UK finally ends 300 years of Imperialism

On the line of what we conquered, let's see, pretty much all the united states? I thought that was the purpose of killing all those native americans. Kill em all, move in and then wonder why nobody had settled the land previously, I'd also stick hawaii and most of the pacific coaling stations that we fought with japan over. You can call it liberation if you'd like, you can assert that they have representation and self rule but if they wanted the US prescence gone how long do you think it would be before it turned out the people there were "Under the rule of a dictator who needed to be removed and a US prescence restablished for their own good"

Liberation is like conquering the only difference is that when the natives object you call it fundamentalist/reactionary and acuse them of wanting to terrorize their people.
 
Emperor Trajan said:
Its posturing, the Scots would be fools to break away, just like Quebec.
Click to expand...

The referendum will only be held in Scotland, I would say that if England were included then they would have a majority for independence. Most English voters get fed up with Scottish whinging and whining all the time. They would definitely have something to moan about if they had to pay the true costs rather than being subsidised more than any other region of the UK. I find it laughable how gullible Americans bang on about imperialist England when the truth is most English would be glad to get shot of them. P. G. Wodehouse said it best. "It is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine".


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-price-independence-just-Scots-change.html
 
Last edited:
USFREEDOM911 said:
Britain break up? UK government to offer Scotland powers for binding independence vote

Breaking up is supposed to be hard to do _ but Britain's government confirmed Tuesday it will offer Scotland the powers it needs to sever centuries-old ties to England.

Prime Minister David Cameron's government said it would sweep away legal hurdles to allow the Scots a vote on whether their country should become independent for the first time since the 18th Century Act of Union, which united Scotland with England to create Great Britain.

But in return, Cameron _ who opposes any breakup of the United Kingdom, which also includes Wales and Northern Ireland _ is urging Scotland to make its intentions clear "sooner rather than later." He claims investors are becoming increasingly wary of Scottish leader Alex Salmond's plans to delay a vote for several years, damaging Britain's economy.

Salmond, head of Scotland's semiautonomous government, has long championed independence to allow the country greater control over lucrative oil and natural gas reserves in the North Sea.

His separatist Scottish National Party insists that winning total control over tax and spending policies _ powers the Scottish government doesn't presently have _ would help replicate the economic success of neighbors like Norway, which has used its energy riches to fund state pensions.

"This is a huge decision for Scotland. This is potentially the biggest decision we have made as a nation for 300 years," Salmond said Tuesday, on a tour of an oil facility in Dyce, eastern Scotland.

He insisted that Cameron should not take any role in setting out the timetable for the crucial

"We are not going to be stampeded and dragooned by a Tory prime minister in London," Salmond said.

Since Scotland voted in favor of a domestic legislative body in 1997, its parliament has had autonomy over education, health and justice and can make minor alterations to income tax. For now, London retains primacy on all matters relating to Britain as a whole _ including defense, energy and foreign relations.

The other nations of the United Kingdom also have administrations with some limited powers. Wales voted for a national assembly in 1997, while the Northern Ireland Assembly was created to provide cross-community government in the province under the U.S.-brokered Good Friday peace accord of 1998.

Salmond accuses Cameron of pushing for an early vote in Scotland in the hope of killing off any split in the United Kingdom. Both Cameron and Britain's opposition leader, the Labour Party's Ed Miliband, plan to campaign against Scottish independence.

The timing of the vote could be crucial. Recent opinion polls indicate rising support for independence, after surveys showed backing for the separation hovering at about 30 percent for several decades.

Salmond hopes to hold a poll most likely in 2014, when nationalist sentiment could be at a height as the city of Glasgow hosts the Commonwealth Games and Scots mark the 700th anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn, a key military victory over England.

Under current law, Scotland's Parliament cannot hold its own legally binding referendum, meaning any result could be challenged in the courts. Cameron's government confirmed Tuesday it would temporarily grant Scotland's administration the rights to hold a binding poll.

Danny Alexander, Britain's deputy treasury chief and a lawmaker who represents a Scottish district at Westminster, said the decision would help "avoid years of legal wrangling" and speed Scotland's path to a decision.

"I think that jobs, investment and growth in Scotland are much more important than waiting for the anniversary of a medieval battle as the key that determines your timing for a referendum," Alexander said.

Cameron has suggested Scotland's vote should only put forward two choices _ independence, or the status quo, dismissing calls for a third option, under which Scotland would have control over all but foreign policy and defense.

Salmond hasn't ruled out including the lesser option, referred to as "independence-lite," but said his own party would campaign in favor of a permanent split.

"What I think the Scottish people deserve is a fair, clear and decisive question," Cameron said.

Salmond's party has said that if it succeeds in winning independence, Scotland would keep Queen Elizabeth II as head of state and _ for now at least _ retain the British pound as its currency.

I'm glad they finally decided to join the rest of the world, in the 21st century.
Click to expand...

A referendum on Scottish independence is extremely unlikely to pass. Also, up until this point in time, the Scottish people had failed to elect a government that was willing to consider a referendum, so there was no need to clear the hurdles. This specific government was primarily elected for reasons other than its call for independence. Most of the countries that participate in the UK are there because they want to be. In some cases, such as Northern Ireland, support for independence is actually higher in England than in the country itself.

You really shouldn't rely on Braveheart as your primary source in these affairs.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
UH
Guam is a "territory", has self rule, was liberated from the Japanese in 1944 and prior to that it was "ceded" to the US, by Spain; ergo: we did not make it a "subject" of the US, plus they seem to like the arrangement.

Puerto Rican voters, on June 4, 1951, approved in a referendum a U.S. law that granted them the right to draft their own constitution. The constituent assembly began its deliberations in the following September. In March 1952 the electorate approved the new constitution, and on July 25 Governor Muñoz proclaimed the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Doesn't seem they are our subjects and were also cedded to us by Spain.

The Marshall Islands are also part of what was LIBERATED from the Japanese and we are currently providing funds to keep the Islands viable.

Would you care to try again and actually provide something that supports what you were trying so hopefully to assert?
Click to expand...

Well, Scotland was liberated from tyrannical lords, and the Scottish people most want to stay in the UK.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Nope.
You really need to read some history; because I don't think payment is considered conqured and liberated doesn't mean conqured either. :)
Click to expand...

"Liberating" is often used as a euphemism for imperialistic policies. The Soviet Union didn't really liberate eastern europe, they transferred masters. And the US was not completely innocent in this sort of thing. There was always an implicit acknowledgement that any country in our sphere that moved out of it was likely to have its leaders assassinated or overthrown by the CIA.

Really, I posted a thread the other day in which I mocked this sort of use of "liberated". In a game, I declared war on Bulgaria and Greece (without causa bellum), conquered them, and made them part of Spain. I described this as "liberating the oppressed people's of Bulgaria and Greece, who are now glad to join hands with their Spanish brothers and be given the ability to participate in the worker's revolution".
 
Kel Tec RFB said:
Technically Texas stole Texas, then they ceded themselves to us.
Click to expand...

Well, the Mexicans allowed American immigration into Texas. After inviting themselves in, the Americans decided that they didn't really want to be Mexicans. It was a very creative and grassroots form of imperialism. Unfortunately, they seem to have learned from us.
 
Disillusioned said:
On the line of what we conquered, let's see, pretty much all the united states? I thought that was the purpose of killing all those native americans. Kill em all, move in and then wonder why nobody had settled the land previously, I'd also stick hawaii and most of the pacific coaling stations that we fought with japan over. You can call it liberation if you'd like, you can assert that they have representation and self rule but if they wanted the US prescence gone how long do you think it would be before it turned out the people there were "Under the rule of a dictator who needed to be removed and a US prescence restablished for their own good"

Liberation is like conquering the only difference is that when the natives object you call it fundamentalist/reactionary and acuse them of wanting to terrorize their people.
Click to expand...

Liberation done right simply involves entering into the country, throwing off their foreign masters, letting them establish a democracy, and then leaving. In practice, it is difficult to liberate without there being at least some sort of imperialistic aftertaste. The problem is that it's difficult for a gift to really be a no strings attached gift. We give out lots of foreign aid, sure, but we absolutely do use this foreign aid to further our foreign policy interests, by threatening to revoke it should another state do anything we don't like.

By accepting the gift at all, they've ceded a little bit of their independence to us. People will respond to me by saying "Oh, should we just give out aid like stupid chumps to countries that are acting anti-US, or are executing Muslims for converting to Christianity?" Of course, that's a valid point. I'm not making a value judgement here. I'm just trying to point out the complexities involved.

If you consider the liberation a gift that the other peoples should be grateful for, then you will often throw that around and use it to interfere in their domestic affairs when they do something you don't like. Anyone who doesn't think that the Iraqui and Afghan governments feel a need to cater to US interests, or that the US often doesn't act like it has the right to do so, is quite naive indeed.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
The referendum will only be held in Scotland, I would say that if England were included then they would have a majority for independence. Most English voters get fed up with Scottish whinging and whining all the time. They would definitely have something to moan about if they had to pay the true costs rather than being subsidised more than any other region of the UK. I find it laughable how gullible Americans bang on about imperialist England when the truth is most English would be glad to get shot of them. P. G. Wodehouse said it best. "It is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine".


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-price-independence-just-Scots-change.html
Click to expand...

Support for Scottish independence seems about even across the UK. Of course, the figures for people against independence are much higher in Scotland than in Wales or England. I imagine that this is because many English and Welsh don't feel that it's they're place to explicitly say they're against it.
 
Very interesting...I wasn't even aware that there was an active separatist movement in Scotland. But I tend to doubt it will happen. Quebec is a good example -- polls indicate that the majority of Québécois desire independence, but it has been rejected at least twice in a national referendum. Hell, in the last election they even sent Federalists to Parliament. My point is that there's a difference between what people say they want and what they actually choose when the options are presented to them.
 
Thoth said:
Very interesting...I wasn't even aware that there was an active separatist movement in Scotland. But I tend to doubt it will happen. Quebec is a good example -- polls indicate that the majority of Québécois desire independence, but it has been rejected at least twice in a national referendum. Hell, in the last election they even sent Federalists to Parliament. My point is that there's a difference between what people say they want and what they actually choose when the options are presented to them.
Click to expand...

Again, the SNP's call for Scottish independence is probably the least popular part of its platform. Most people simply like their policies and their willingness to negotiate for Scotland, but don't seriously want independence.

In Quebec, separatism is a bit stronger. I guess this is because there's an actual language divide there. And what polls have you been looking at? The most recent polls show independence at 40% or less. The zenith of the independence movement was definitely in the 90's, where the second referendum was less than a point away from success (although, as you point out, it did ultimately fail). Since then, politics has been moving away from strict independence and more towards parties that are simply seeking great autonomy. That's typified in the movement away from the Bloc to the NDP (who were successful in Quebec mainly because of Layton's pledge for greater Quebec autonomy), and by the fact that the Coalition Avenir Quebec, which rejects sovereignity and describes itself as "Quebec autonomist", has recently managed to swallow up it's pro-indepence rival for the Quebec right, the ADQ.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
The referendum will only be held in Scotland, I would say that if England were included then they would have a majority for independence. Most English voters get fed up with Scottish whinging and whining all the time. They would definitely have something to moan about if they had to pay the true costs rather than being subsidised more than any other region of the UK. I find it laughable how gullible Americans bang on about imperialist England when the truth is most English would be glad to get shot of them. P. G. Wodehouse said it best. "It is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine".


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-price-independence-just-Scots-change.html
Click to expand...

YEAH, how dare they whine about being ruled by the English.
[/sarcasm]
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
YEAH, how dare they whine about being ruled by the English.
[/sarcasm]
Click to expand...

If anything it's the other way round. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were both part of the Scottish Mafia and whilst Scottish MPs can vote on English issues, English MPs cannot vote on Scottish affairs.

The term is used in politics to pejoratively refer to a group of Scottish Labour Party politicians and broadcasters who are believed to have undue influence over the governance of England, such as the constitutional arrangement allowing Scottish MPs to vote on English matters, but, by convention, not the other way around.[SUP][note 1][/SUP] The term is occasionally used in the UK press[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] and in parliamentary debates.[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP]
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_mafia
 
Emperor Lusgelnio said:
Support for Scottish independence seems about even across the UK. Of course, the figures for people against independence are much higher in Scotland than in Wales or England. I imagine that this is because many English and Welsh don't feel that it's they're place to explicitly say they're against it.
Click to expand...

That's not my experience, most people that I know say screw the whinging bastards, let's see them cope when they lose all the subsidies handed to them.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
That's not my experience, most people that I know say screw the whinging bastards, let's see them cope when they lose all the subsidies handed to them.
Click to expand...

It's so sweet, like a bickering couple. "Look at all I do for you, and you have the gall to talk about leaving!"

I suppose my explanation is the positive spin you could place on such figures. Even if you like union, most people would not say they would keep Scotland in against its will.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
That's not my experience, most people that I know say screw the whinging bastards, let's see them cope when they lose all the subsidies handed to them.
Click to expand...

Let's not be hasty. :)

johnny-walker-blue.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top