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 think you can conceivably call the conquered Spanish territories colonies, or more properly former colonies.

Phillipines. - pre WWII definitely. Post not really, now not at all.

Cuba. - commercially, but not direct colony.

PR. Colony but we offerred them statehood. They saw the taxes and went...meh.

halonachos wrote:

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.

They weren't our ships so its not our fault. It was nice of the US to keep them in such refined asylum after so accidentally coming across them.

As for these not colonies (created ), I fear that you may be about to recategorise them in the hope that no one thinks they are what they are (or were), ala enemy combatants (POWs), targeted killing (assassination) and external rendition (kidnapping). Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with any of these things but lets call a spade a spade.

Perhaps you should try "forcefully procured areas of commercial expansion interest"?

While all of this went on, i'd be willing to bet that this occurs in almost all territory expansion because there will always be those who violently oppose such action, whether it is the majority or minority depends on the case. So i would say that name applies to almost all "territories"

Agreed, so if you could just use the new saying a bit here and there, it might catch on and I could earn few quid out of it somehow. Simples.

i will spread the word

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

God knows to be honest. There is a mentality that England has held back Scotland for hundreds of years and treated us badly. Now part of that is the normal mentality of "It's not my fault", but it's human nature. On top of which there is a genuine feeling of grievance against what is perceived as a pro english government. For example, as a % it is proposed that approx 66% of RAF bases in Scotland close against approx 10% in England. The Scottish Regiments have been amalgamated into a formless historyless blob. Going back further Margaret Thatcher implemented the Poll Tax and tested it in Scotland, but only rescinded it when 'London' rioted on the implementation in England.

Now at the same time, because of the 'West Lothian Question' we have a disproportionate say in English affairs when England has no say in Scottish ones. The Barnett(?) Formula was raised at a time of relative poverty in Scotland and allowed a large sum of money to be directly fed into the Scottish economy, that is a further aggravation to our southern neighbours.

While labour was in power, Scotland was their powerhouse for parliment, they could act with relative impunity because England couldn't oust the Scottish MPs, and so yet a further aggravation.

Scotland is a child who wants to leave home, but still needs the security of bank of mum and dad.

Cheers

Andrew

Pretty much spot on there. There's various theories on becoming self-sufficient be literally selling energy to England if we gained Independence. We've already got a lot implemented, and a lot of space, with a large amount of Tourism, fishing, farming, business in the central belt, and lets not forget the Oil in the north sea.

So your taxes can be apportioned unequally among the states, er territories, er what are they called? The crown is up to its old shenanigans I see (time throw some tea in the harbor, and by that I mean eat some nice ice cream).

That's right.

If you look at it in very simple terms, the south-east of England funds the rest of the country in one way or another (e.g. 40% of jobs in Wales are in government, agricultural subsidies, social security benefits, etc.) I exaggerate for effect.

The Barnet Formula gives an extra wodge of money to Scotland to keep them on side.

I don't know how Alex Salmond plans to square this circle if he ever does achieve independence. Perhaps he can get the money from the EU.

The examples I stated. Selling energy to England and wales, and potentially Ireland. and the Oil, and Fishing, farming, and business in Dundee, Aberdeen and the central belt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and tourism, which is quite big here.

From my own perspective I can't say as I think English particularly care that much about the England/Scotland situation.

Obviously it is a big issue for the Scots, but the English are the bad guys for everyone so why should be care about them particularly.

It only come into relief when the Scots (Salmond) moans about something (everything) and blames it on Westminster/England. The English will think he's an ungrateful oaf and go back to worrying about the East Enders or the Premier League, you know something relevant to them.

Ironically the Scots that live down here don't care either and just shrug when they hear about their home brethren fuming about whatever.

We have a relatively small population with a relatively large economy for the size of the country. By adopting an philosophy of spending to get out of the recession, we'd do much better than the constant saving and cuts that current goonies are instigating.

I agree, I live in Scotland, and outside of jokes or drunken patriotism, no one I know has any bad opinions towards England as a country, we just hate the government.

notprop wrote:From my own perspective I can't say as I think English particularly care that much about the England/Scotland situation.

Unless its about football, toe poke indeed!!!!

Andrew

(Who ironically doesn't care about football in the least)

Kilkrazy wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The thread isn't about countries, it's about nations, which is a different concept.

It is?

Yes.

Not where I'm from.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The thread isn't about countries, it's about nations, which is a different concept.

It is?

Yes.

Not where I'm from.

Ooh, ooh, ooh, and you're from England which is where the American language originates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

notprop wrote:They weren't our ships so its not our fault. It was nice of the US to keep them in such refined asylum after so accidentally coming across them.

As for these not colonies (created ), I fear that you may be about to recategorise them in the hope that no one thinks they are what they are (or were), ala enemy combatants (POWs), targeted killing (assassination) and external rendition (kidnapping). Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with any of these things but lets call a spade a spade.

Perhaps you should try "forcefully procured areas of commercial expansion interest"?

Truth be told about the slavery is the fact that they also started out as indentured servants(slaves for a time and after the work they received land). However, we didn't go to Africa and screw over the natives that was with Belgium, Germany, England... in fact Liberia was created for freed slaves who wanted to go back to Africa.

As I said, they used to be colonies, but Puerto Rico suffered from the Great Depression worse than America did and in the end it had its own government. Now its just a territory where we don't set their laws but they pay federal taxes for things like social security and medicare. If it was truly a colony then when they wanted us to stop weapons testing we would've said 'feth off we own you.', hell the fact that we paid them for the testing says something.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The thread isn't about countries, it's about nations, which is a different concept.

It is?

Yes.

Not where I'm from.

Somewhere where there are no dictionaries?

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The thread isn't about countries, it's about nations, which is a different concept.

It is?

Yes.

Not where I'm from.

... people often use words incorrectly en masse. One such example as this thread has demonstrated is nation. Another is peruse, people think it means to skim over and scan through something, it really means to examine it carefully.

If memory serves (which is usually doesn't) a country is a chunk of the earth that is walled by imaginary lines with a name? and a nation is a collection of people living in a country?

so the greatest nation on earth would be...........The Romans.

they basically made Europe. they gave the infrastructure, they gave the cities, they gave some history, they contributed to the language, they gave us wine......

pretty much the building blocks for all future western nations.

as to the whole Scottish independence, I think it's just going to be a failure if they do ever do it. they are too connected to the rest of the UK to simply up the planks and demand independence. plus, I think most Scots don't want it, its only the political willy-wavers of the SNP who truly want it. how he got into power i cannot fathom. it's like the BNP but they hate people in their own country.

Just because they have similar acronym to the BNP does not make them at all similar. They're much better than the spineless goons of the other three big players. Cameron? Yeah, he may look the part, cowardly moron. Milliband? We'll see with him, he at least appears to be half competent, still doesn't cut it in my opinion. The you have the little rat amongst the weasels. Nick Clegg should never have achieved a position of any influence. Gordon Brown at least tried exceedingly hard, his popularity was marred by the revelation of private affairs and unfortunate turns of fate.

iproxtaco wrote:Just because they have similar acronym to the BNP does not make them at all similar.............

It sort of does. It just means that they are different flavours of cretin.

Nah it doesn't. They're far from perfect, the cuts to the education system where I live are mind boggling, they are actually doing something about my city's current financial state, unlike the Labour council before them.

It does, it says right here.

notprop wrote:It sort of does. It just means that they are different flavours of cretin.

That is if you're talking in terms of parties in general, then I still disagree. The BNP are a whole lot worse than any other party, because they have become a house-hold name and are gaining popularity. They would ruin the UK, the SNP would just put all four states in a slightly worse position than before if they achieved independence.

So ruin it then?

The real difference is that the SNP are more likely to do it.

To ruin what? Britain? The have better chances of achieving Independence than the BNP do have of coming to power, still doesn't mean that the SNP will ruin the UK. Scotland is more than capable of supporting itself, it wont be a well off as it is in the UK, neither will any of the nations, but they won't be ruined.

The SNP won't ruin the UK, they'll ruin Scotland.

iproxtaco wrote:Nick Clegg should never have achieved a position of any influence.

For what reason?

I understand the wish that he wasn't deputy prime-minister, but thats (in my opinion) because if he wasn't we wouldn't have a coalition (a good thing in my opinion), but I can't think of reasons as to why he shouldn't be head of the Lib-Dems.

notprop wrote:

Obviously it is a big issue for the Scots, but the English are the bad guys for everyone so why should be care about them particularly.

'Nobody likes us, we don't care!'

Goliath wrote:For what reason?

Well, for the fact that he has now made it back into a two party race. The Lib Dems will not get back into power for a LOOOOOOONG time, having gone back on every single election pledge they made except the least important one (in terms of what people actually wanted) - voting reform, which only got carried through because the lib dems thought it would help them get back into power.

And now they have pissed off the students (who are one of the major lib dem blocks) they have no chance.

Unless the economy is back on an even keel by the end of Parliament, in which case they'll be able to claim a fair amount of credit.