I figured it was just a trumped up extortion attempt anyway, and it worked.
Scots aren't stupid, just ornery. They would have shit their pants collectively had the measure passed, I'm sure.
I figured it was just a trumped up extortion attempt anyway, and it worked.
Scots aren't stupid, just ornery. They would have shit their pants collectively had the measure passed, I'm sure.
They're not even close to being similar situations.
In the Eastern Ukraine you have a minority of a minority of ethnic Russians in armed rebellion supported by an external country.
In Scotland you have Scottish people democratically voting to leave/not leave what is, essentially, a federation.
And the Texas allusion is just plain silly.
Fayd
Diamond Member
Texashiker
Lifer
- Dec 18, 2010
- 18,811
- 198
- 106
I guess they like being servants to the crown.
The master opened the door to freedom, and they cowered in the corner.
I have McClelland blood in my veins. At this time I am ashamed to be of Scottish decent.
The master opened the door to freedom, and they cowered in the corner.
I have McClelland blood in my veins. At this time I am ashamed to be of Scottish decent.
Last edited:
And I'm sure that the Scots give a damn! I'd certainly be surprised if you knew anything about the situation.
Texashiker
Lifer
- Dec 18, 2010
- 18,811
- 198
- 106
I know a once proud people have chosen servitude over freedom.
Modern Scots pissed on the graves of those who fought for freedom from england.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
No, the small minded folk got trounced.
http://youtu.be/X_ADouZXsag?t=30m40s
http://youtu.be/X_ADouZXsag?t=44m55s
No, a centralised union.
A strong central Westminster government, with minimal powers held by local governments such as the Scottish parliament.
A federation, with devolution of powers more aligned with Canadian provinces, Australian states, on through to that of Switzerland is what the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island may move towards. For those in the USA, since your civil war, you have relatively weaker powers held by your states in relation to the federal government in Washington. Decentralisation of power from Westminster to the political regions of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and sensibly into sub-regions of England is what the Thursday Scottish vote may return.
If such a decentralisation of powers in the UK fail to evolve, then, as after the failure of the Meech Lake Accord in Canada that led motivation to the second sovereignty 1995 referendum in Québec, so will there be unity dissatisfaction in Scotland and also lead to another referendum to leave the UK.
The Westminster government has no more than 5 years to satisfy the demands of a strong and potentially stronger portion of Scots, and possibly other British and Irish nationalists.
Last edited:
You must demonstrate oppression for the achievement of 'freedom.'
The UK is a democracy. Though, the stronger any central power, the more disenfranchisement may be felt by those who perceive to be on the periphery. Therefore, the devolution of Westminster power into a model of a federation can be a reasonable solution.
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 33,092
- 11,272
- 136
norseamd
Lifer
- Dec 13, 2013
- 13,990
- 180
- 106
Consider that Scotland is still referred to as a country. There are some similarities between Scotland and Texas but consider that Texas asked to join the United States instead of being annexed by force involving conquest or royal trivialities. Also much of Texas is Mexican anyways and there are also a lot of black folk in urban areas so much of the state would not want to go along with the white fundamentalists and their bullshit. There is also a consideration named the Mexican Reconquista.
As a Scot living in Scotland, I'd like to offer my take on the referendum result.
I firmly believe that all nations should have the courage to stand on their own two feet, so that should tell you which way I voted.
The campaign started two years ago, and in my opinion, the only reason Westminster government passed a 'bill' to allow a referendum to take place is they thought the chances of Scotland voting for independence was nil.
When the campaign started the 'yes' side, if I remember correctly was down at around 18%, at one stage, a couple of weeks ago, the yes side had the lead in the polls. That sent Westminster into a panic, and they put extra powers on the table for the Scottish parliament if a 'no' vote won. I see it as bribe. However, the nation has spoken, and I, and I hope the rest of us yes voters accept the result.
The promises that were given for more powers for the Edinburgh parliament will have to be realised, otherwise I fear the consequences will be dire for both Scotland, and the rest of the UK.
I firmly believe that all nations should have the courage to stand on their own two feet, so that should tell you which way I voted.
The campaign started two years ago, and in my opinion, the only reason Westminster government passed a 'bill' to allow a referendum to take place is they thought the chances of Scotland voting for independence was nil.
When the campaign started the 'yes' side, if I remember correctly was down at around 18%, at one stage, a couple of weeks ago, the yes side had the lead in the polls. That sent Westminster into a panic, and they put extra powers on the table for the Scottish parliament if a 'no' vote won. I see it as bribe. However, the nation has spoken, and I, and I hope the rest of us yes voters accept the result.
The promises that were given for more powers for the Edinburgh parliament will have to be realised, otherwise I fear the consequences will be dire for both Scotland, and the rest of the UK.
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 35,749
- 10,055
- 136
In a UK democracy, Scotland is less than 10% of the vote based on population.
I stand by smaller, more local denominations of power and decision making. Where policy can reflect local interests. This does not preclude Unions on shared topics, where one is happy with a 'foreign' leadership. If Scotland was happy with UK healthcare, for example, there's no reason they couldn't contribute and remain a part of that system - if they wanted to.
I stand for voluntary Unions where common interests are shared on a mutual basis. In contrast to compulsory Unions made by force. I stand by Democracies small enough that you can protest your capitol and sleep in your own bed later that day. Where your voice is actually heard and not drown out by thousands of miles or hundreds of millions of other voices.
The United States is a prime example where 50 States deserve a greater share of power. This is how our Union was formed, with them being more responsible managers of their own affairs. Over time we have eroded the rights of our local representatives in favor of centralize power. In the past hundred years we started collecting taxes straight from the people to 1: bypass the States, then 2: to enslave them with this money. Federal funding means federal ownership, which is pretty much everything these days.
There are separatist movements the world over. Scotland did not win today, but they didn't need to. There are plenty of other opportunities for the next stage of representative government to take shape. I say nothing lasts forever, because no Union ever has. It's just that we folks in Western Civilization have, for the time being, put down the use of force and decided to discuss these things. It's a slower, but hopefully better process where we try to keep both civility and our interests.
These modern secession movements are a test to see if the human race is ready to be civilized. Civil enough to let borders change without bloodshed. It is a trying time, it is our nature to use power - to use force to control others. It must be very tempting to simply shoot and take. It would be very good for our species if we learned not to be unnecessarily violent. If we learned to let changes happen and to let people form Unions as they see fit.
Texashiker
Lifer
- Dec 18, 2010
- 18,811
- 198
- 106
You clearly do not understand Texas culture.
Because Texas willingly joined the Union.
Scotland was conquered, and a conquered people they wish to stay.
And then Texas was conquered by the U.S. when it tried to leave. You are a conquered people.
Texashiker
Lifer
- Dec 18, 2010
- 18,811
- 198
- 106
You do not understand Texas culture.
You trying to understand Texas is like a mouse trying to understand an eagle.
Every nation state is a result of conquering, including the US.
Texas was conquered again in the US Civil War.
Except in this case the mouse conquered the eagle.
You tried to leave, the northeast kicked your ass.
Texas shouldn't have tried to mess with the north, huh.
Nebor
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2003
- 29,582
- 12
- 76
Shouldn't you be arguing for Texas' freedom then? Because in all the Israel threads you keep saying that it's "illegal" to keep land taken in conflict.
Is your argument that the civil war happened after the UN charter? If not, it's hard to see what your point is.
Also, no need for quotes around illegal for what israel has done. There's really no question about it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 386
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter