are stupid? So are adults. Why not base it off of IQ levels then? No, that's discriminating. Experiences? How many people walk into their polling offices and just tick the same box year after year without listening to any of the parties waffle? Its going to effect their immediate futures more than toddlers, so no use in complaining that the vote's going to cover a later demographic.
The young tend to be weak minded, far more so than adults. They're far easier to manipulate by parties.
XD Shall we look at the number of people who voted for the Tory party in England? How many of those voted for them purely because of the nationalist guff they were spewing was better than than the economy centric arguments of the other parties? How many people in Scotland voted SNP because of the same thing? If so many people in a country weren't so single minded then you wouldn't have the parties we have right now in power probably. People are stupid at all ages, not just kids. Have a look at your average college class, that covers from the ages 18 upwards typically, and tell me people aren't so. =p
There are enough idiots over the age of 16 who are allowed to vote that simply immaturity won't make any meaningful difference. There are plenty of knuckledraggers out there well over the age of 18.
Sorry, am I not allowed an opinion then? Your now belittling me because I'm as "weak minded" as a 16 year old? I'm holding the same opinion as the 40 something year old members of the Scottish Nationalist Party, are you to say they're so weak minded to allow kids to vote too? =P
I may not agree with the Independence question, but I'll see it as a kick in the teeth if it isn't passed really. =/
Palindrome wrote: There are enough idiots over the age of 16 who are allowed to vote that simply immaturity won't make any meaningful difference. There are plenty of knuckledraggers out there well over the age of 18.
Yeah but you can't seriously be telling me that the opinion of a child (a 16 year old) should be valid in a national referendum?
If you're not going to let the younger demographics vote because they're easily led and tend to be swayed by bs arguments and a lot of pomp why do you let soldiers vote? It's not like running patrols in Afghanistan makes a politically aware voter. It does however make one that is easily swayed by nationalist and pro defense parties arguments.
That said, our age is 18 in murrica, and that sounds a bit more legit than 16. Psychological and experiential development doesn't have a milestone year date, and you can have some pretty inexperienced and dumb adults and brilliant kids, but you've gotta place that cutoff somewhere. 16 seems too young to me. I've rarely met a 16 year old that I felt had a strong enough grasp on the sociological aspects of modern life to cast an informed vote, let alone foreign policy or economic knowledge.
As another 19 year old I'm taking issue with this statement. You are right, I am 19. I am a student at Edinburgh University, have held down several jobs over the last couple of years when needed, and am well enough educated to be able to vote with a reasoning and rational thought. Why should I not be allowed to vote? I'm probably better qualified to vote than many so-called adults, and calling me weak-willed just because I am younger is simply offensive.
Huh, think that's bad? Try effectively being called weak-minded by some pompous, self-important teenager for voting Tory. As if the only reason for voting Conservative was because you're some nationalist mouth-breather. Where have you people been since 1997? Oh, that's right, you were in primary school for most of it.
Albatross wrote: Huh, think that's bad? Try effectively being called weak-minded by some pompous, self-important teenager for voting Tory. As if the only reason for voting Conservative was because you're some nationalist mouth-breather. Where have you people been since 1997? Oh, that's right, you were in primary school for most of it.
Albatross wrote: Huh, think that's bad? Try effectively being called weak-minded by some pompous, self-important teenager for voting Tory. As if the only reason for voting Conservative was because you're some nationalist mouth-breather. Where have you people been since 1997? Oh, that's right, you were in primary school for most of it.
I don't recall saying that. Oh wait, I didn't!
You'll know when I'm addressing you, should I ever need to. I'll make it clear.
XD I didn't say that people didn't make an informed choice when they voted for the Tory party, or the SNP, I said that a lot of the people that did vote did it more for their need to have a party that was spewing a nationalist rhetoric than anything else. Just because someone didn't live through an event doesn't mean they're unable to take something from it. =/ Its the internet, it would seem everyone presumes that anyone who isn't agreeing with them's a moron.
Wyrmalla wrote: XD I didn't say that people didn't make an informed choice when they voted for the Tory party, or the SNP, I said that a lot of the people that did vote did it more for their need to have a party that was spewing a nationalist rhetoric than anything else. Just because someone didn't live through an event doesn't mean they're unable to take something from it.
Clearly, one of the things you 'didn't live through' was the General Election, as the Tory party was fairly light on nationalist rhetoric, certainly no stronger than their opponents. The central theme of the GE was the economy:
Labour: 'Yes, we made mistakes but we're learning from them, and the economy will fix itself as long as we just maintain the status quo.'
Conservative: 'Labour wrecked the economy. The End.'
Lib Dem: 'Don't vote for them, vote for us. We're nice. We hate the fat-cats too. Of course Vince Cable didn't work for Shell before becoming an MP! Where on earth did you hear that?!'
=/ Its the internet, it would seem everyone presumes that anyone who isn't agreeing with them's a moron.
As another 19 year old I'm taking issue with this statement. You are right, I am 19. I am a student at Edinburgh University, have held down several jobs over the last couple of years when needed, and am well enough educated to be able to vote with a reasoning and rational thought. Why should I not be allowed to vote? I'm probably better qualified to vote than many so-called adults, and calling me weak-willed just because I am younger is simply offensive.
In a few years time you'll find that your capacity to understand and deal with the world around you is much improved. That's all I'm saying.
As another 19 year old I'm taking issue with this statement. You are right, I am 19. I am a student at Edinburgh University, have held down several jobs over the last couple of years when needed, and am well enough educated to be able to vote with a reasoning and rational thought. Why should I not be allowed to vote? I'm probably better qualified to vote than many so-called adults, and calling me weak-willed just because I am younger is simply offensive.
In a few years time you'll find that your capacity to understand and deal with the world around you is much improved. That's all I'm saying.
I think most 19 year olds are fething idiots. Most 40 year olds too. The level of learned contribution in a democratic system doesn't have as much to do with age as you pretend.
As long as they're all Salmond Youth by 2014 I'm not exactly caring. ...Heh.
=P And its 16+, not 15. I'm not saying sixteen year olds are as mature as eighteen or twenty one year olds, but still, if the government thinks they are, what's the point in arguing if they're going to be on the same side of the fence as you.
Grey Templar wrote: I agree, heck I think that should be mandatory for citizenship. You take a test at 21 to see if you can become a full citizen.
What if you serve in the Mobile Infantry? Does that count towards full citizenship?
On a more serious note, where does Scotland currently make its' money? From what I understand through various documentaries (ironically one was about Scottish Nationalism and the drives for independence), is that it relies almost exclusively on the Whisky and Tourism industries for the bulk of their income. If this really is the case, how can a country truly remain viably independent with such narrow "exports". If we assume that Scotland does become completely independent, what happens to the global Scotch market? I personally think that it'd basically kill it, since the prices would almost necessarily have to come up through taxes and other tariffs.
Wait, the price for Scottish independence is an increased price in whisky and scotch! To arms! To Arms! The low price of whiskey is something I would fight to protect!
Ratbarf wrote: Wait, the price for Scottish independence is an increased price in whisky and scotch! To arms! To Arms! The low price of whiskey is something I would fight to protect!
Presumably if they were pegged to the undervalued pound, export costs would remain the same. I have no idea what would happen if they joined the Euro.
Ratbarf wrote: Wait, the price for Scottish independence is an increased price in whisky and scotch! To arms! To Arms! The low price of whiskey is something I would fight to protect!
Presumably if they were pegged to the undervalued pound, export costs would remain the same. I have no idea what would happen if they joined the Euro.
Well, with the costs incurred by having the free healthcare and school that others here have talked about, the only way to offset some of those is to get more money from your chief set of goods. So I would hazard the guess that it'd be export tariffs, and other associated costs to producing and selling whisky. I'd also imagine that since (apparently) the other main moneymaker for Scotland is its tourism, the costs of hotel rooms and restaurants would go up, presumably through taxes again. I mean, I am no economist, and so I am speculating and guessing at what could or would happen, should those who want an independent state get their wish.
Could the US go ahead an make Scotland the 51st state, in lieu of complete independence? It'd sure keep some of the all important whisky costs down I'm sure that Americans can get used to the Scottish national sport (i am referring to the completely awesome game of rugby here), and actually televise some games at decent times .
Ratbarf wrote: Wait, the price for Scottish independence is an increased price in whisky and scotch! To arms! To Arms! The low price of whiskey is something I would fight to protect!
Presumably if they were pegged to the undervalued pound, export costs would remain the same. I have no idea what would happen if they joined the Euro.
Well, with the costs incurred by having the free healthcare and school that others here have talked about, the only way to offset some of those is to get more money from your chief set of goods. So I would hazard the guess that it'd be export tariffs, and other associated costs to producing and selling whisky. I'd also imagine that since (apparently) the other main moneymaker for Scotland is its tourism, the costs of hotel rooms and restaurants would go up, presumably through taxes again. I mean, I am no economist, and so I am speculating and guessing at what could or would happen, should those who want an independent state get their wish.
Scotland is a free market economy. The SNP may be left-wing but I doubt they'd slap a huge import tariff on exports, if only because Scotland has a large export sector.
Scottish GDP per capita is on a par with the Netherlands. They can easily afford their welfare state, including free universities.
Grey Templar wrote: I agree, heck I think that should be mandatory for citizenship. You take a test at 21 to see if you can become a full citizen.
What if you serve in the Mobile Infantry? Does that count towards full citizenship?
On a more serious note, where does Scotland currently make its' money? From what I understand through various documentaries (ironically one was about Scottish Nationalism and the drives for independence), is that it relies almost exclusively on the Whisky and Tourism industries for the bulk of their income. If this really is the case, how can a country truly remain viably independent with such narrow "exports". If we assume that Scotland does become completely independent, what happens to the global Scotch market? I personally think that it'd basically kill it, since the prices would almost necessarily have to come up through taxes and other tariffs.
Well frankly I don't think people under the age of 21 should be in the army. So that would solve the problem.
I think one exception would be in the event of a draft being needed, then the age could be dropped lower. With any underage people getting drafted gaining full citizenship rights as if they were of proper age. So a person couldn't vote, drink, or smoke unless 18(or preferably 21), but if you got drafted you would immediatly be treated as a legal adult. So you would either have to prove you had been drafted or were over 18/21 to do the above things.
The deal between Cameron and Salmond today was a blow for those who want to preserve the Union. Its difficult to take a look between the lines are the wording isn't described in most newspapers.
The full text of the front page of the Edinburgh Agreement that sets in motion plans to hold a referendum in 2014
Alex Salmond and David Cameron sign the referendum agreement in St Andrew's House, Edinburgh. Photograph: Pool/REUTERS
Agreement between the United Kingdom government and the Scottish government on a referendum on independence for Scotland.
The United Kingdom government and the Scottish government have agreed to work together to ensure that a referendum on Scottish independence can take place.
The governments have agreed that the referendum should:
• Have a clear legal base.
• Be legislated for by the Scottish parliament.
• Be conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, government and people.
•Deliver a fair test and decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect.
The governments have agreed to promote an order in council under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 in the United Kingdom and Scottish parliaments to allow a single question referendum on Scottish independence to be held before the end of 2014. The order will put beyond doubt that the Scottish parliament can legislate for the referendum.
It will then be for the Scottish government to promote legislation in the Scottish parliament for a referendum on independence. The governments are agreed that the referendum should meet the highest standards of fairness, transparency and propriety, informed by consultation and independent expert advice. The referendum legislation will set out:
• The date of the referendum.
• The franchise.
• The wording of the question.
• The rules on campaign financing.
• Other rules for the conduct of the referendum.
The details of the agreement between the governments are set out in the following memorandum and draft order, which forms part of this agreement.
Signed:
The Rt Hon David Cameron MP, prime minister
The Rt Hon Alex Salmond MSP, first minister of Scotland
The Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, secretary of state for Scotland
Nicola Sturgeon MSP, deputy first minister of Scotland
Edinburgh, 15 October 2012
Salmond chooses everything except the 'single question' vs devo max option.
All decisions are passed through the Scottish parliament which has an SNP majority. So that Nats choose:
• The date of the referendum. - So like old general elections Salmond might give himself the power to call it with a months notice, allowing strategic timing to be taken on short notice and to allow campaigns to culminate at their tempo.
• The franchise. - What does that mean? Anything Salmond wants it to.
.
• The wording of the question. - So it can be loaded. With yes no questions the yes always seems more positive and has an advantage.
• The rules on campaign financing. - thats easy Scotland only and policed by the Scottish parliament. So they can turn a blind eye to some funding and not others and block UK funding for the No campaign. They have already tried that, so giving Salmond exclusive policing is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
• Other rules for the conduct of the referendum. - A jerrymanders charter here. it also means Salmond gets 100% his own way over the Orkneys who claimed the right to secede from Scotland if they choose no and Scotland chooses yes. Salmond wants to deny them that right and now has the mandate to do so.
This gives Salmond all he needs to give this election more rigging than a six mast tea clipper.
On a more serious note, where does Scotland currently make its' money? From what I understand through various documentaries (ironically one was about Scottish Nationalism and the drives for independence), is that it relies almost exclusively on the Whisky and Tourism industries for the bulk of their income. If this really is the case, how can a country truly remain viably independent with such narrow "exports". If we assume that Scotland does become completely independent, what happens to the global Scotch market? I personally think that it'd basically kill it, since the prices would almost necessarily have to come up through taxes and other tariffs.
kryczek wrote: For me its the problems that we have in Scotland that are effectively being ignored. The chronic health problems, the drink situation,(we've had these for decades and nothing has been done) the cocaine epidemic that's sweeping our country, the utter lack of investment in Scottish infra-structure over the last 30 years, the slow privatisation of our NHS, the inherent corruption within our police, the dumbing down of our children and our education system, the scandalous PFI agreements, the systematic withdrawal of almost all military bases and personnel from Scotland over the last 10 years( if you want to know more about that I recommend the MOD review on what Scottish independence means for the UK Military).
Replace "Scotland" with "the rest of the UK" and you will have a pretty accurate indication of what successive governments have done to our country. It is not like Scotland has been singled out here...
Interestingly, the 800,000 Scottish people living in England are denied a vote, since qualification is based on residence in Scotland. That will anger my Scottish colleague.
As another 19 year old I'm taking issue with this statement. You are right, I am 19. I am a student at Edinburgh University, have held down several jobs over the last couple of years when needed, and am well enough educated to be able to vote with a reasoning and rational thought. Why should I not be allowed to vote? I'm probably better qualified to vote than many so-called adults, and calling me weak-willed just because I am younger is simply offensive.
In a few years time you'll find that your capacity to understand and deal with the world around you is much improved. That's all I'm saying.
Maybe, but this is still a decision that is going to have a big impact on those of my age, affecting job prospects etc. I think it is only right and fair that I should be given a say. I too am sceptical about allowing 16 year olds to vote, but I see no reason why those over 18 shouldn't.
As another 19 year old I'm taking issue with this statement. You are right, I am 19. I am a student at Edinburgh University, have held down several jobs over the last couple of years when needed, and am well enough educated to be able to vote with a reasoning and rational thought. Why should I not be allowed to vote? I'm probably better qualified to vote than many so-called adults, and calling me weak-willed just because I am younger is simply offensive.
In a few years time you'll find that your capacity to understand and deal with the world around you is much improved. That's all I'm saying.
Completely agree, but equally your capacity to understand is much improved between the ages of 16 and 18. It's all a matter of where you draw the line, and surely that should be the age at which the majority of people who would vote start taking an interest in politics, accumulating the information that they need to make an informed decision on how to vote.
Rampage wrote: Completely agree, but equally your capacity to understand is much improved between the ages of 16 and 18. It's all a matter of where you draw the line, and surely that should be the age at which the majority of people who would vote start taking an interest in politics, accumulating the information that they need to make an informed decision on how to vote.
I'd say that 18 is probably the lower limit. At 18 you would have had at least some exposure to the wider world. At 20 or 21 virtually everyone would have been to work, maybe lived away from home, and generally taken part in society beyond going to school.
Rampage wrote: Completely agree, but equally your capacity to understand is much improved between the ages of 16 and 18. It's all a matter of where you draw the line, and surely that should be the age at which the majority of people who would vote start taking an interest in politics, accumulating the information that they need to make an informed decision on how to vote.
I'd say that 18 is probably the lower limit. At 18 you would have had at least some exposure to the wider world. At 20 or 21 virtually everyone would have been to work, maybe lived away from home, and generally taken part in society beyond going to school.
I agree, I don't think that 16 and 17 year olds are old enough to quote, I was merely stating that 18 year olds generally have enough of an understanding of the world and politics and the world in general while most 16 year olds do not.
mattyrm wrote: You can call yourself Scotty McHaggis, sword dance, sit on a bucket, wear a kilt seven days a week and never eat vegetables, and be first and foremost Scottish without needing to not be British as well, so why bother?
How has no one put you on TV or at least given you a newspaper column yet?
mattyrm wrote: You can call yourself Scotty McHaggis, sword dance, sit on a bucket, wear a kilt seven days a week and never eat vegetables, and be first and foremost Scottish without needing to not be British as well, so why bother?
How has no one put you on TV or at least given you a newspaper column yet?
The TV show would have to be so heavily censored it wouldn't be worth making
Gotta admit though, I'd watch it, and I fething hate TV
mattyrm wrote: You can call yourself Scotty McHaggis, sword dance, sit on a bucket, wear a kilt seven days a week and never eat vegetables, and be first and foremost Scottish without needing to not be British as well, so why bother?
How has no one put you on TV or at least given you a newspaper column yet?
I'd subscribe to the newspaper or set up so I could watch the show and I'm well and aways across the pond.
mattyrm wrote: Considering that the tories benefit from an independent Scotland, why would he not grant Salmon all he asks?
If England was voted for by the English, then I would not have to put up with Clegg. England is pretty blue except for scouser and the north east.
So, I win either way, I have a historical soft spot for us staying the UK, but as a Tory, I win if they leave as well.
And the look on all the geordie and scouse faces..... Oh feth it, I hope they leave.. Can we kick Wales out as well?
If Scotland leaves the specific United kingdom that holds permenant seat on the UN security council will not exist and the seat may be removed. This is more likely if Obama is still in the White House. Romney will likely block it to prevent the US being outnumbered in the security council, and allow a transition as China and the US did ensuring that Russia inherited the Soviet seat. France will want us downgraded to secure their primacy in Europe. Which is fething odd as they are hardly WW2 victors. India is most likely to replace us, which China will propose and France will back out of self interest. When earlier this year Cameron mentioned problem to Salmond quietly, Salmond replied openly on this issue via the press. This indicates that first this threat is a real one and second Salmond thinks such a disaster would actually be a political bonus to him purely bacause it will harm the UK.
Most of the real problems we will face in the following ten years will be directly ancillary to this.
This will put into question our nuclear role, which Salmond also wants removed from Scotland. Some MSP's have openly talked about doing this in a way that forces"England" to give up its nukes.
Scotland will also ensure we get a bad price for the oil may may nationalised the corporations with minimal compensation.
As is already happening in western Scotland, English residents will have the heat turned up to get them to leave by a rise of nationalism. Some English are already being forced out of certain areas.
If Scotland leaves Wales will get very restless even though it cannot economically survive as an independent state, the Troubles in northern Ireland will likely stir again. Both the current Welsgh assembly and Northern Irish assembly have cautioned against scottish independence for this reason. terorist campaigns in wales are not unfeasible.
With our removal from the security council Spain will invade Gibraltar and Argentina will invade the Falklands backed up by China and Latin America.
China will complete Obamas move to feth up the rest of our oil possessions and replace any remaining business influence in Africa and Asia.
With a reduced standing London will no longer hold off New Yorks challenge for financial primacy causing the steady drop in city income, a very large portion of our surviving economy.
The improverished rump nation of England might have a thoroughly Tory chav generation but the now economically backward and still thoroughly self centered and dogmatised middle classes will all vote Labour and ever rather bring back their old hero Tony Blair than suffer a Tory government that 'caused ' the reduction of their own wallets.
While Salmond cannot claim an anti monarchist agenda at this time for political reasons many in thSNP are vocal republicans, some very venomously so. an independent Scotland wil remove the Monarchy on the death of Her Majesty and some believe wont even wait that long. Even Australia will wait until the current monarch dies out of respect for her, the Nats don't give a feth however.
The Uk is in deep trouble, the safe path through is not easy it involves holding some key issues. I would not put it past some Tories giving away Scotland by letting Salmond get his way and give him the opportunity to jerrymander the election, which he has the level of immorality and motivation to do. it might give the Tories and extra term with no Scottish labour PM's to contend with, so its all worth it isn't it.
I don't see the UK losing it's security council seat. Obama might not be the UK's biggest fan, but he's going to want to keep allies and culturally similar powers on the security council. I think the French would be the same.
Though with all the Eurosceptic xenophobic rhetoric floating around england, maybe they'd be fed up enough to change their minds
It'll be interesting, whatever happens. I think the Troubles are stirring again anyway, RIRA members have been caught spying on the Garda Special Branch members, huge numbers of pipe bombs have been planted in dublin since the Queen's visit, and the RIRA are engaged in a full on gang war for control of the republic's drug trade. That's not even mentioning the continued attacks on british soldiers in the north, trouble at orange order parades getting worse year on year and the rise of Sinn Féin on both sides of the border.
I think it'll even out, because I reckon this can all be explained by pissed off people in a tough economic situation becoming militant, but yeah. The devolution or independence of scotland will probably have knock on effects beyond what anyone expects.
Frankly, I think being on the security council is the only thing keeping the UK relevant on the world stage. Their role as a financial capital is getting eroded year by year and they havn't been a major military power for the better half of a century.
On the plus side, direct order Forge World products will become cheaper as the Pound weakens
As is already happening in western Scotland, English residents will have the heat turned up to get them to leave by a rise of nationalism. Some English are already being forced out of certain areas.
Sorry, what?
Would you care to back up this statement with anything?
Da Boss wrote: I don't see the UK losing it's security council seat. Obama might not be the UK's biggest fan, but he's going to want to keep allies and culturally similar powers on the security council. I think the French would be the same.
its by far my single largest concern. Its not one floated openly. but Salmond bless him decided to do so when it was discussed.
If Salmond and Cameron are publically known to have discussed this threat I cannot dismiss it as that unlikely an eventuality. If Romney gets in it wont happen, with Obama I am not so sure. He will get the opportunity to stick the knife in deep, and allowing for what her thinks of the UK I wouldn't be surprised if he does that.
The Uk is facing three electoral disasters, we will come out of it ok if any one of the three goes wrong. We can if any two. If all three go wrong......
Salmond winning an independence referendum vote in 2014.
Obama winning a second term in 2012.
Blair making a Labour Party conferences comeback in 2013 for the 2015 election.
Grey Templar wrote: Frankly, I think being on the security council is the only thing keeping the UK relevant on the world stage.
Really?
Their role as a financial capital is getting eroded year by year
London is one of the three major financial centres for the global economy (along with New York City and Tokyo) and it has the sixth largest city economy in the world, after Tokyo, New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago and Paris. It is not exactly irrelevant.
and they havn't been a major military power for the better half of a century.
Given that our forces are currently all over the world fighting in many different theatres, second only to the US in terms of boots and material on foreign soil, I'd say that we are a pretty major military power, with a great deal of current experience in front line combat, peace keeping, etc.
Da Boss wrote: I don't see the UK losing it's security council seat. Obama might not be the UK's biggest fan, but he's going to want to keep allies and culturally similar powers on the security council. I think the French would be the same.
Though with all the Eurosceptic xenophobic rhetoric floating around england, maybe they'd be fed up enough to change their minds
It'll be interesting, whatever happens. I think the Troubles are stirring again anyway, RIRA members have been caught spying on the Garda Special Branch members, huge numbers of pipe bombs have been planted in dublin since the Queen's visit, and the RIRA are engaged in a full on gang war for control of the republic's drug trade. That's not even mentioning the continued attacks on british soldiers in the north, trouble at orange order parades getting worse year on year and the rise of Sinn Féin on both sides of the border.
I think it'll even out, because I reckon this can all be explained by pissed off people in a tough economic situation becoming militant, but yeah. The devolution or independence of scotland will probably have knock on effects beyond what anyone expects.
Attacks on the Orange Order aren't anything new. It seems worse because they (the Orangemen) keep getting bolder and more aggressive. (Not ness. violent aggressive) Hell they even applied for a permit to march through Dublin this summer.
As is already happening in western Scotland, English residents will have the heat turned up to get them to leave by a rise of nationalism. Some English are already being forced out of certain areas.
Sorry, what?
Would you care to back up this statement with anything?
Grey Templar wrote: Frankly, I think being on the security council is the only thing keeping the UK relevant on the world stage. Their role as a financial capital is getting eroded year by year and they haven't been a major military power for the better half of a century.
On the plus side, direct order Forge World products will become cheaper as the Pound weakens
Britain hasnt been a major power for 50 years, and never will be again.. but so what? Why should that bother anyone? And how does one affect the other?
When I was in CA in 2009, I used to get $500 out of the ATM and it cost me £230. Now it costs me £320, was Britain a major military power in 2009 and the currency has devalued because now in 2012 we are puny and don't matter on the world stage?
Also, who gives a gak anyway? Some (Republicans) Americans think everyone else in the world has a hard on to have big tanks, when lets be honest, it has feth all to do with anything. The best ten places to live in the world are little countries like Norway and Denmark. Does having the biggest military really matter to a starving mother in the bronx who can't feed her fething kids?
Nationalism and Patriotism has always been ridiculous because you live your life out utterly unaffected by these things, you have a nice family or a gak family, you have a good job or a gak job, what has that got to do with being a citizen of a nation that has the most fighter planes?
Ill put it in laymans terms, If I live in somewhere famously less hard working... say Belgium, and I earn $250,000 a year and live with a beauty queen, my life will be way better than an American who works 50 hours a week for $35,000 a year and has an obese missus with a cleft pallete...
Do you really think "being a big player" actually matters to you as an individual?
Grey Templar wrote: Frankly, I think being on the security council is the only thing keeping the UK relevant on the world stage.
Really?
Their role as a financial capital is getting eroded year by year
London is one of the three major financial centres for the global economy (along with New York City and Tokyo) and it has the sixth largest city economy in the world, after Tokyo, New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago and Paris. It is not exactly irrelevant.
and they havn't been a major military power for the better half of a century.
Given that our forces are currently all over the world fighting in many different theatres, second only to the US in terms of boots and material on foreign soil, I'd say that we are a pretty major military power, with a great deal of current experience in front line combat, peace keeping, etc.
All these things are connected, and can unravel with the wrong pressure point being applied.
Take Libor for example, that was nothing new. Schenanigans like that are commonplace and overlooked, its how the woprld market works. You think capitaslism is honest? Nio libor because a scandal because it allowed New York to hit London, which has far more relaxed trading restrictions.
One pound in seven in the Uk pensions market is linked to BP. Which is being unilaterally and unlimited blame for the Macondo oil spill. The US had even ring fenced US investors in BP and sought compensation from them. Stocked the courts with his own appointed followers who promptly limited liability of other companies involved counter to the usual allocation of blame. Thus blaming the ones with the capital and outside the country rather than those operating the oil rig.. If Texaco or another supergiant had this problem it would have been handled very differently.
This will start to blow up in the courts in about 2013, safely in Obamas second term and it is strongly believed that the stripping of BP is the intended result. the UK government has not ringfenced BP assets outside the US, though it should have done so.
BP has a defence it can use, Obama flagrently violated the companies rights in 2010 which would normally cause a case to be thrown our, but with Obama appinted supreme court judges ruling on this that argument will not be heard.
This could by itself collapse the UK economy, via a collapse in the pensions market. Unless BP assets outside the US are ringfenced by dictat by Whitehall and BP is nationalised. That would save the economy but lead to a direct trade dispute with the US, Its the elephant in the room noone has the balls to confront.
That of itself has nothing to do with Scotland, its just part of the growing avalanche of gak that our government and people are largely ignoring.
No, it doesn't matter to me or anyone else on a personal level. But it will matter to those in politics.
I'm sure this isn't true of all of them, but from what I have seen of british politicians is that they consider the UK to still be an important world power. Almost as if they have a tradition to uphold. Maybe a couple hundred years of being the most powerful country in the world gives you a big head.
The UK sends soldiers all over the world as if they are still a major player, but I don't believe they are. Again, this is my personal opinion and take on the situation.
Frankly, I would consider France to be a bigger player then the UK at this point. I forsee a steady decline in the UK's overall importance in the next century.
I don't think the UK has been all that important since the Cold War. The situations where they are involved are mearly the dying gasps of a world power long since fallen from power and relevance.
If Scotland leaves the specific United kingdom that holds permenant seat on the UN security council will not exist and the seat may be removed.
That's highly unlikely. There is good precedent for the transference of a seat to the dominant party in a union. Its already happened with Russia and China, with China needing to bolster its claim over Taiwan.
As is already happening in western Scotland, English residents will have the heat turned up to get them to leave by a rise of nationalism. Some English are already being forced out of certain areas.
Sorry, what?
Would you care to back up this statement with anything?
I haven't heard of this happening either...
Try Glasgow. English residents don't get voting slips and get discriminated against by local authorities. Got a dispute over council tax that needs sorting.
If you have an English accent, they wont listen. People who support the resident are told its in their interest to remain quiet. I personally know cases of this.
Its not pitchforks and flaming torches. Though something similar to that might happen in some parts of Scotland after independence.
Stories like this rarely hit the press, probably wouldn't be allowed to reach print anyway. And saying help I'm English living in Glasgow and the council are not listening wont help matter either. How do you think the authorities react to stuff like that, sorry we will get our procedure right next time, or a heavy increase in administrative errors.
I know a case still being hammered in the sherrifs court two years after he categorically proved he wowed a Scottish council no money. they would make a nasty andministrative error monerth after month and get nasty and officiaous about it. They didn't feth up anyone else housing benefit in that street, but then they were Scottish.
Yes thats 'hearsay', but I heard it say quite a lot.
Now on the other hand I have equally English family in Aberdeen, no problems at all. Not one. Its the East-West divide in Scotland that is growing embittered and vocal as this referendum looms.
Sorry it might not be what you want to hear but in certain parts of Scotland there is a xenophobic hatred of the English and it extends deep into local government and can make peoples lives unlivable though heavily repetetive 'errors' like lost forms and misread procedures backed up with court orders or enforcement.
I am aware that their is an irrational hate of the English by the Scottish, but it works the other way too.
I find it hard to believe that an educated individual would behave in such a way, normally it's just wee neds that act like that.
You are probably right, although I doubt it's a rampant as you make out. Wonder if any of the dakka servicemen have had problems in the West while on leave/break?
Grey Templar wrote: Frankly, I think being on the security council is the only thing keeping the UK relevant on the world stage. Their role as a financial capital is getting eroded year by year and they haven't been a major military power for the better half of a century.
On the plus side, direct order Forge World products will become cheaper as the Pound weakens
Britain hasnt been a major power for 50 years, and never will be again.. but so what? Why should that bother anyone? And how does one affect the other?
When I was in CA in 2009, I used to get $500 out of the ATM and it cost me £230. Now it costs me £320, was Britain a major military power in 2009 and the currency has devalued because now in 2012 we are puny and don't matter on the world stage?
Also, who gives a gak anyway? Some (Republicans) Americans think everyone else in the world has a hard on to have big tanks, when lets be honest, it has feth all to do with anything. The best ten places to live in the world are little countries like Norway and Denmark. Does having the biggest military really matter to a starving mother in the bronx who can't feed her fething kids?
Nationalism and Patriotism has always been ridiculous because you live your life out utterly unaffected by these things, you have a nice family or a gak family, you have a good job or a gak job, what has that got to do with being a citizen of a nation that has the most fighter planes?
Ill put it in laymans terms, If I live in somewhere famously less hard working... say Belgium, and I earn $250,000 a year and live with a beauty queen, my life will be way better than an American who works 50 hours a week for $35,000 a year and has an obese missus with a cleft pallete...
Do you really think "being a big player" actually matters to you as an individual?
Awesome post matty... exalted...
Back on topic... wouldn't a Scotland Independence eventually "weaken" all of UK?
Particularly... what of the Pound? Is Scotland going to continue using the Pound? Euro? Their own?
From little that I know... I'd still say it'd be a mistake for this to happen... but, don't mind me... I'm just a ignorant 'murrican.
Back on topic... wouldn't a Scotland Independence eventually "weaken" all of UK?
Particularly... what of the Pound? Is Scotland going to continue using the Pound? Euro? Their own?
From little that I know... I'd still say it'd be a mistake for this to happen... but, don't mind me... I'm just a ignorant 'murrican.
As I said, I dont think it will be a big deal, there are doomsayers all over the internet as always, but really, Scotland only make up a tiny part of the UK. England will still work If Scotland goes off on its own.
I really dont see anything making that big a difference, as always, the world will keep turning.
Logic tells me that England would have more cash if Scotland went solo. There are figures going all over the place so you never know who to believe, Salmond says Scotland will have loads of cash if they go solo, the Daily Mail says Scotlands tax and oil revenue is 9 billion but they spend 30, no doubt they are full of gak too.
I would like to see someone reputable (The Economist) write an article in laymans terms with income and outgoings right there in black and white, because I suspect both sides are juking the stats to their own advantage.
But common dog, which rarely lets be down, tells me that considering most of the UK, certainly just as productive as Scotland areas such as Yorkshire for farming and brewing and such, make a loss, and the South keeps us afloat. Ergo, I can't see Scotland being super wealthy and awesome no matter what they say.
And Ill repeat, im sure stay or go, it will make feth all difference to the average Englishman.. so I don't care either way. But as a Tory, I can see the advantage if Scotland feths off.. because clearly England is more right wing, and Im im pretty right wing, so If Salmond and his mates are loony lefties, I'm starting to think id be happier if they went it solo.
Yeah I really think Orlanth is one of the doomsayers I was talking about. I honestly cant see how so little an issue could cause such a chain of events.
If Britain is suddenly England, its just Britain minus 5 million, why would that cause England to suddenly become Luxembourg?
And more importantly, what's wrong with Luxembourg? I might like it there!
Logic tells me that England would have more cash if Scotland went solo. There are figures going all over the place so you never know who to believe, Salmond says Scotland will have loads of cash if they go solo, the Daily Mail says Scotlands tax and oil revenue is 9 billion but they spend 30, no doubt they are full of gak too.
There was a programme on radio 4 a couple of months ago which said that an independent Scotland's finances would be about the same as they are now. There is no way that Scotland's economy is running at a £21 billion deficit. the Daily Fail is up to its usual poorly researched tricks.
I guess what I'm driving at is that if Scotland secedes from the the Union, what's going to stop the rest of the states from doing the same thing?
That's like if New Hampshire secede from the US. While, it won't be "damaging" per se... but what's going to stop Texas or California from going independent? They're their own country practically and THAT be quite damaging to the Union.
whembly wrote: I guess what I'm driving at is that if Scotland secedes from the the Union, what's going to stop the rest of the states from doing the same thing?
That's like if New Hampshire secede from the US. While, it won't be "damaging" per se... but what's going to stop Texas or California from going independent? They're their own country practically and THAT be quite damaging to the Union.
Its a bit more complex than that
Scotland was a distinct nation for 900 years, 3 times longer than it has been part of the UK. How long was New Hampshire its own nation?
Da Boss wrote: I don't see the UK losing it's security council seat. Obama might not be the UK's biggest fan, but he's going to want to keep allies and culturally similar powers on the security council. I think the French would be the same.
Though with all the Eurosceptic xenophobic rhetoric floating around england, maybe they'd be fed up enough to change their minds
It'll be interesting, whatever happens. I think the Troubles are stirring again anyway, RIRA members have been caught spying on the Garda Special Branch members, huge numbers of pipe bombs have been planted in dublin since the Queen's visit, and the RIRA are engaged in a full on gang war for control of the republic's drug trade. That's not even mentioning the continued attacks on british soldiers in the north, trouble at orange order parades getting worse year on year and the rise of Sinn Féin on both sides of the border.
I think it'll even out, because I reckon this can all be explained by pissed off people in a tough economic situation becoming militant, but yeah. The devolution or independence of scotland will probably have knock on effects beyond what anyone expects.
Attacks on the Orange Order aren't anything new. It seems worse because they (the Orangemen) keep getting bolder and more aggressive. (Not ness. violent aggressive) Hell they even applied for a permit to march through Dublin this summer.
Not to drag this off topic, but the Orange Order have already marched through dublin, albiet under the guise of the "love ulster" parade a few years back. There was a minor riot (the council thoughtfully left a load of cobblestones ready to be put down along the parade route, bless their hearts). However, it seems to me that the violence at the marches and the general ill feeling on both sides is escalating these last couple of years. I put it down to more bored unemployed people in the areas the marches generally happen in. Sinn Féin offices have been firebombed in dublin, and explosive devices have been found near them. A very large viable device was found a few months ago on an island in the Phoenix Park. I guess the only comforting thing to draw from all of this is that the RIRA don't seem to be that competent.
If it was down to me, I'd ban the whole bloody thing. We'd always get Northerners down our way in the summer, just wanting to get away from all that madness.
Orlanth wrote: Try Glasgow. English residents don't get voting slips and get discriminated against by local authorities. Got a dispute over council tax that needs sorting.
If you have an English accent, they wont listen. People who support the resident are told its in their interest to remain quiet. I personally know cases of this.
Its not pitchforks and flaming torches. Though something similar to that might happen in some parts of Scotland after independence.
Stories like this rarely hit the press, probably wouldn't be allowed to reach print anyway. And saying help I'm English living in Glasgow and the council are not listening wont help matter either. How do you think the authorities react to stuff like that, sorry we will get our procedure right next time, or a heavy increase in administrative errors.
I know a case still being hammered in the sherrifs court two years after he categorically proved he wowed a Scottish council no money. they would make a nasty andministrative error monerth after month and get nasty and officiaous about it. They didn't feth up anyone else housing benefit in that street, but then they were Scottish.
Yes thats 'hearsay', but I heard it say quite a lot.
Now on the other hand I have equally English family in Aberdeen, no problems at all. Not one. Its the East-West divide in Scotland that is growing embittered and vocal as this referendum looms.
Sorry it might not be what you want to hear but in certain parts of Scotland there is a xenophobic hatred of the English and it extends deep into local government and can make peoples lives unlivable though heavily repetetive 'errors' like lost forms and misread procedures backed up with court orders or enforcement.
I'm sorry, but this is crap. I live on the west coast most of the year, and I have seen no evidence of this at all. True enough, some of Scotland's people do display an irrational xenophobia to the English as a people, for stupid and nonsensical reasons. This I can believe, and have even had the odd occasion where I have been unfortunate enough to witness such idiocy. But you are seriously trying to tell me that Glasgow City Council are discriminating agaist English-speaking people?
Take your tinfoil hat and crazy conspiracy theories and keep walking, if you please!
Da Boss wrote: I don't see the UK losing it's security council seat. Obama might not be the UK's biggest fan, but he's going to want to keep allies and culturally similar powers on the security council. I think the French would be the same.
Though with all the Eurosceptic xenophobic rhetoric floating around england, maybe they'd be fed up enough to change their minds
It'll be interesting, whatever happens. I think the Troubles are stirring again anyway, RIRA members have been caught spying on the Garda Special Branch members, huge numbers of pipe bombs have been planted in dublin since the Queen's visit, and the RIRA are engaged in a full on gang war for control of the republic's drug trade. That's not even mentioning the continued attacks on british soldiers in the north, trouble at orange order parades getting worse year on year and the rise of Sinn Féin on both sides of the border.
I think it'll even out, because I reckon this can all be explained by pissed off people in a tough economic situation becoming militant, but yeah. The devolution or independence of scotland will probably have knock on effects beyond what anyone expects.
Attacks on the Orange Order aren't anything new. It seems worse because they (the Orangemen) keep getting bolder and more aggressive. (Not ness. violent aggressive) Hell they even applied for a permit to march through Dublin this summer.
Not to drag this off topic, but the Orange Order have already marched through dublin, albiet under the guise of the "love ulster" parade a few years back. There was a minor riot (the council thoughtfully left a load of cobblestones ready to be put down along the parade route, bless their hearts). However, it seems to me that the violence at the marches and the general ill feeling on both sides is escalating these last couple of years. I put it down to more bored unemployed people in the areas the marches generally happen in. Sinn Féin offices have been firebombed in dublin, and explosive devices have been found near them. A very large viable device was found a few months ago on an island in the Phoenix Park. I guess the only comforting thing to draw from all of this is that the RIRA don't seem to be that competent.
If it was down to me, I'd ban the whole bloody thing. We'd always get Northerners down our way in the summer, just wanting to get away from all that madness.
Palindrome wrote: Scotland was a distinct nation for 900 years, 3 times longer than it has been part of the UK. How long was New Hampshire its own nation?
Well, 300 years is more than enough time for something to be beyond even the longest lived person's great, great grand father's memory. Kind of like saying much of the UK as once conquered by people from Scandinavia so we should be ruled from Helsinki.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Castiel wrote: But you are seriously trying to tell me that Glasgow City Council are discriminating agaist English-speaking people?
SilverMK2 wrote: Kind of like saying much of the UK as once conquered by people from Scandinavia so we should be ruled from Helsinki.
Oslo if anything.
A long national history can't fail to breed a sense of national identity. Simply because key events are well beyond living memory really makes little difference.
whembly wrote: I guess what I'm driving at is that if Scotland secedes from the the Union, what's going to stop the rest of the states from doing the same thing?
That's like if New Hampshire secede from the US. While, it won't be "damaging" per se... but what's going to stop Texas or California from going independent? They're their own country practically and THAT be quite damaging to the Union.
Its a bit more complex than that
Scotland was a distinct nation for 900 years, 3 times longer than it has been part of the UK. How long was New Hampshire its own nation?
Natives crossed the land bridge, what? 150 thousand years ago? Scotland wasn't a distinct nation for 900 years, distinct nations (other than china, even that's contentious) haven't even been around for that long. Nationalism and border and culture driven statehood aren't native concepts to humans. For that 900 years Scotland was a series of feudal and sub feudal factions composed predominantly of agrarian farmers
Natives crossed the land bridge, what? 150 thousand years ago? Scotland wasn't a distinct nation for 900 years, distinct nations (other than china, even that's contentious) haven't even been around for that long. Nationalism and border and culture driven statehood aren't native concepts to humans. For that 900 years Scotland was a series of feudal and sub feudal factions composed predominantly of agrarian farmers
When we are talking about national mythology how much do you think that matters? When people take braveheart at face value they are not likely to be interested in the realities of feudal politics.
You are also too dismissive of the impact that a sense of nationality played in the medieval period. It was nothing like modern nationalism to be sure but it can't be dismissed out of hand.
Palindrome wrote: When we are talking about national mythology how much do you think that matters? When people take braveheart at face value they are not likely to be interested in the realities of feudal politics.
You are also too dismissive of the impact that a sense of nationality played in the medieval period. It was nothing like modern nationalism to be sure but it can't be dismissed out of hand.
I thought that 900 years of history was important in shaping nationality, but apparently a crappy Mel Gibson film is more important
Natives crossed the land bridge, what? 150 thousand years ago? Scotland wasn't a distinct nation for 900 years, distinct nations (other than china, even that's contentious) haven't even been around for that long. Nationalism and border and culture driven statehood aren't native concepts to humans. For that 900 years Scotland was a series of feudal and sub feudal factions composed predominantly of agrarian farmers
When we are talking about national mythology how much do you think that matters? When people take braveheart at face value they are not likely to be interested in the realities of feudal politics.
You are also too dismissive of the impact that a sense of nationality played in the medieval period. It was nothing like modern nationalism to be sure but it can't be dismissed out of hand.
So now the history doesn't matter, just the modern pointless nationalism associated with bad hollywood films? Cute. This really doesn't sound very "complex". The word "juvenile" seems more accurate.
Natives crossed the land bridge, what? 150 thousand years ago? Scotland wasn't a distinct nation for 900 years, distinct nations (other than china, even that's contentious) haven't even been around for that long. Nationalism and border and culture driven statehood aren't native concepts to humans. For that 900 years Scotland was a series of feudal and sub feudal factions composed predominantly of agrarian farmers
When we are talking about national mythology how much do you think that matters? When people take braveheart at face value they are not likely to be interested in the realities of feudal politics.
You are also too dismissive of the impact that a sense of nationality played in the medieval period. It was nothing like modern nationalism to be sure but it can't be dismissed out of hand.
So now the history doesn't matter, just the modern pointless nationalism associated with bad hollywood films? Cute. This really doesn't sound very "complex". The word "juvenile" seems more accurate.
Don't be daft. The Scots fought for independence for many years. They just got their butts kicked so long ago its less an issue than say the Irish. I knew a Scot here and he still resented the English thing.
Natives crossed the land bridge, what? 150 thousand years ago? Scotland wasn't a distinct nation for 900 years, distinct nations (other than china, even that's contentious) haven't even been around for that long. Nationalism and border and culture driven statehood aren't native concepts to humans. For that 900 years Scotland was a series of feudal and sub feudal factions composed predominantly of agrarian farmers
When we are talking about national mythology how much do you think that matters? When people take braveheart at face value they are not likely to be interested in the realities of feudal politics.
You are also too dismissive of the impact that a sense of nationality played in the medieval period. It was nothing like modern nationalism to be sure but it can't be dismissed out of hand.
So now the history doesn't matter, just the modern pointless nationalism associated with bad hollywood films? Cute. This really doesn't sound very "complex". The word "juvenile" seems more accurate.
Don't be daft. The Scots fought for independence for many years. They just got their butts kicked so long ago its less an issue than say the Irish. I knew a Scot here and he still resented the English thing.
I know people that resent the U.S. civil war. They're giant children. To actively work against your own interests and the interest of your countrymen to fulfil some sort of pathetic sense of long lost national identity, that once gained, will probably be battered by the inevitable collapse of their economy and social ideals is dumb.
Frazzled wrote: Don't be daft. The Scots fought for independence for many years. They just got their butts kicked so long ago its less an issue than say the Irish. I knew a Scot here and he still resented the English thing.
I think you'll find that we won! And then our King, approx 300 years after The Wars of Independence, was asked to become King of Engerland after Elizabeth the First popped her clogs leaving him as her closest heir, leading to the Union of the Crowns, wherein the two countries would remain as sovereign states, until the Acts of Union in, IIRC, 1707.
She didn't pop her clogs, she fired them like ICBMs into the Spanish Armada causing untold devastation. Exhausted by this effort, she went into her hibernation chamber until England requires her again. A figurehead was required to rule for the rest of her reign, controlled by mind impulses.
Also I still can't believe Scotland is even trying this, but ok.
So now the history doesn't matter, just the modern pointless nationalism associated with bad hollywood films? Cute. This really doesn't sound very "complex". The word "juvenile" seems more accurate.
Its the way of the world. I never said that history doesn't matter, just that the man in the street tends to get his history from popular culture. If I was to ask 100 people to draw one of William Wallace's soldiers nearly all of them would draw someone in a kilt with a blue face waving a claidhmor, this would have been the case even before Braveheart.. National identity is almost wholly derived from an idealised and mostly mythical view of history, thats the same the world over.
whembly wrote: I guess what I'm driving at is that if Scotland secedes from the the Union, what's going to stop the rest of the states from doing the same thing?
That's like if New Hampshire secede from the US. While, it won't be "damaging" per se... but what's going to stop Texas or California from going independent? They're their own country practically and THAT be quite damaging to the Union.
Its a bit more complex than that
Scotland was a distinct nation for 900 years, 3 times longer than it has been part of the UK. How long was New Hampshire its own nation?
Natives crossed the land bridge, what? 150 thousand years ago? Scotland wasn't a distinct nation for 900 years, distinct nations (other than china, even that's contentious) haven't even been around for that long.
Erm, yes they have. England was founded as a nation over 1000 years ago, man.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: No, it doesn't matter to me or anyone else on a personal level. But it will matter to those in politics.
I'm sure this isn't true of all of them, but from what I have seen of british politicians is that they consider the UK to still be an important world power. Almost as if they have a tradition to uphold. Maybe a couple hundred years of being the most powerful country in the world gives you a big head.
No, it's more that the UK is one of the wealthiest and most militarily powerful nations on earth. Stuff like that.
The UK sends soldiers all over the world as if they are still a major player, but I don't believe they are. Again, this is my personal opinion and take on the situation.
Your personal take and opinion on the matter is wrong. Whether you believe it or not doesn't really count for much. By any reasonable metric, a country as wealthy, technologically advanced and militarily capable as the United Kingdom has to be taken seriously in terms of world influence. Y'know, it feels churlish and somewhat self-aggrandising to point that out, pathetic almost. We don't tend to go in for all that gak anymore. The problem is, certain particularly ignorant Americans seem to have this moronic idea that any country not as rich or powerful as the USA basically has no influence on world affairs. Unfortunately, that's all of them, and the (again, moronic) idea that 'if you're not first, you're last' doesn't apply to global politics. Get a clue.
Frankly, I would consider France to be a bigger player then the UK at this point. I forsee a steady decline in the UK's overall importance in the next century.
That's blatantly not based on anything other than your own ignorance and prejudice.
Scotland was definitly a distinct nation prior to being conquored by the English.
They may not have had a strong monarchy or government for most of the time, but they had a distinct culture and sense of national identity. Their culture was tribal for a very long time and the king was really just a title that meant little unless there was an outside threat.
Take your tinfoil hat and crazy conspiracy theories and keep walking, if you please!
I know the person involved, I visited him in Paisley. I heard from him about it happening to others.
You yourself said you saw the anglophobia. Are you telling me that all those in local government are inherently honest and free from racial bias. Can you tell me that of the bigots you came across none of them could ever get a job in a council department. Can you think of what one might behave like if one did.
Don't be daft. The Scots fought for independence for many years. They just got their butts kicked so long ago its less an issue than say the Irish. I knew a Scot here and he still resented the English thing.
You might be interested to know there were more Scottish invasions of England than English invasions of Scotland by a considerable margin. Usually attacking when the French made war on us, which the Frenchies often did. While most never got past Northumbria some marched a long way into England and threatened major cities.
The English were usually better at it though.
I know the person involved, I visited him in Paisley. I heard from him about it happening to others.
Ah Paisley, there's your problem right there. Nothing's really went right for that city since the invention of Paisley pattern, although it is a damned fine pattern. I'd imagine the council are quite bitter as their city was killed off by a large retail outlet in Glasgow that bordered the Renfrewshire area.
It's was really nice place at one point, still has some fabulous architecture. It's a shame what it's become.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paisley
Frazzled wrote: Don't be daft. The Scots fought for independence for many years. They just got their butts kicked so long ago its less an issue than say the Irish. I knew a Scot here and he still resented the English thing.
I think you'll find that we won! And then our King, approx 300 years after The Wars of Independence, was asked to become King of Engerland after Elizabeth the First popped her clogs leaving him as her closest heir, leading to the Union of the Crowns, wherein the two countries would remain as sovereign states, until the Acts of Union in, IIRC, 1707.
Whats awesome is that I have no idea what any of that means. Vive Le Republique. Or as the ancient bard once said:
You might be interested to know there were more Scottish invasions of England than English invasions of Scotland by a considerable margin. Usually attacking when the French made war on us, which the Frenchies often did. While most never got past Northumbria some marched a long way into England and threatened major cities.
The English were usually better at it though.
Well there's your problem right there. They relied on the French....
You might be interested to know there were more Scottish invasions of England than English invasions of Scotland by a considerable margin. Usually attacking when the French made war on us, which the Frenchies often did. While most never got past Northumbria some marched a long way into England and threatened major cities.
The English were usually better at it though.
Well there's your problem right there. They relied on the French....
AustonT wrote: New York needs us a hell of a lot more than we need New York, Unlike California which has an actual economy NYC is dependent on the national economy to work.
Sort of. I mean, food doesn't stop being traded just because someone became their own nation.
The issue is more about how much New York is likely to remain a centre of finance and trade once its no longer part of that nation - would new regulations emerge that would make it less desirable than, say Chicago?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: California could easily be self sufficient, however politicians keep spending too much money.
Not really. The issue is more the combination of voter mandates capping certain tax revenues, combined with other voter led mandates requiring certain expenditures.
California is basically the classic example of why direct democracy is stupid.
That's not even a little bit true. California pays way more in federal taxes than it gets back. Bucking a 20 year pattern, in 2008 and 2009, thanks to stimulus programs, California just received more than it paid, before quickly returning to form in 2011.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote: Sorry it took so long I laughed so hard I nearly suffocated. That must be why it's so cheap to live in new York. Tell me about New Yorks ability to get natural gas and oil cheaply too. You live in a fantasy world if you think New York could become independent and thrive. It would be the New Detroit.
I think it's hilarious that you think the success of a finance and trade based economy is dependant on cheap food and gas, to be perfectly blunt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify wrote: The government of the UK also has no control over interest rates. They are determined by the independent Bank of England. I think it would be VERY unusual where Scottish fiscal policy would need to be radically different from English fiscal policy, given how similar our economies are.
Government sets the objectives for the Bank to achieve though. Although governments are loathe to touch Bank objectives (thanks to unhappy memories of the 70s) it is possible for a government to, say, shift target inflation from a band of 3% to 5% to a band of 4% to 6%, and at the same time emphasise the Bank is to give equal priority to unemployment as it does to inflation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Minimum voting age should be 30, and proof made that you have a basic understanding of economics...
A basic understanding of economics is more dangerous than complete ignorance of economics, as dakka has proven countless times.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Frankly, I think being on the security council is the only thing keeping the UK relevant on the world stage. Their role as a financial capital is getting eroded year by year and they havn't been a major military power for the better half of a century.
So you never read anything about London as an international financial centre, but figured you'd just like to make comment anyway?
Also, the UK is fourth in the world for military power. Don't confuse the US overwhelming superiority to everyone else with the idea that no-one else matters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: If Salmond and Cameron are publically known to have discussed this threat I cannot dismiss it as that unlikely an eventuality. If Romney gets in it wont happen, with Obama I am not so sure. He will get the opportunity to stick the knife in deep, and allowing for what her thinks of the UK I wouldn't be surprised if he does that.
The gakety gakpants what?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote: Britain hasnt been a major power for 50 years, and never will be again.. but so what? Why should that bother anyone? And how does one affect the other?
Of course the UK is a major power. It isn't a hyperpower, like the US is, but that doesn't mean it isn't a major player on the world stage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: The UK sends soldiers all over the world as if they are still a major player, but I don't believe they are. Again, this is my personal opinion and take on the situation.
Economically and militarily the UK is among the most powerful countries in the world. This just a basic fact of numbers.
Frankly, I would consider France to be a bigger player then the UK at this point. I forsee a steady decline in the UK's overall importance in the next century.
Based on what, exactly?
The two countries are, and have been for some time, pretty much on par. Outside of something quite remarkable this is very unlikely to change.
The situations where they are involved are mearly the dying gasps of a world power long since fallen from power and relevance.
No offense intended
I expect you'll get more bemusement than offence. I honestly just don't know what drives you to start making this vague world predictions based on vague emotions, without ever bothering to look at the basic numbers that dicate nation's world standings.
It seems a very American thing. I think we should call it Tom Clancy syndrome.
Yes, but it's outcome dicated the make up of the permanent security council, and that make up has remain unchanged.
Thing is, France being given permanent security status, despite being routed early in the war, and fielding armies taken largely from North African colonies equipped with US gear later in the war... is a strange quirk of history.
Grey Templar wrote: Scotland was definitly a distinct nation prior to being conquored by the English.
Scotland was a distinct nation, but we were not conquered by England, as I explained previously.
Frazzled wrote: Whats awesome is that I have no idea what any of that means. Vive Le Republique.
Simplified version, to save Wikipediaing:
Scotland wins the War of Independence in 1314, when Robert the Bruce defeats an English army up to 2 or 3 times the size of his own. In the 1600s one of our kings is asked to be King of England as well, although it is agreed that both countries will remain separate and distinct countries, known as the Union of the Crowns. This continues until 1707, when the Acts of Union joined Scotland and England into one big united kingdom called Great Britain.
Then what are the Scots yapping about? SOunds like the union was voluntary.
In the words of that great Pacifist William Tecumseh Sherman "You want to secede I'll burn every house, torch every field, slaughter every pig, and bend every train rail that you own."
Frazzled wrote: Then what are the Scots yapping about? SOunds like the union was voluntary.
In the words of that great Pacifist William Tecumseh Sherman "You want to secede I'll burn every house, torch every field, slaughter every pig, and bend every train rail that you own."
It was, its just that the Nationalists watched too much Braveheart as kids, and now can't hear an English accent without wanting to jump into their kilts, paint their faces blue and chase the English out of Scotland once more, while waving claymores and screaming "Freedom!".
It was, its just that the Nationalists watched too much Braveheart as kids, and now can't hear an English accent without wanting to jump into their kilts, paint their faces blue and chase the English out of Scotland once more, while waving claymores and screaming "Freedom!".
On the flip side,. that sounds like good wholesome family fun.
It was, its just that the Nationalists watched too much Braveheart as kids, and now can't hear an English accent without wanting to jump into their kilts, paint their faces blue and chase the English out of Scotland once more, while waving claymores and screaming "Freedom!".
On the flip side,. that sounds like good wholesome family fun.
Frazzled wrote: Then what are the Scots yapping about? SOunds like the union was voluntary.
In the words of that great Pacifist William Tecumseh Sherman "You want to secede I'll burn every house, torch every field, slaughter every pig, and bend every train rail that you own."
It was, its just that the Nationalists watched too much Braveheart as kids, and now can't hear an English accent without wanting to jump into their kilts, paint their faces blue and chase the English out of Scotland once more, while waving claymores and screaming "Freedom!".
Its funny I was having a (relatively!) good natured bit of banter with a Scottish bloke in a pub in Edinburgh a couple years back and he said to me "All of you lot got conquered by the Romans, but not us, we built that big wall to keep the bastards out!"
=P Scots want more power in the British government. The conservative government in England won't allow this however, and being nationalists, the Scots go for independence instead of the status quo. A simplified version perhaps, but I guess it covers the version of events being portrayed in the media right now (other than one involving all the claymores...which reminds me to look mine out, just in case).
Frazzled wrote: Then what are the Scots yapping about? SOunds like the union was voluntary.
In the words of that great Pacifist William Tecumseh Sherman "You want to secede I'll burn every house, torch every field, slaughter every pig, and bend every train rail that you own."
It was, its just that the Nationalists watched too much Braveheart as kids, and now can't hear an English accent without wanting to jump into their kilts, paint their faces blue and chase the English out of Scotland once more, while waving claymores and screaming "Freedom!".
Its funny I was having a (relatively!) good natured bit of banter with a Scottish bloke in a pub in Edinburgh a couple years back and he said to me "All of you lot got conquered by the Romans, but not us, we built that big wall to keep the bastards out!"
His history is, as I'm sure you know, a wee bit lacking. It was smarter than that, we got them to build the wall to keep us out!
Frazzled wrote: Then what are the Scots yapping about? SOunds like the union was voluntary.
."
In 1698, the Scots attempted an ambitious project to secure a trading colony on the Isthmus of Panama. Almost every Scottish landowner who had money to spare is said to have invested in the Darien scheme. Its failure bankrupted these landowners, but not the burghs, which remained cash rich. Nevertheless, the nobles' bankruptcy, along with the threat of an English invasion, played a leading role in convincing the Scots elite to back a union with England.[65][66]
It was optional, but not really. The Darien expedition ruined the country, both the government and private citizens were hit very hard, and England began turning the screws by blocking trade. It was basically a choice between destitution and a united kingdom, with Scotland as a definate subordinate.
Given how influential Scots were in the building and maintenance of the British empire I wonder how England would have managed on her own?
Palindrome wrote: It was optional, but not really. The Darien expedition ruined the country, both the government and private citizens were hit very hard, and England began turning the screws by blocking trade. It was basically a choice between destitution and a united kingdom, with Scotland as a definate subordinate.
Given how influential Scots were in the building and maintenance of the British empire I wonder how England would have managed on her own?
Palindrome wrote: It was optional, but not really. The Darien expedition ruined the country, both the government and private citizens were hit very hard, and England began turning the screws by blocking trade. It was basically a choice between destitution and a united kingdom, with Scotland as a definate subordinate.
Given how influential Scots were in the building and maintenance of the British empire I wonder how England would have managed on her own?
Wussies. They could have reinvaded England.
In fairness within 38 Years of the union there had been 2 Jacobean rebellions
Palindrome wrote: It was optional, but not really. The Darien expedition ruined the country, both the government and private citizens were hit very hard, and England began turning the screws by blocking trade. It was basically a choice between destitution and a united kingdom, with Scotland as a definate subordinate.
Given how influential Scots were in the building and maintenance of the British empire I wonder how England would have managed on her own?
Wussies. They could have reinvaded England.
In fairness within 38 Years of the union there had been 2 Jacobean rebellions
the Jacobites wanted to put James (1710) and Charlie (1745) on the throne and restore the Catholic line instead of the Protestant line that was in power. Although not Scottish rebellions they were mainly supported by Scots who were catholic, with support from Frenchmen, Irish and English support but never in good numbers, who fought the government redcoats who were drawn from all over the UK.
Both failed ultimately although Charlie's rebellion did get to within 100 miles of London before deciding to head back
Palindrome wrote: After 1746 mainland Britain was pretty stable, disputes tended to be more due to social issues than national/religious strife.
There were a couple of irish rebellions in the 18th and 19th centuries though before they eventually won home rule (after a fashion).
If only you guys had decent food none of this would have occurred.
Yorkshire pudding is the finest food on the planet, and so is Black pudding. Black pudding in Yorkshire pudding, in some crazy toad in the hole type thing, the world just isn't ready for just yet.
Given how influential Scots were in the building and maintenance of the British empire I wonder how England would have managed on her own?
At least some of you know the facts then eh?
Thanks to historical revisionism, many Scots seem to think that the English were the only ones interested in an Empire, and all the Scots stayed at home tending the fields..when in fact, so many fine Scotsmen were staunch Imperials who made a sterling effort on the part of the British establishment.
In fact, if you really think about it, so did the Irish and Welsh, so its all smiles and rainbows really.
David Cameron wrote:
We're stronger, because together we count for more in the world, with a permanent seat on the United Nations security council, real clout in Nato and Europe and unique influence with allies all over the world.
We're safer, because in an increasingly dangerous world we have the fourth-largest defence budget on the planet, superb armed forces and anti-terrorist and security capabilities that stretch across the globe and are feared by our enemies and admired by our friends.
Were richer, because inside the United Kingdom, Scotland's 5 million people are part of an economy of 60 million, the seventh-richest economy on the planet and one of the world's biggest trading powers.
Today, Scotland has a currency which takes into account the needs of the Scottish economy as well as the rest of the United Kingdom when setting interest rates and it can borrow at rates that are among the lowest in Europe.
Alex Salmond wrote:
I hope we're going to make progress today and I hope the prime minister is going to accept that this is a referendum that must be built and made in Scotland and run for the people of Scotland. There's quite a contrast emerging between the prime minister's statement this morning and the case I was making in London last night about the economic benefits of Scottish independence. I mean I was arguing about progressive policies to boost growth in the economy, to bring jobs to the people and prosperity. He's talking about being on the security council of the United Nations. No doubt that's important, but believe me that doesn't mean much to somebody with disability fearing the loss of their benefits, a young person looking for a job in Scotland. I think the prime minister better understand that Scottish politics is about a positive vision for the future. It's about people, not prestige.
Now the remainder Uk cannot be booted out if any one of the other four veto it. With Obama in the White House and his track record of leaving the Uk out to dry there are valid concerns. its not actually in the US inteersts to see us out. France would materially benefit, and its French, cant rely on anything there. Russia and China would also benefit if we we out, by weakening the western aligned position.
Now I am not saying that this WILL happen, even if Scotland seceeds, but any reasonable probability that it might should not be ignored as the result would be utterly calamitous for the UK.
Now the remainder Uk cannot be booted out if any one of the other four veto it. With Obama in the White House and his track record of leaving the Uk out to dry there are valid concerns. its not actually in the US interests to see us out. France would materially benefit, and its French, cant rely on anything there. Russia and China would also benefit if we we out, by weakening the western aligned position..
The thing is, you keep saying this, but Obama seems a sensible bloke, I don't particularly like him, but he won't be a ridiculous reactionary idiot with a childlike grudge.
Did you ever stop to think that Obama doesn't "hate" the UK (the very idea is childish) but he is doing what a smart politician would do. Namely, giving a nation that will always be a US ally a little gak, in order to make inroads elsewhere?
Makes sense really. If distancing himself from powers that are also looked upon unfavourably (the cons have obviously whined about him shunning Israel and making nice with Saudis and what not) helps him make deals, intelligence sharing, military cooperation etc with countries that might not have been forthcoming otherwise, then why the feth not?
We will always be allies, the English speaking world will literally never go to war with each other again, so surely that means we can take it? We have broad shoulders?
I don't take it personally when Obama sends back busts or talks down our relationship.. Its all good politics between two nations that will always be allied if he is making progress with Pakistan or Yemen.
Its like a mother spending much more time with the horrible fething child because she knows the good kid wont get pregnant or start taking heroin.
Thanks to historical revisionism, many Scots seem to think that the English were the only ones interested in an Empire, and all the Scots stayed at home tending the fields..when in fact, so many fine Scotsmen were staunch Imperials who made a sterling effort on the part of the British establishment.
The Scots have always been opportunists willing to do just about anything for treasure and prestige. Its no suprise that they embraced Imperialism.
Grey Templar wrote: I think he was talking about English food. Haggis is indeed amazing, and its from Scotland
Haggis is nice, I dont think its amazing though, it just tastes like mince with a bit more fat in. Its also not actually Scottish, I read on BBC news a few years back that the earliest recipe was found somewhere in England.
You have a low bar for amazing as well. gak like stuffed pizza, fancy Ice cream, Tex-mex and wet burritos are amazing.
Stodgy stuff made from blood or organs like Haggis and Black Pudding is merely good.
mattyrm wrote: The thing is, you keep saying this, but Obama seems a sensible bloke, I don't particularly like him, but he won't be a ridiculous reactionary idiot with a childlike grudge.
Did you ever stop to think that Obama doesn't "hate" the UK (the very idea is childish) but he is doing what a smart politician would do. Namely, giving a nation that will always be a US ally a little gak, in order to make inroads elsewhere?
Makes sense really. If distancing himself from powers that are also looked upon unfavourably (the cons have obviously whined about him shunning Israel and making nice with Saudis and what not) helps him make deals, intelligence sharing, military cooperation etc with countries that might not have been forthcoming otherwise, then why the feth not?
We will always be allies, the English speaking world will literally never go to war with each other again, so surely that means we can take it? We have broad shoulders?
I don't take it personally when Obama sends back busts or talks down our relationship.. Its all good politics between two nations that will always be allied if he is making progress with Pakistan or Yemen.
Its like a mother spending much more time with the horrible fething child because she knows the good kid wont get pregnant or start taking heroin.
I always just assumed he was a pretty piss-poor diplomat rather than deliberately shunning the Brits. His track record with most other countries isn't that much better, if at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Palindrome wrote: The Scots have always been opportunists willing to do just about anything for treasure and prestige. Its no suprise that they embraced Imperialism.
Apparently. I never knew they attempted to start a colony in Malaria Central.
I always just assumed he was a pretty piss-poor diplomat rather than deliberately shunning the Brits. His track record with most other countries isn't that much better, if at all.
No I don't see that, he clearly isnt a fething idiot. Its why he is cooler with the Israelis as well. Israel will ALWAYS be an American ally, so he can afford to relax a tad with those lads if it helps to have a better relationship with more volatile countries.. surely you can see the logic there?
I always just assumed he was a pretty piss-poor diplomat rather than deliberately shunning the Brits. His track record with most other countries isn't that much better, if at all.
No I don't see that, he clearly isnt a fething idiot. Its why he is cooler with the Israelis as well. Israel will ALWAYS be an American ally, so he can afford to relax a tad with those lads if it helps to have a better relationship with more volatile countries.. surely you can see the logic there?
I see what you're sayin, but I am not really seeing too many countries where he has made political progress with them, or become more friendly.
Apparently. I never knew they attempted to start a colony in Malaria Central.
They didn't know that at the time, they even brought seed corn with them. Its sounds amazing on paper if you know absolutely nothing about the climate and topography of the area, but utterly foolish with even a trace amount of knowledge, if only their 'expert' wasn't so utterly clueless.
I always just assumed he was a pretty piss-poor diplomat rather than deliberately shunning the Brits. His track record with most other countries isn't that much better, if at all.
Compared to Bush Jr. et al effort's and Romney's foot-in-mouth world tour so far, diplomatically Obama looks like the 2nd coming.
The thing is, you keep saying this, but Obama seems a sensible bloke, I don't particularly like him, but he won't be a ridiculous reactionary idiot with a childlike grudge.
Did you ever stop to think that Obama doesn't "hate" the UK (the very idea is childish) but he is doing what a smart politician would do. Namely, giving a nation that will always be a US ally a little gak, in order to make inroads elsewhere?
Makes sense really. If distancing himself from powers that are also looked upon unfavourably (the cons have obviously whined about him shunning Israel and making nice with Saudis and what not) helps him make deals, intelligence sharing, military cooperation etc with countries that might not have been forthcoming otherwise, then why the feth not?
We will always be allies, the English speaking world will literally never go to war with each other again, so surely that means we can take it? We have broad shoulders?
I don't take it personally when Obama sends back busts or talks down our relationship.. Its all good politics between two nations that will always be allied if he is making progress with Pakistan or Yemen.
Its like a mother spending much more time with the horrible fething child because she knows the good kid wont get pregnant or start taking heroin.
I wish I could share your confidence. Obama has made a lot of moves regarding us previous presidents wouldn't. His position on the Falklands is technically neutral, but highly unsympathetic.
Obama learned to have an element of contempt for the UK government because first impressions count and his first impression in power was meeting this guy:
I will leave it to your imagination what Obama thought about him. It's human nature for some impressions to stick and be transferable to successors. He warmed a little to Cameron I feel, the only way was up.
Sorry I can't trust Obama. Which is bad because frankly in most issues he has been more competent than most who took office in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, let alone a marked improvement on his simian predecessor.
Now the remainder Uk cannot be booted out if any one of the other four veto it. With Obama in the White House and his track record of leaving the Uk out to dry there are valid concerns. its not actually in the US inteersts to see us out. France would materially benefit, and its French, cant rely on anything there. Russia and China would also benefit if we we out, by weakening the western aligned position.
Explain how the French benefit from a UNSC that doesn't include the UK.
Now I am not saying that this WILL happen, even if Scotland seceeds, but any reasonable probability that it might should not be ignored as the result would be utterly calamitous for the UK.
No, it really wouldn't be. You would lose international clout. That isn't good, but using the word "calamitous" is hyperbolic.
Orlanth wrote: His position on the Falklands is technically neutral, but highly unsympathetic.
The US was "neutral" during world war 2 for a couple of years but everyone knew they were backing Britain. You could hardly say the same over the Falklands...seems a little dishartening that our "closest allies" aren't backing us up in a dispute when we are legally and ethically in the right. The other Europeans IIRC have been pretty bro-British, but thanks to our Eurosceptic elite that door is shut.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't see why the UK should be kicked off the security council if Scotland went independent.
The UK wasn't kicked off when India, Burma, Malaya, Nigeria, etc. etc. went independent.
I'd say losing part of your country thats halfway across the world is way different from losing part of your country thats only a stones throw away from the capital(relativly speaking)
mattyrm wrote: No I don't see that, he clearly isnt a fething idiot. Its why he is cooler with the Israelis as well. Israel will ALWAYS be an American ally, so he can afford to relax a tad with those lads if it helps to have a better relationship with more volatile countries.. surely you can see the logic there?
I can see the logic, sure, but it doesn't appear to be getting results. I'm generally a believer in sticking by your friends as well.
I'd say losing part of your country thats halfway across the world is way different from losing part of your country thats only a stones throw away from the capital(relativly speaking)
Then what was all the fuss over Pearl Harbour for?
I'd say losing part of your country thats halfway across the world is way different from losing part of your country thats only a stones throw away from the capital(relativly speaking)
Then what was all the fuss over Pearl Harbour for?
That's such a bad analogy it doesn't need addressing.
You could hardly say the same over the Falklands...seems a little dishartening that our "closest allies" aren't backing us up in a dispute when we are legally and ethically in the right.
Being legally and ethically in the right has no bearing on real GDP growth rates.
You still think America doesn't need allies? Get with the 21st century, dude. You think India or China will give a gak about you when the bombs start dropping?
Testify wrote: You still think America doesn't need allies? Get with the 21st century, dude.
Getting with the 21st century involves abandoning the UK, and getting closer to Argentina and Brazil.
Brazil, yes. Argentina!? They're a fething serial basketcase with an economy a fraction of the size of the UK's. I don't normally accuse you of this, but you have to be trolling there, bro. I'm calling you out.
Explain how the French benefit from a UNSC that doesn't include the UK.
it limits our influence in europe, they will be the only go to guys with a UN veto. Come on dogma that would be obvious.
we would lose out, they would gain enormously, and that ignores the additional factor of beaucoup lulz.
No, it really wouldn't be. You would lose international clout. That isn't good, but using the word "calamitous" is hyperbolic.
I am not sure. That loss of clout could also mean ther loss of the Falklands and its oil. Or Gibraltar with the Falklands being lost in a domino effect.
Neutral and unsympathetic and neutral and sympathetic are two different things. Hostile Latin American governments can and do draw strength from the lack of sympathy that accompanies current US administrations neutrality.
There is also nasty undertones when a people group calling out for self determination are not listened to sympathetically by the so called 'leader of the free world'.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't see why the UK should be kicked off the security council if Scotland went independent.
The UK wasn't kicked off when India, Burma, Malaya, Nigeria, etc. etc. went independent.
I'd say losing part of your country thats halfway across the world is way different from losing part of your country thats only a stones throw away from the capital(relativly speaking)
The colonies were administered by not part of the UK.
The United Kingdom means The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Now even if there was full Irish unification we would still have Great Britain, but an independent Scotland would remove that, no more Great Britain connection to the UK.
Twice already UNSC members have technically transferred identity. First with the formation of Communist China. Second with the collapse of the Soviet Union. In both cases the core territory, Greater China and Russia were the remaining beneficiary. However the core territory of Great Britain would not exist except as the name of the single largest island landmass. Politically Great Britain would not exist, you would have England and Wales (and potentially not even that). This would involve a direct transfer and while England would technically and rightfully (same thing) have the strongest individual claim globally this is by no means certain.
I am not sure. That loss of clout could also mean ther loss of the Falklands and its oil. Or Gibraltar with the Falklands being lost in a domino effect.
You already buy oil from FOGL. If Argentina took the territory you would still buy from a corporation, and the price you paid would still be based on the market price of oil.
There is also nasty undertones when a people group calling out for self determination are not listened to sympathetically by the so called 'leader of the free world'.
Wait, you really believe American foreign policy is based on the idea that freedom is valuable?
That you managed to call me naive is...impressive.
mattyrm wrote: Its funny I was having a (relatively!) good natured bit of banter with a Scottish bloke in a pub in Edinburgh a couple years back and he said to me "All of you lot got conquered by the Romans, but not us, we built that big wall to keep the bastards out!"
And the French. You were also conquered by the French, and unlike the Romans you never managed to get rid of them.
You already buy oil from FOGL. If Argentina took the territory you would still buy from a corporation, and the price you paid would still be based on the market price of oil.
Go ahead you believe that. Everyone plays nice and fair over oil.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't see why the UK should be kicked off the security council if Scotland went independent.
The UK wasn't kicked off when India, Burma, Malaya, Nigeria, etc. etc. went independent.
Colonies with no voting rights in your government can be acquired and released without changing the basic political nature of your government. On the other hand, the UK as political entity is the united kingdoms, and if one kingdom leaves then that political entity no longer exists. Part of the voting public that gave the UK its legitimate government is now a different country.
Now, I'm not saying the UK will lose its permanent security council status, because that only becomes a plausible thing in a world in which Obama or some other US president becomes motivated purely by spite, but it is different than when India left.
Grey Templar wrote: I fail to see how Obama would have spite over Scotland leaving the UK.
The issue of spite is, if Scotland were to leave the UK, then the permanent security status of the UK might no longer exist (possibly, I am not a student in either the UN Charter or the union of parliaments).
Orlanth believes Obama would jump at the opportunity to strip Great Britain of its permanent security status. I think the only way in which Obama acting that way makes any kind of sense would be if Obama were driven purely by spite, because in terms of geo-politics it makes no sense.
What would Obama, or indeed the US, gain from the UK losing its seat?
I can see how Russia and China would benifit, but it seems that the US and France would be at a disadvantage. Given that the UK, France, and the US are most likely to agree with each other and have China and Russia oppose them.
I know just one member can veto all actions of the others, but having one seat become up for grabs seems like nobody will benifit except those that are dissenting voices on the council.
If it was Russia or China, yeah I could see this being a big deal. But it seems like this situation would benifit only Russia and China.
I'd call it political suicide, but given that this won't happen unless Obama wins a second term he would be safe. Of course he probably couldn't show his face in any other political arena again. Not to mention it would be very bad press for the Democrats. It would take decades to shake the image of being called a traitor in the international community.
AndrewC wrote: I'm curious Dogma, why all the hate towards the UK & Europe?
No hate, I love Europe and the UK in particular, but I also recognize that going forward the US relationship with the UK isn't as important as the US relationship with Argentina.
The issue of spite is, if Scotland were to leave the UK, then the permanent security status of the UK might no longer exist (possibly, I am not a student in either the UN Charter or the union of parliaments).
As I said earlier in the thread there are already two examples of P5 states altering their political nature and maintaining their P5 status, the PRC and the Russian Federation (referred to in the Charter as the RoC and the USSR). There is no ground for a technical disqualification of the UK from UN membership (which is what would need to happen in order for them to lose P5 status), and no reason for any other P5 member to move for the removal of the UK.
If Scotland leaves the UK they would go through the same admission process that all other states go through, with perhaps a bit of whining from London.
How many Vetos castare needed to block a bill Europe doesn't like. 1 or 2. Answer 1. By having one place to go France can set a price.
How many binding resolutions do you think the UK would block, but France would not? Maybe something over the Falklands, which is a specifically British issue, but that's it. Also maybe some GA resolutions about how horrible the British weather is and that they have cooties.
Go ahead you believe that. Everyone plays nice and fair over oil.
Buy it from somewhere else if you don't like the price. The UK doesn't consume enough oil to be sensitive to minor supply shocks, and until 2005 you were actually a net exporter (thank you North Sea). Unless Argentina nationalizes the industry, which they won't because that would mean a complete infrastructure loss in a region that has proven difficult to explore, your petroleum purchasing circumstances will not change.
American foreign policy doesn't usually blatantly deny such freedoms amongst 'western' cultural groups. It is an usual step actually.
No one in the US cares about the Falklands. In fact, the only people that care about the Falklands are the British, the Argentinians, and the Falklanders.
Brazil, yes. Argentina!? They're a fething serial basketcase with an economy a fraction of the size of the UK's. I don't normally accuse you of this, but you have to be trolling there, bro. I'm calling you out.
Argentina's GDP is ~20% of the UK's in nominal terms and around 40% in terms of PPP, but they also have a ~9% growth rate.
By contrast the UK's growth rate is ~1%, lower than Jamaica's.
dogma wrote: As I said earlier in the thread there are already two examples of P5 states altering their political nature and maintaining their P5 status, the PRC and the Russian Federation (referred to in the Charter as the RoC and the USSR). There is no ground for a technical disqualification of the UK from UN membership (which is what would need to happen in order for them to lose P5 status), and no reason for any other P5 member to move for the removal of the UK.
Well, China isn't the best example to argue that the US won't feth with the permanent status of another country, with the KMT in Taiwan being considered the government of China for like 30 years.
But that was because China became communist and it was the Cold War, so there were real, and meaningful reasons to keep pretending Taiwan was running China. The same isn't true with the UK.
Brazil, yes. Argentina!? They're a fething serial basketcase with an economy a fraction of the size of the UK's. I don't normally accuse you of this, but you have to be trolling there, bro. I'm calling you out.
Argentina's GDP is ~20% of the UK's in nominal terms and around 40% in terms of PPP, but they also have a ~9% growth rate.
It would seem that not everyone shares your optimism regarding Argentina's long-term future:
Miami Herald wrote:After several years during which Fernández bragged that Argentina was one of the world’s most rapidly growing economies while the United States and Europe were crumbling, Argentina’s economy is now projected to slow down from nearly 9 percent last year to 2.2 percent this year, according to the latest World Bank estimates. Many independent economists say that even that projection is too optimistic, and that the country may end this year with a recession.
“We think the story ends with a large devaluation sooner or later,” said a recent report by UBS bank economist Javier Kulesz, who added that it would come along with a large increase in public utility prices, heightened social tensions, and low if not negative growth. “This is nothing Argentines aren’t familiar with. They have seen this movie in its various versions quite a few times over the past few decades,” he said.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/16/2851968/argentinas-economic-fiesta-is.html
Reuters wrote:Argentine dairy farmers dumped truckloads of milk in protests this week while millions of commuters endured the longest subway workers strike in history, all thanks to high inflation that is not seen easing despite a sharp economic slowdown.
The government shuns orthodox policies and spends heavily to stoke swift economic growth. Official data has drastically lowballed price rises since 2007 and President Cristina Fernandez avoids mentioning inflation, estimated at 20 percent to 25 percent a year - the highest rate in Latin America.
Her government has fined and even sued economists who publicize their inflation estimates, which tend to double or triple the official figure.
Dogma, if you had said US/Brazil relations I could have taken you more seriously, but US/Argentina? No.
Argentina is too volatile at the moment to be taken at face value by anyone. They have already nationalised one resource industry, (the Spanish one I can't remember the name of). And while their growth may be higher than the UKs at the moment, since they're lying about what the actual figure is I doubt that it's 9%. Inflation there is about 24%, despite the governments assertion it's only 10%. They are operating on a "protectionism" policy for their trade and have put restrictions on how much foreign currency anyone can own, specifically the dollar. And on top of that they have also been yellow carded by the IMF with a review later this year to see if it goes to a full red card with subsequent expulsion and sanctions.
One of their military training vessels is currently impounded in Africa for non payment of debts incurred when they defaulted on their national debt. Ironically the ship has been impounded on the instructions of a US hedge fund. Do you still think that the US business world wants to tie itself closer to Argentinia?
Now should the government change in the next election and move to a modorate position then all bets may/will be off. Only time will tell.
Cheers
Andrew
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and regarding the permanent seat on the security council, I'm sure that Mr Salmond will claim that as part of the divorce settlement.......
AndrewC wrote: Dogma, if you had said US/Brazil relations I could have taken you more seriously, but US/Argentina? No.
Argentina is too volatile at the moment to be taken at face value by anyone. They have already nationalised one resource industry, (the Spanish one I can't remember the name of). And while their growth may be higher than the UKs at the moment, since they're lying about what the actual figure is I doubt that it's 9%. Inflation there is about 24%, despite the governments assertion it's only 10%. They are operating on a "protectionism" policy for their trade and have put restrictions on how much foreign currency anyone can own, specifically the dollar. And on top of that they have also been yellow carded by the IMF with a review later this year to see if it goes to a full red card with subsequent expulsion and sanctions.
One of their military training vessels is currently impounded in Africa for non payment of debts incurred when they defaulted on their national debt. Ironically the ship has been impounded on the instructions of a US hedge fund. Do you still think that the US business world wants to tie itself closer to Argentinia?
Now should the government change in the next election and move to a modorate position then all bets may/will be off. Only time will tell.
Cheers
Andrew
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and regarding the permanent seat on the security council, I'm sure that Mr Salmond will claim that as part of the divorce settlement.......
US and Latin America. In addition to massive oil and natural gas reserves, massive markets, and better food, Latin America is the home to multiple countries with growth rates of 6% or substantially higher: Peru, Brazil, Chile to name a few. Argentina not so much currently, but it is a massive country with a bright potntial future, especially after they steal your oil. Currently very few businesses think about Argentina, but we sure do think about Brazil, Peru, and Chile.
It would seem that not everyone shares your optimism regarding Argentina's long-term future:
Short term future is not much better. The nationalisation of internal oil reserves hurt Argentina greatly. Their economy is not completey down the toilet because Frenandez inherited a position where Argentina had had her last load of debt written off and the cooldown period had expired.
Malvinas is the Argentine equivalent of 'bread and circuses' a national scale distraction. Its dangerous because the Argentine government will always come back to the issue when in trouble, and they are usually in trouble.
Scotland is not going to leave the UK. They would have certainly voted for a devo max option, but that's no longer on the table.
On the assumption that the incredibly unlikely does occur, Orlanth's chain of catastrophic events is about as likely as discovering everyone from Switzerland is an alien.
The remaining collective of Wales, England, and Northern Ireland will plod on, much the same as they ever have done. The political landscape will change to being intensely pro-Tory for ten or so years. London's setting as a financial capital will be relatively unaffected, although a short term of turbulence will occur in the transitionary period. Argentina will not invade the Falklands, as they would lose if they did. The US and France will not want to boot England off the Security Council.
The only thing that's truly up in the air is whether the Scottish economy would crash and burn, and remain stable.
Nah, Scotland won't invade Argentina, it's too warm and not enough rain for us.
Frazz, you did read my first sentence? US with Chile, Peru and Brazil are all fine, not one of them is bothered about who 'owns' the Falkland Isles. Brazil recently told Argentine Officials to get lost over a Falklands Flag at an International Badmington Competition. Argentina complained and Brazil told them it was a recognised country to enter the competition and to stop complaining. I know, hardly earth shattering but still it's official recognition.
Auston, I've driven past that barn numerous times and the 'D' continues round the corner of the building.
Orlanth, the debt wasn't written off. Most of her creditiors accepted something rather than nothing from Argentina. Case in point the seizure of the vessel in Ghana.
AndrewC wrote: They have already nationalised one resource industry, (the Spanish one I can't remember the name of).
They nationalized YPF which was held by Respol, which was itself held in majority by the Spanish government until the mid 90's. And by "nationalized" I mean they seized 51% of the issued shares.
Kirchner is correct in stating that the seizure was needed to reappropriate Argentina's mineral resources, because Europe has been exploiting them for decades.
And on top of that they have also been yellow carded by the IMF with a review later this year to see if it goes to a full red card with subsequent expulsion and sanctions.
Which no one will obey, aside from the British and Falklanders anyway.
I think the only reason Dogma sidetracked the debate was simply the erroneous use of the word "abandon" instead of merely "move a little bit away from"
He is quite right that to move forward its not got to be a case of the US and the UK daisy chaining each other around their grandmother's apartment (Canada!?) and we have to get along with everyone, not just the English speaking nations that will always be close to due to our shared language, culture and obviously ancestry. In the same way that Obama seems to have cooled his jets with us and the Israelis I certainly think we should put a little more effort into building trade and diplomacy with places we historically don't get along with, the UK should really try and work things out with the fething Argies for example.. instead of us all being mates with people we will always be mates with anyway!
As I said earlier, your mum always spends more time with the useless, waster borderline smackhead son with a gambling addiction than she does with the smart kid who is studying hard. The US, UK, CAN, AU, NZ relations will always take care of themselves, so logically we would be better served putting more effort in with all the other mother fethers.
Not really abandon, just.. you know.. have normal diplomatic ties. I mean, gak, we haven't "abandoned" plenty of countries we have a pretty gak relationship with.
You don't have to abandon anyone, we can all be pals, especially considering we're even mates with the French these days!
As stated before (and staying on topic) Scottish independence would have no real affect on the UK economy or our international standing in the short term . It would free up more money for the rest of the UK probaly .
But if the Scots wish to go they should have the right to decide democratically to be independant . As should the UK be given the right for a referendum to continue membership in the EU .
Oh, irony and sarcasm are lost on this forum......
Dogma, sometimes you are so blinded by your own opinion that you cant actually see you may be wrong.
Lets take YPF. The government took 51% of the shares of the company thereby gaining control of it. They also took only those shares owned by foreign interests, leaving local interests untouched. The stated reason was that YPF had not invested as much money as they said they would. The balance sheet at that point was neutral. Repsol had put in as much as they had taken out, hardly exploitation! The real reason, Kirchner needed a quick fix for popularity and attacked a sore point of the Argentine people, ie fuel costs, down with the evil europeans, boo hiss!
I never said Argentina had a growth rate of less than 1%, I said that no-one really knows what it is. Also the latest forcast seems to be for a recession rather than growth.
You seem rather sure of the IMF sanctions, I wonder why? Regardless of your personal bias on the issue other people will take note, especially when any business in Argentina becomes unsanction by the IMF (thereby being unable to recoup losses should Argentina default on deals), nationalisation of foreign interests, dodgy accounting etc.
I feel like I'm being offered a doorbuster of a barn with a leaky roof and no insulation.
HAHAHAHAA!!! Nicely done!
Scotland leaving the UK would be sad, honestly. It sounds like a vocal minority rattling sabres and trying to stoke a Scottish National Pride rally. Not sure that's any more well-thought-out than the Texas nut jobs that want Texas to leave the union. That just isn't going to happen over here. Neither is CA going to leave. That's just crazy talk.
You seem rather sure of the IMF sanctions, I wonder why? Regardless of your personal bias on the issue other people will take note, especially when any business in Argentina becomes unsanction by the IMF (thereby being unable to recoup losses should Argentina default on deals), nationalisation of foreign interests, dodgy accounting etc.
The IMF doesn't endorse individual businesses. What are you talking about?
As far as bias goes: Yep, the US citizen is more likely to be emotionally engaged than the guy living in the Falklands.
The idea of voting No on independence got cheers on Question time, and the idea of Yes and the Deputy First minister Nicola 'Vinegar Tits, face like a slapped Jimmy Krankie" Sturgeon were booed!
Make light of it if you will, political comedy touches so many issues its unfair and unwise to consider those issues parodied as inherently ridiculous by the association.
Here is the original link parodied:
One could make light of the fact that the Daily Mail covered the story extensively. I knew better than to use links to their their editorials as evidence.
But when the papers as diverse in base as the Sun and Guardian discuss the same issues its unwise to wave it off as 'sensationalism'.
"We want to secede!" "No." "Says who?" "Me... and all these guys." "...shoot."
Exactly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: Abe was also fighting vampires at the time.
Thats ok. He was one of history's greatest multitaskers. Ocassionally he would get into the ring with Godzilla and Chuck Norris as well when they would get uppitty from time to time.
Interesting side story. Always wanted to be a re-enactor, but I think I'm the only Southerner who wanted to play a yankee (and go burn some plantations...)
T state Scotland is in and I can only hope that when the time does come we stand up and believe in ourselves and as cheesy as it may sound, be a nation again.
