Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by moon, Feb 5, 2012.
I really find this bored Tory-boy rhetoric quite offensive.
Sure, foreign residents will be given the option of assuming Scottish nationality. In Australia, I believe, invited foreigners can apply for naturalization after two years residency.
In the US;
I think it was normal practice to fetch in troops from another area in these circumstances. If the rioting had been in Newcastle then no doubt they would have brought troops from Scotland to protect the civil infrastructure.
That's 70 years longer than America then.
You could well be right .
But there comes a point where I say ," Do what you want , if it is done by due process and is legally binding .We basically do not mind whether you stay, or choose to style yourselves as Independent "
But , just get on with it .
We have heard the same discussion ad infinitum .
It is no doubt most interesting for Scotties , but I just cannot believe it is in a World News section . It barely makes English news unless Alex makes another well crafted speech .
Well that depends what you call these circumstances doesn't it? However generally I think troops would have been brought in from the nearest barracks to deal with riots. Waiting for others to arrive would have been running a risk not to mention "foreign" troops might inflame even more rioting. As for Scottish troops in Newcastle, they might have sided with the Geordies! No, I think its pretty obvious it wasn't just a matter of local loyalties but national ones that were at play in Glasgow.
I agree . I dread to think we'd all have to endure listening to whining Scots for at least the next 30 months and all the later years of bargaining.
I've switched to drinking Irish whisky . Cant tell the difference. (wink)
Of course they weren't.
Jeez...how many of your local troops would fire upon their relations, friends and neighbours....even for money?
Actually less than a decade ago local police fired upon local people on the streets of Copenhagen, so yes jeez it certainly happens even these days in a country like Denmark!
Its wasn't about local troops firing on relations, friends and neighbours but Scottish troops firing on their own countrymen. Which was my point, it was also about nationalism.
1) Scots are Scots? I'm English and have more Scotish blood than a "Scotish" mate, who has litterally none. So what is "Scotish" about being "Scotish"?
2) Moon, please stop turning everything in to a Palestine thing. You're like Walter Spochek in the Big Lebowski.
Exactly. And independence means full, 100% independence. No armed forces, nothing.
And will not stand. If this is the vote, then it should be a UK of GB and NI vote, not a Scotish vote.
Pish taking (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)!
You've gone from applying international sport qualifying rules (which are nonsense) to this?
Have you thought this through at all?
If you can vote in an national election, you can vote in the referendum. End.
A pity some people are not older: there would still be an Empire, perhaps, ruled by Leffe. What business is Scotland of anybody's but the Scots?
Insurrection, revolution, Gadaffi used African mercenaries because he knew that soldiers in his army would not shoot someone from their own tribe, they would probably defect to the other side first.
Good question, Iolo.
And we'll get just as sensible answers to that question as there has been as to just WHY Scotland would want to remain in a "Union" which so blatantly obviously thinks the Scots are not even capable of thinking for themselves without Unionist input.
Learning a lot about people I thought I "knew" in reading threads on this subject.
You are sounding just like a Zionist in Israel now!
But sure as hell there will be no aggressive armed forces.......or Nuclear weapons.......in an Independent Scotland!
It's Billy Connely come to make us laugh and cry.
The Odd One does not want AGGRESSIVE armed forces .
Another Scottish " first"
A non aggressive armed force.
And what exactly are they going to defend ? Rangers versus Celtic battles ?
How cracked can this thread get to ?
I'm just getting a bit nervous about the way the Nationalists seem to be assuming it will be the SNP in charge of an independent Scotland.
They are thinking of holding elections I hope because if they are it could well be another party and another party's policies deciding these matters in 2014.
If Scots have chosen not to live in Scotland, but move elsewhere for whatever reason and make their home furth of the country of their birth.........they themselves have chosen to have no voice in the future of the country in which a large proportion of us still live under the Westminster yoke. They have chosen the position of being born Scots.....but not Scots who give a toss, when it comes to ANY voting in Scotland..and if also outside the UK, any right to a say in the UK either...........but they sure have plenty to say in stuff which has sod all to do with them any more. (You listening, Beevee?)
Those of whatever race/nationality/colour/religion who move into Scotland to make a life for themselves, and live here NOW are those who get to vote, and have MUCH more right to do that......because they are the ones who DO give a shyte about their futures.....and will be the ones to bear the brunt of the decision made, not the ex-pat pontificators who think, because they have Scottish origins/ancestry that that makes them "Scottish", despite the fact that they have chosen, of their own free will, to change their nationality, and become citizens of another country, abandoning the one of their birth.
Those Scots who cheerfully buggered off to England, Australia, the USA, Canada etc for a "better life" forfeited any right to tell those of us in Scotland who are still here and still trying to get the fairness and equity which has been missing for the 305 years of the "Union" what we should be wanting.....because it isn't going to affect them at all.
But then, we all know that Scots become much more Scottish once they don't have to live here......it is the "romance" they perceive in the likes of Mel Gibson's Braveheart rewriting of History..and the "romance" they perceive in fiction like Diana Gabaldon's books, and the "romance" of having a surname in their ancestry which may just possibly mean they descend directly from Simon(The Fox) Fraser...or Robert (the Cave and Spider) Bruce....or William (the hung drawn and quartered Scottish Patriot) Wallace.....or a Clan Chief, like the MacLean of Duart or the MacDonald of the Isles etc..or even, joy of joys, to the Royal Family.
Good for tourism, most certainly...but not anything on which to base Scottishness as a concept which gives voting rights in a country in which they no longer live.
(Going slightly off topic here a bit, but it is connected)
I asked you a few pages ago, in a post you completely ignored, though I'd be interested in a reply if you are not just arguing for the sake of it...... If I were a Palestinian living in the West Bank or Gaza, I'd be immensely hacked off if those who had moved on to other countries and lives decided that the independence on offer wasn't good enough to suit their aspirations, voted against and subjected those Palestinians actually living under the Israeli yoke to more decades of the same.......wouldn't you?
I am normally a supporter of much, if not most of what you say re Israel/Palestine, even if sometimes I roll my eyes at how you phrase it..but I am a shade less so about what you say about Hamas. I have always said that, as a democratically elected government, elected under well supervised election procedures, they should have been, and should be now, given the place to which they are entitled in a democracy..and the Gaza situation is the sole responsibility of Israel and the West.
However, maybe I do cynicism to the point of a mental problem.....but I read the Palestinian refugee diaspora has not been consulted on Palestine's future. That must change- as Hamas has indicated it will..as Hamas believing that there are enough pro Hamas votes in the diaspora to ensure that what Hamas don't want will get voted out..by people who no longer live in the West Bank or Gaza.
To me, Hamas is the Unionist equivalent in Palestine...just coming from a different start point...except that they and their supporters, as the UK government and the Unionists do, think their start point is the only feasible option and they will do spoiling to ensure it prevails.
So not a lot different to all those Unionists who are screaming now..and will be for the next two and a half years as to the rights of non-Scots living in NI, Wales and England to vote on the future of Scotland......or to you insisting, obviously for your own purposes, because I just don't believe you are that undemocratic, that Scots who have chosen not to live in Scotland should have a vote on the governance of a country they have, through personal choice, left behind.
Yes that would normally be the case but it's not what they did here. The troops in the local barracks were locked in and the government brought in tanks and surrounded George Square with machine-guns in the upper stories of the buildings surrounding it.
Which was bull(*)(*)(*)(*) - what self-respecting revolutionary is going to take his wife and kids on an assault on the government (which wasn't in Glasgow....).
The point is where loyalty fault lines lie not there existence or use to divide and rule. Tribal or local loyalties may trump national ones or may not. An indication of that is whether soldiers are brought in from other tribes or from other nations. My point is that Scottish troops in barracks in Glasgow were not used because they were Scottish not simply because they were locals. Many probably came from far afield, as far removed from Glasgow as England. Still they were not used because they were Scots and the loyalty faultline was a national one, English/Scottish as opposed to Glaswegian/Aberdonian for example.
Just two years before in Russia the workers had revolted and the army mutinied and joined them. That was the start of the Russian Revolution.
The troops in barracks in Glasgow were deemed unreliable, probably by the head of the British intelligence services who was a Scot and a decision was made, probably by the Prime Minister who was Welsh.
But I think it says a lot about the mindset of the Scots that this is seen as an attempt by the English to dominate Scotland.
You do talk crap from a position of being an ignorant bloody irritation, fredc...and you can hope away as much as you like...but the SNP will be in Government until 2016, which is when the next Scottish elections are due...whether the vote is for Independence or not.....so the only thing that is going to be happening in 2014 is the Independence Referendum.
After 2016.....who knows.....because I certainly don't, but whether we get Independence or not, I think the political complexion of Scotland will have changed a lot..and won't confine itself to sticking Scottish in front of Labour, Tory and Lib-Dem, in the hopes we think they don't toe the UK party line.
You sound more and more like Tory Cameron in the few posts of yours I read any more...as in "I say this should be what happens..and I say it must happen NOW!"
I'd be more than happy for the Union to end and have full independence, but not shared resources, either militarily or diplomatically. If they want this, then the vote should be the entire union. If they want full and complete independence, they can have the vote themselves.
It's not a difficult concept Iolo.
Separate names with a comma.