Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't know, comparing military is different. You could pick people out of their mudholes and hand them a staff back in the old days. In the old days you could also ransack whatever gold and treasures you captured once you won, unlike today. Militaries of the past and present are different, for example the English impressed US sailors which led to the start of the War of 1812. I don't see any country that forces another country's men and women to fight for them as slaves.

Most if not all of the colonial era powers have huge faults in their character because they wanted some sort of profit. The Opium Wars, Boer Wars, and etc are all examples of that. America itself is only a little bit better because we only screwed over the natives on our continent(although we do have some reasons for doing so besides want of land). That and America missed out on the whole colonial era thing.

Besides which, Scotland is a county, not a country, despite what the "Scottish" want to believe

halonachos wrote:I don't know, comparing military is different. You could pick people out of their mudholes and hand them a staff back in the old days. In the old days you could also ransack whatever gold and treasures you captured once you won, unlike today. Militaries of the past and present are different, for example the English impressed US sailors which led to the start of the War of 1812. I don't see any country that forces another country's men and women to fight for them as slaves.

Most if not all of the colonial era powers have huge faults in their character because they wanted some sort of profit. The Opium Wars, Boer Wars, and etc are all examples of that. America itself is only a little bit better because we only screwed over the natives on our continent (although we do have some reasons for doing so besides want of land). That and America missed out on the whole colonial era thing.

I think......That there may be a few million Africans that disagree?

The US also had colonies I believe.

Yeah, are we pretending that America isn't an imperial power now? Is that what's happening?

Albatross wrote:Yeah, are we pretending that America isn't an imperial power now? Is that what's happening?

It is at least not the same sort of empire as Britain, France, and the rest.

Not that it matters though, as the US most certainly seeks profit in its dealings with other nations.

dogma wrote:

Albatross wrote:Yeah, are we pretending that America isn't an imperial power now? Is that what's happening?

It is at least not the same sort of empire as Britain, France, and the rest.

Not that it matters though, as the US most certainly seeks to dominate the world.

Fixed. I mean, why else would the US government block moves to stop the militarisation of space?

You are, of course, correct in that the American Empire is most certainly a different, more insidious beast to the European empires, but when you look at how successive US regimes have carved up Central and South America, as well as the Middle East, it's hard to draw any other conclusion than 'Empire'. In the main, you generally no longer need gunboats to ensure access to your strategic resources - it's cheaper and more practical to buy a tinpot strongman to keep a lid on the situation. That difference of approach is the only real practical difference between the American Empire and it's European predecessors.

The USA has been, on balance, very successful at buying puppets, though the whole 'Arab Spring' bunfight will represent a little shift away from shoring up strongmen, I reckon. The new 'proto-democratic' Arab regimes that will replace them can, and will, be bought off.

Not that I think this is news to you dogma, by the way. Just wanted to make that clear.

SilverMK2 wrote:Besides which, Scotland is a county, not a country, despite what the "Scottish" want to believe

Not what our First Minister says, the man who runs most of Scotland. Have fun with whatever Oil and renewable Energy plants you have left after Independence comes through.

<text redacted; Rule #1 still applies in the OT forum, people --Janthkin>

Woah there bullseye, that's a little bit of an aggressive response to what was obviously a joke. I in no way support a reformation, we'd be fethed without English support, all four nations have grown fairly dependent on each other. I like being part of the Uk, even though I consider myself a Scot before I consider myself a Brit.
You may want to cool yourself down, or at least try a little harder to try instigate an argument.

Balanced and insightful sir, mattyrm the day is yours.

daaang, that got heated quick

Actually, I'll change that statement. Each nation has come to depend on England, it's just that Scotland could easily be self-sufficient, if a lot worse off than it is now. Wales and Ireland depend on English support, Scotland a whole lot less. That said, I'd much rather be governed by the SNP than the goonies down at Westminster.

If you guys call mel gibson, im sure that he'd be up for another bravehart movie/documentary. he could start a new revolt and the movie would be called Braveheart II: Revolt of 2011! I'd see that.

I am not siding with either side, because i have a very limited knowledge of UK politics(learned about UK politics for 3 weeks in comparative politics).

I hear Mel would do it but he wants to have the perfidious English repressing the Jews this time.

Should be as historically accurate as the last one.

lol, his contract would mandate 10 anti semetic statements per hour

dajobe, Mel Gibson? Honestly?

Even as a through and through Scot the answer is NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Scotland has long had a history of being their own worst enemies when it comes to nationalism and independence. The time for an independent, self supporting nation was at the time when the oil was first found, not now. Unless we can get over our reservations about nuclear energy and wind farms, we can't keep ourselves going. If we could, then we could quite happily support ourselves selling surplus energy to England.

The reason being we have more 'waste' space to utilise than our friends south of the border.

Matty, I sincerely hope that your post is a joke, because it doesn't read like it, it displays all the narrow minded nimbyism that plagues relations between Scotland and England, and yes we Scots have our own fair share.

Cheers

Andrew

lol, andrewc, i was completely kidding, its ok, im also REALLY bad at picking up sarcasm on these threads


Automatically Appended Next Post:
sarcasm and jokes, i guess this one was more of a joke than sarcasm

Whats the problem with being a state (or mutliple states) of the UK? I'm confused. Its not good when I'm confused. Bad things happen (looks at the platypus). See!

Nothing. It's a deep in-bred philosophy on both sides of the border that the other is "bad" due to events that occurred several hundred years ago. It's ignorant to the fact that Scotland is better off in the UK than out.

Frazz, confused? never.

Are you sure its a playpus? Maybe its an otter eating a duck perhaps.

Andrew

Frazzled wrote:Whats the problem with being a state (or mutliple states) of the UK? I'm confused. Its not good when I'm confused. Bad things happen (looks at the platypus). See!

Historical resentment and traditional rivalry. Generally speaking, the UK was formed by English violence and oppression. An oversimplification, but enough to build and foster a resentment of the association for non-English member states.

EDIT: iproxtaco be-ninja'd me there.

iproxtaco wrote:Nothing. It's a deep in-bred philosophy on both sides of the border that the other is "bad" due to events that occurred several hundred years ago. It's ignorant to the fact that Scotland is better off in the UK than out.

And whats truly ironic is that one of those events were perpetrated by Scots against Scots, but we still blame the English.

See you can't make it up.

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:Frazz, confused? never.

Are you sure its a playpus? Maybe its an otter eating a duck perhaps.

Andrew

Little known fact, wiener dogs swim almost just like otters. Is there a connection?

Exactly, the actual specifics are either ignored, or aren't even known by the VAST majority of people who are against England. Like Culloden. An Italian guy, with French generals, leading a bunch of half french half Scot troops and highlanders, against a Dutch general with a lot of redcoat English troops and a larger number of highlanders than were on the "Scottish" side. And this is perceived by many as a massacre perpetrated by England, mercilessly slaughtering the good willed highlanders.

htj wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Whats the problem with being a state (or mutliple states) of the UK? I'm confused. Its not good when I'm confused. Bad things happen (looks at the platypus). See!

Historical resentment and traditional rivalry. Generally speaking, the UK was formed by English violence and oppression. An oversimplification, but enough to build and foster a resentment of the association for non-English member states.

EDIT: iproxtaco be-ninja'd me there.

So help me out. Scotland wants to be the independent nation of Scotland - free and clear? If not whats being sought?

Frazzled wrote:

htj wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Whats the problem with being a state (or mutliple states) of the UK? I'm confused. Its not good when I'm confused. Bad things happen (looks at the platypus). See!

Historical resentment and traditional rivalry. Generally speaking, the UK was formed by English violence and oppression. An oversimplification, but enough to build and foster a resentment of the association for non-English member states.

EDIT: iproxtaco be-ninja'd me there.

So help me out. Scotland wants to be the independent nation of Scotland - free and clear? If not whats being sought?

Well, most Scots say that they are in favour of independance, but the financial realities of it would leave them economically severely disadvantaged. It would hit England, Wales and Northern Ireland pretty hard too. So at this point, it's more of a national spirit kind of thing.

Actually, most voted indifferent to a reformation, about 50%, with about 20% saying it was wanted, the rest against, so really, not even Scotland wants the reformation that the SNP want to vote through.

Is that what they'd say down the pub, though?

Ha, absolutely not. Everyone hates the English, until asked in a survey.

notprop wrote:

halonachos wrote:I don't know, comparing military is different. You could pick people out of their mudholes and hand them a staff back in the old days. In the old days you could also ransack whatever gold and treasures you captured once you won, unlike today. Militaries of the past and present are different, for example the English impressed US sailors which led to the start of the War of 1812. I don't see any country that forces another country's men and women to fight for them as slaves.

Most if not all of the colonial era powers have huge faults in their character because they wanted some sort of profit. The Opium Wars, Boer Wars, and etc are all examples of that. America itself is only a little bit better because we only screwed over the natives on our continent (although we do have some reasons for doing so besides want of land). That and America missed out on the whole colonial era thing.

I think......That there may be a few million Africans that disagree?

The US also had colonies I believe.

Actually the only reason why we had slaves was because some other European nation decided to ship Africans to the colonies. America didn't send any ships to Africa for slavery and the first time any US ship was near the african coast was when they were fighting the Barbary pirates off of the barbary coast.

As far as colonies the US never had any true colonies, we created nations and had territories that we swore to protect. These 'colonies' were individual states that relied on us for support, no real income from them. Puerto Rico is one of them, we used to test weapons there and paid their government for it but when some kids were accidentally killed the Puerto Rican government cancelled the deal. They were a colony for some point in time, due to the Spanish giving them up after the Spanish American War but they quickly became a territory/commonwealth.