1.5 million Catalans are marching for independence!what's next?Scotland,w-Sahara, Kur

So lets get this right. you think its inevitable that Scotland will vote for independence at the upcoming vote next year? If thatt is the case then why aren't they ahead in the Polls right now? If the vote does not result in a vote in faviour of independence will you admit you are full of sh1t?

 

And if it does will you?

Better watch more of what's going on in Scotland right now. Watch the open poll at the end.
[video=youtube;k0Z7nu_r81U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=k0Z7nu_r81U[/video]​

 

A series of documentaries about the road to independence covering Scottish life from 1945 to 2014. Very informative regarding the causality in the chain of events since the end of the war and also regarding the historical conditions that have brought the SNP all the way to where it is today.

[video=youtube;-VMOX5iAEzE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=-VMOX5iAEzE[/video]

[video=youtube;g9HcUanoBX8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=g9HcUanoBX8[/video]

[video=youtube;2S0JphM3M-E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=2S0JphM3M-E[/video]​

 

personally I would love Scotland to be independent.

 

Not when the SNP have just suffered a humiliating defeat at the recent Dunfermline by-election whilst, at the same time, a poll came out showing that just 30% of Scots are in favour of independence.

 

It is less of a state than a state of the UAE or the USA.

Scotland has less powers than an American state.

Although it has much more powers than England has.

 

Vlad has special knowledge due to his hatred of England.

 

Scottish secession would be the first step in it's own downfall.

Anyway if we redrew the border based solely on the distribution of different ethnicities then the world would be a mess.

If anyone wants an example then just look at the former Yugoslavia.

 

Maybe you confuse ethnicities/minorities with states/countries/entire nations that have simply been incorporated into another state. Scotland is a country that you simply annexed. There is a reason it was called the British Empire until not long ago.

With Yugoslavia it was a different story. The country split into several countries thanks to the poor administration, bureaucracy, corruption that arose out of a combination of post-communism and that war. It's true that the war started because of nationalist tensions. But the 1990s in Eastern Europe were the early stage of transition from communism when all people blamed their governments in the harshest terms for being inhuman. That's because the new governments were simply the old communists, their sons, their nephews, trying to be capitalists more or less. Truth is that in the early 1990s nobody knew or remembered what capitalism + democracy are supposed to be like. Mass abuses from the Eastern European governments continued while the people didn't know how to demand rights between themselves and hideous, immoral privatizations that subsequently would not pay taxes or anything.

This seriously influenced the sense of nationalism as it fueled the illusion that people are marginalized because of their ethnicity which in fact might have been very true but still not the main source of their hardships. However subsequent independence would only result in a smaller scale repetition of the old problems. Yugoslavia is a very different matter from the UK. The crisis of a post-communist world is unlike anything you can imagine. You can however imagine that different movements will spin out of this, be they nationalism or something else. Back then you had tensions and social unrest of all kinds. The 'downfall' of the former Yugoslavian republics is not a result of the separation but a result of post-communism. You know that Marxism-Leninism aimed to replicate the primitive communes. Well guess what... now people in Eastern Europe had to learn almost from scratch what civilization is like.

 

I love it when someone whose entire motivation is about his racist hatred of the English people speaks with such ignorance. England and Scotland JOINED into a new country called the United Kingdom of Britain.

 

They joined with England because they were broke from trying to establish colonies of their own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Crowns

It was only later that Britain came into being in 1707.

The union between the countries of Britain is not why we had an empire.

No it didn't. It was a federation that split because Serbia wanted to forcibly keep it together but more importantly to separate Serbs living in Bosnia.

I'm sorry but I think that you'll find that the Yugoslav wars had very little to do with communism.

 

you was a broke in 1943 why you did not became the 51 state then?

 

What does this have to do with what I've written?

 

But still they are not an ethnicity as you said, they are a country.

I didn't say it was.

I think you agree that if this post-communist era had not come it's likely the wars would not have taken place. The government before 1989 had kept it together just as forcibly and it was successful. This war/separation was highly encouraged by the social turmoil of the post-communist era as I like to name it. Otherwise how come it hadn't happened before, in communist times? How come it doesn't happen now in W-Europe with the Spanish govt fighting the Catalans or the British fighting the Scots. The wars really had a lot to do with the very distinct atmosphere fallen communism leaves behind.

Your entire point was that the 'downfall' of ex-Yugoslavian republics came out of their desire for separation. If you ask me, the whole of Eastern Europe was in 'downfall', their independence didn't make much difference. The ethnic tensions were very much fueled by a lack of civilized approaches typical of governments that establish themselves in the social fog that collapsed communism causes.

 

And?

You kind of did actually

Because Tito was not interested in favouring any particular people, only in keeping Yugoslavia together.

How come it doesn't happen now in W-Europe with the Spanish govt fighting the Catalans or the British fighting the Scots.

Because these cultures are different and don't have previous and more recent episodes of oppression towards one another.

With Yugoslavia there were people who still remembered the Ustase and the Chetniks for example
Also Islam is not something that Serbs like a great deal which in this case meant Bosnia.

Yugoslavia was a different case though as most of eastern Europe did not have wars of secession except for Moldova in regards to the transinistrian war.

And they did have a quorum for the meeting of Yugoslav countries and prior to the first action by the JNA in Slovenia there was alot of talking between leaders and emergent factions.

 

What would you have to negotiate with? Spain will blobk you in any case.

 

Mmmmm...... 1707! Since when does pogroms justify the word union!

Since when does the slavery of the Scottish nation justify union!

Since when does the starvation of a nation constitute a union?

Mmmm..... Clearances of the Scottish nation from the land so your aristocracy can have there estates. 9/10s of Scotland are still in estates today, roll on next year!

Regards
Highlander

 

Scotland has never enslaved by England nor starved as a result of the union. You could even say that it was never colonised by England.
Please feel free to prove otherwise.

As for the land clearances. That was not done by us but your landowners.

If you look at the link that that I posted you'll find that it was the Scottish crown that ascended to the throne of England and Ireland so technically England belonged to Scotland. Funny eh? Maybe we should be complaining about Scottish usurpation of English sovereignty?

 

I understand king James the sixth and first, and yes it was Scotland who ascended the English throne.
But as you know they were usurped by those who have no place on the English throne now.

In aberdeen there was a thriving slave market run by the servants of he crown. Williamson wrote a book of his experiences as a slave, murdered on his return for highlighting those who became rich selling human beings.
So much history on the subject, no need for me to regurgitate the facts readily available.
I have heard many time the clearances never happened, but that again was only Dishonourable historians scrapping the bottom of a low life's barrel.
Just like the potato famine never happened, six million Irish died through the greed and inhumanity of your German usurpers and degenerates.

Regards
Highlander

 

Please elaborate? Who does not belong on the throne now?

You mean indentured servants? because slavery was itself illegal in the UK.
Also most slavers were private individuals or part of companies.

I never said that. What I did say was that if you want to place blame on the land clearances then I think you'll find that your own countrymen are the culprits.

First time I've heard anybody deny it.
But the cause of the famine was simply because the Irish kept using the same strain of potato which of course means that if there are only one or two varieties being used then it's likely that they will all suffer blight.

And if it weren't for Ireland's presence in the union then they would never of been far too poor to even leave.

As for how the issue of Royal marriage. It's not usurpation and in any case prince Albert stayed a prince whilst married to to Queen Victoria.
Also if you anything about this period of history you'll know that we were the third nation to abolish slavery and had freed some half a million slaves courtesy of the west African naval patrol.
You'll also know that it was Queen Victoria who actually pulled the proverbial strings but parliament which has a couple of Scottish PM's; one of which made the decision to engage in the Crimean war.

 

So many thing I could take umbrage at, but where does one start?

Perhaps dare i say, you might look at the historical facts, for a change! I understand some are difficult to find, we'll no one want proof of the genocide getting to be public knowledge do they!

But I'm glad you didn't contradict or repudiate the German link I suggested!
1858 was the last voyage of a slave ship from the uk! But then they had by they sown up the opioum market and distributing the death through out the world. Pity for the Taliban destroying the opioum crops, how easy it's for them NATO protecting the drug crops.

Aye... There's no fool like an old fool.

Highlander

 

I can't read your mind; you tell me.

I've been studying history since I was a boy.
If there is anything that I've written that you believe to be untrue then feel free to bring it to my attention.

It's common knowledge regarding the marriage between Queen Victoria and Prince Albert.

Doubtful as the trading of slaves was made illegal in 1807 and slavery itself was illegal in the UK.

Slavery actually stopped becoming valuable in the early 19th century as the 13 colonies had been lost and sugar prices had actually dropped which was the primary cash crop in the Caribbean.

The first opium war which was concluded in 1842 had proved to be a boon to the EITC.
But ultimately if people really didn't want to consume opium then they wouldn't do it. Nobody forced them.

I don't see the relevance.

If that sentiment is directed at me then I take serious umbrage.
1. I'm 24 not an old fool
2. I've treated your comments fairly and without discrimination which I've noticed others have had less patience in doing so.
3. I don't appreciate the fact that you've dislodged the objective of this thread and further more injected statements that aren't even remotely relevant.

My question: What does any of this have to do with the potential independence of Scotland? Or any other country listed on the first page of this thread?

 

Anywhere you can provide evidence

Like a 25 year old Churchill being responsible for the Boer war camps you mean? The 'fact' that you are utterly unable to demonstrate

So you are claiming knowledge of something with no evidence...I see... why would anyone believe your utterly unsupported assertions?

You have proven over Churchill that you lie constantly.

That ship was "The Wanderer". It as a US ship, built in the USA and crewed by American sailors. It travelled from New York to Benguala and thence to Georgia. It was NEVER in the UK. More of your lies.

NATO does not protect drug crops. Taliban have made fortunes off Opium.

As you so often demonstrate with your inability to prove the nonsense you promote

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-24986670

I said it all along.

If Scotland leaves then it will have some serious economic problems.

 

The New York Times’ List of Potential New Countries, and Others As Well

Source: http://www.geocurrents.info/geopoli...ntial-new-countries-others-well#ixzz2l5uNWFBO