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.

 Castiel wrote:

 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).

 mattyrm wrote:

 Castiel wrote:

 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!

 Wyrmalla wrote:
=P Scots want more power in the British government. The conservative government in England won't allow this...

As far as I'm aware, Cameron is open to the devolution of more powers for Scotland, and even Cornwall.

Where's this, "Obama will let the UK's Security Council seat get rolled," stuff coming from?

 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]

we were bankrupt and had no real option

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

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

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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

Whats a Jacobean rebellion?

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

Wow thats only 30 years before some British became freed themselves from tyrannical absolutism. I thought the British were more stable then that.

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).

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

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.

I forgot about the Darien debacle.

Song relevant:

Palindrome wrote:


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.

Well.. except for everyone else obviously.

 Seaward wrote:
Where's this, "Obama will let the UK's Security Council seat get rolled," stuff coming from?

Here is an indicator, at least this much hit the press openly:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2012/feb/16/politics-live-blog-david-cameron-and-alex-salmond-hold-talks-on-scottish-independenc

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.

Read between the lines on this one.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/15/scottish-independence-cameron-un-security-council_n_1279408.html
Cameron denied this. He would have to anyway.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4133258/Britain-will-lose-clout-if-Scots-quit-UK.html
Yes its the Sun, but it echoes what analysts are saying.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/16/david-cameron-scottish-independence-flaws
The guardian is open to the possibility.

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

If only you guys had decent food none of this would have occurred. [/quote

Haggis is the food of the gods, well demi-gods at least.

 Orlanth wrote:

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.

I think he was talking about English food. Haggis is indeed amazing, and its from Scotland

Its like sausage, but in a bowl

 mattyrm wrote:

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.

 Seaward wrote:

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?

 mattyrm wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

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.

 Seaward wrote:

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.

 Seaward wrote:

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.

 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 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.

 Orlanth wrote:

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.

 Orlanth wrote:

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.

Which is what the word "neutral" means.