Scottish independence?

captdavid

Well-Known Member
But are they an enemy of the UK because we supported americas attempts to be the world police ?

Neil.
To answer your statement about The US being the world police. I wish we weren't, but if not us with assistance of our allies, who?

They are an enemy of any non Islamic, and most Islamic, who don't follow Wahhabism, people and of the western democracy's.

I am certainly no expert. It is truly a long story, no pun intended, It goes back to the Crusades, around 1100AD by the Europeans, . There was slaughter and bloodshed on both sides. It became a part of their culture. Importantly, around the mid 18th century, the House of Ibn Saud, the founder of the family that rules Saudi Arabia today, and a religious fanatic 'Abd al-Wahhab, the founder of Wahhabism, The sect of most of the Islamic extremist today, Agreed to support each other. The Europeans had little to do with the middle east, with the exception of France and the UK in Egypt, until colonialism and the breakup of the Ottoman empire after WWI. Most of the political unrest in the Middle East started at this time. The Ottoman Empire was divided, with little thought of what the population wanted. Political unrest, began to grow as the population wanted independence. This happened throughout the area, including what was to become Israel. The Israeli-Arab war, Its my opinion, was the spark that lead to Islamic extremism. Again, its hard for me to describe, we virtually destroyed the Isis state, but the nebulas ideas and people still exist. capt david
 

landkeeper

Well-Known Member
To answer your statement about The US being the world police. I wish we weren't, but if not us with assistance of our allies, who?

They are an enemy of any non Islamic, and most Islamic, who don't follow Wahhabism, people and of the western democracy's.

I am certainly no expert. It is truly a long story, no pun intended, It goes back to the Crusades, around 1100AD by the Europeans, . There was slaughter and bloodshed on both sides. It became a part of their culture. Importantly, around the mid 18th century, the House of Ibn Saud, the founder of the family that rules Saudi Arabia today, and a religious fanatic 'Abd al-Wahhab, the founder of Wahhabism, The sect of most of the Islamic extremist today, Agreed to support each other. The Europeans had little to do with the middle east, with the exception of France and the UK in Egypt, until colonialism and the breakup of the Ottoman empire after WWI. Most of the political unrest in the Middle East started at this time. The Ottoman Empire was divided, with little thought of what the population wanted. Political unrest, began to grow as the population wanted independence. This happened throughout the area, including what was to become Israel. The Israeli-Arab war, Its my opinion, was the spark that lead to Islamic extremism. Again, its hard for me to describe, we virtually destroyed the Isis state, but the nebulas ideas and people still exist. capt david
Its all down to western meddling , from crusades down to carve ups of countries after ww2 the imposition and support for western friendly dictators and the formation of israel
Its a mess and one that probably will never see resolution
 

kes

Well-Known Member
Religeon, perhaps more than nationalism, is the fault line of war.
Humanism as a 'religeon' might do, and have done, us more good as a species.
 

Finch

Well-Known Member
Can we deploy a smaller, precision version of the above against London?

We don't need to create a whole new ocean, just a nice peaceful patch of depopulated estuarine wetland. Ideal for a spot of wildfowling and no one left to bellyache about it a try to ban it.
It's the only answer.
 

jon2

Well-Known Member
Tis simple
All nations want to be able to govern their own affairs not be told what to do from afar
The principle is the same irrespective of where ye are in the world
Humans are tribal its a genetic thing they want to and need to belong to a 'group' nationality is a strong group being told what to and not what to do by others always irks
Add to that mayhem and murder inflicted on 'occupied' territories always prevokes a reaction eventually
Yes I get that a nation wants to govern their own affairs - it is why I voted leave. What I don’t get is that the independent vote in Scotland want to separate from the Union (in the name of governing their own affairs) only to stay in another club (the EU) where they will not be able to govern their own affairs. That’s the part I don’t understand.

I visit Scotland through shooting and with work and what strikes me when I’m up there these days is that when driving through the suburbs it looks like it’s on it arse. They keep receiving payouts from Westminster and then spending it frivolously on things like free eye tests and the like.

If the SNP did succeed I think Scotland as an independent state would not be able to survive economically. I’m not an economic expert but now the oil has gone how can Scotland think they would be able to survive? I’m open to ideas on this as I’m just stating my opinion. I’m a big fan of Scotland and do enjoy trips up there whether work or pleasure but where will the money come from?
 
Last edited:

rem284

Well-Known Member
One world, one race, the human race. Two types of people, bad and good. Let's all try to be good
 

Sonicdmb73

Well-Known Member
Yes I get that a nation wants to govern their own affairs - it is why I voted leave. What I don’t get is that the independent vote in Scotland want to separate from the Union (in the name of governing their own affairs) only to stay in another club (the EU) where they will not be able to govern their own affairs. That’s the part I don’t understand.

I visit Scotland through shooting and with work and what strikes me when I’m up there these days is that when driving through the suburbs it looks like it’s on it arse. They keep receiving payouts from Westminster and then spending it frivolously on things like free eye tests and the like.

If the SNP did succeed I think Scotland as an independent state would not be able to survive economically. I’m not an economic expert but now the oil has gone how can Scotland think they would be able to survive? I’m open to ideas on this as I’m just stating my opinion. I’m a big fan of Scotland and do enjoy trips up there whether work or pleasure but where will the money come from?
Shooting, oh no hang on they don’t like deer. And all the lairds who own grouse moors are just evil money grabbers. :-|:doh:
 

Highlandsjohn

Well-Known Member
Yes I get that a nation wants to govern their own affairs - it is why I voted leave. What I don’t get is that the independent vote in Scotland want to separate from the Union (in the name of governing their own affairs) only to stay in another club (the EU) where they will not be able to govern their own affairs. That’s the part I don’t understand.

I visit Scotland through shooting and with work and what strikes me when I’m up there these days is that when driving through the suburbs it looks like it’s on it arse. They keep receiving payouts from Westminster and then spending it frivolously on things like free eye tests and the like.

If the SNP did succeed I think Scotland as an independent state would not be able to survive economically. I’m not an economic expert but now the oil has gone how can Scotland think they would be able to survive? I’m open to ideas on this as I’m just stating my opinion. I’m a big fan of Scotland and do enjoy trips up there whether work or pleasure but where will the money come from?
This troll OP has achieved its goal.:stir: I refer you to MIKI's first reply. john


Thursday at 12:18 AM
captdavid said:
I am sure that to some, that this is a contentious issue. I have no intention of stirring up anything.
<snip>
Captain.
If you know it's going to be contentious and stir things up, in the UK it's considered polite not to ask.
Saying "I don't want to upset you , but .." or "I don't want to be rude, however...' is rude and often upsetting, a mark of inconsideration or antagonism.

captdavid said:
As a curious ex Highschool history teacher, I would like to know when English became the common language of Ireland, Wales and Scotland.
Not wanting to cast dispersions, but as a teacher of history, why don't you know ?
 

Finch

Well-Known Member
English became the common language of the British Isles when the Britain became the most powerful economy in the world. When that age passed English remained the global language of business, and still is today because now the USA is the world's largest and most important economy. That's just how it works. When you're rich and powerful the rest of the world gravitates towards you, not the other way round. There's no coercion or conspiracy. If you want to do business with the big boys you need to speak the their language. Which in oart explains why native Eng;ish speakers are generally so bad at learning other languages: there's little motivation because we don't have to..
If we live long enough we'll probably one day be speaking hindi or Mandarin.
 

Tulloch

Well-Known Member
Let me give you an overview of the situation in regards to Scotland and independence.

Main reason for me that we need independence is that one city in England and out-vote the whole of Scotland and that has been proven in two maybe 3 general elections in the past . In fact during one General election Labour and Conservative only got 1 seat each in parliament from the whole of Scotland as the SNP wone every other seat and still was a far cry for the majority needed to lead parliament , another reason for this is that you cannot vote for SNP everywhere in the UK just in Scotland unlike Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative and even UKIP the Latter never ever holding any seat in Scotland. So Scotland has a false democracy .

During Indy Ref 1 , the Unionists used scare tactics (funnily enough the same scare tactics the Brexiteers have used to screw the whole of the UK ) to force a 55/45 % split for staying part of the UK . Some of these scare tactics encluded were "Pensions would not be upheld" so people would lose their UK, and the one that is causing an issue now "The only way Scotland can guarantee being part of the EU is to stay in the UK". Now it is that last statement that is going to be the cause of indy ref 2.

Scotland was told by Westminster that IF Scotland left the UK then they would not be guaranteed a place in Europe, however, during the Brexit referendum Scotland voted 68% to stay in Europe but because there are more people in England than there is in Scotland we are pulled out of the EU after less than 12 months before it telling people that the only way to secure Scotlands place in Europe is to stay part of the UK . Now you can imagine there are many people peaved off at this and many who voted to stay in the UK just over the EU issue.

Now the fact remains that Scotland desperately needs to stay in the EU, Scotland needs immigration and migrant workers for to help run key developments and facilities, Scotland has more people die every year than there is born so Scotland technically is a dying nation so the need for migration and immigration is a must for Scotland.

Scotlands situation is far different from the rest of the UK as our facilities are stretched not because of a growing population but because of an ageing population and this puts a lot of strain on the country. Scotland also relies on a lot of funding from the EU with many unfinished projects still happening within the country.

So theres a quick over view of what is going on , Scotlands situation is far different from England.
 

captdavid

Well-Known Member
I only know this because my wife is a Filipina. English is one of the two official languages of the Philippines. Because of this most High School graduates. for the last 40 or so years, speak at least a degree of English. Average teacher salary is around $350 per month. The Philippines is loosing English teachers to China which pays twice that. capt david
 

Finch

Well-Known Member
Hth, written after last go, still valid imv (reads across the columns):

View attachment 123950
I never bother reading further when I see the phrase "rump UK" in the context of Scottish independence. It is middle finger sneering of the most juvenile kind and displays a fantastically inaccurate grasp of economic realities.
England alone has ten times the population of Scotland and if the long term market for the stuff were not diminishing (which it is), then England can trump Scotland in the latter's favoured indicator of global relevance: oil. We have more of that as well. Not all the North Sea fields are in Scottish waters and England has far larger on-shore reserves, most of them untapped. Here in Dorset alone we have the largest on-shore oil fields in western Europe.
Scotland has a GDP of about £150 billion. England's GDP is £2.4 trillion. We have a vastly larger industrial, financial, service and manufacturing base per capita and while the UK as a whole runs a fiscal deficit of £36 billion. Scotland's alone is £11 billion - nearly a third of the debt for less than one tenth of the population. In other words Scotland runs a gargantuan fiscal gap over the rest of the UK of an eye-watering 6.9%.

Scotland could certainly have a viable future as an independent nation - though not under the economically illiterate soft Marxism of the SNP. However, given the economic facts, to described a UK shorn of Scotland as a "rump" is laughable". I know it's meant to be a petty anti-English insult rather than anything remotely accurate but by implying an alternative reality that is so manifestly wide of the truth, it is one of those insults which makes the user look more foolish than the target. And it presents a grossly misleading version of the facts to Scottish voters. Commentators who use this language cannot be taken seriously.
 

Top