Countries/regions you think should be independent?

[Holy Trek]

my list...

That part of russia next to poland - Kaliningrad doesn't want independence
Tasmania - Not sure if they want independence
Tibet - I'd like to see how the population of Tibet votes on it
Palestine - ok that's one
northern ireland should be with ireland - depends on whether the people want it or not
that part of turkey in europe should be romania - no, it shouldn't; Romania never controlled it
That part of india east of bangladesh - do they want it?
Western Sahara - do they want it?
Aruba - do they want it?
Bermuda - do they want it?
French Guyana - do they want it?
Siberia - 100 people for, and several million against. Yeah, not thanks
Isle of man - do they want it for purposes other than tax haven status?
Greenland - why?
Newfoundland - why?
Kashmir - do they want it?
And i think America should cede the northern michigan peninsula, north west north dakota, vermont and new mexico to the Native Americans - while hilarious, this is impracticable.

Ok...time to look for some flaws. If I don't see any, then naturally I'll support it, but DONT GET A BIG HEAD. Responses in bold text:

That part of russia next to poland - Kaliningrad doesn't want independence My response: How do you know that?
Tasmania - Not sure if they want independence My response: Have to ask them that.
Tibet - I'd like to see how the population of Tibet votes on it My response: Kick out the Chinese 'colonists', then hold the vote.
Palestine - ok that's one My Response: I agree
northern ireland should be with ireland - depends on whether the people want it or not My response: It would be a bloodbath. Catholic vs Protestant bickering and all that.
that part of turkey in europe should be romania - no, it shouldn't; Romania never controlled it My response: Make Turkey a European country as well as a Middle Eastern country, period.
That part of india east of bangladesh - do they want it? My response: Ask them
Western Sahara - do they want it? My response: They need to be part of Morocco.
Aruba - do they want it? My response:
Bermuda - do they want it? My response: Make Bermuda a US state
French Guyana - do they want it? My response: No
Siberia - 100 people for, and several million against. Yeah, not thanks My response: FREE SIBERIA!!
Isle of man - do they want it for purposes other than tax haven status? MY response: Yea, no
Greenland - why? My response: FREE GREENLAND!!
Newfoundland - why? My response: O CANADA
Kashmir - do they want it? My response: NO BLOODY WAY!! (emphasis on 'bloody' as that would be the end result)
And i think America should cede the northern michigan peninsula, north west north dakota, vermont and new mexico to the Native Americans My response: Upper Peninsula Michigan, no...NW North Dakota, maybe....Vermont, no...New Mexico, throw in Arizona and you have a deal

[Cromarty]

I assume you refer to the Jacobite Rebellions yes?

I am referring to those, and to the Scottish Wars of Independence.

Well, for 1, the most famous of the many Jacobite Risings, the Second Rising, in 1745, which is what I'm assuming you refer to, was defeated by Scottish forces, and secondly Robert the Bruce was an oath breaking traitorous scum.

More importantly, a lot changed between the 13th century and when Scotland and England joined, and there's really no real link between the Jacobin cause and that of the Kingdom of Scotland.

[Astholm]

Surely the United Kingdom should stay as the status quo, even Northern Ireland as well?

After all, would Cornwall ever devolve?

[Souseiseki]

I am referring to those, and to the Scottish Wars of Independence.

Well, for 1, the most famous of the many Jacobite Risings, the Second Rising, in 1745, which is what I'm assuming you refer to, was defeated by Scottish forces, and secondly Robert the Bruce was an oath breaking traitorous scum.

More importantly, a lot changed between the 13th century and when Scotland and England joined, and there's really no real link between the Jacobin cause and that of the Kingdom of Scotland.

tbh i've always considered the whole "riots in edinburgh/glasgow and iirc also london in the run up to and in response to the act of union" to sum it up pretty well

[SD_Film Artists]

Scotland gets lots of advantages over England such as free university education and free medical prescriptions, Scottish MPs can vote on English matters while English MPs can't vote on Scottish matters (apart from on powers which aren't devolved.) and before Cameron Britain had a Scottish Prime Minister. How is that oppression? I know that Scotland had wars with England but that's just medieval history, and yes it is racism just as it's racist to still call Germans Nazis.



I could equality cite examples where people have used the Scottish flag/name where the British flag/name would have been aproupriate; your point? I don't agree with that Olympic thing either, but it's hardly "opressionz!!1"

Are you serious? In the 19th century they placed laws that forbade weapons and kilts and most traditional happenings. They cleared out a huge swathe of our population because they decided that sheep were a better way of making money. If that isn't opression, then I've no idea what is.

You want to list authoritian rules from the Victorian era? Sure, we'll be here all day with that long list and England didn't fare much better. You're cherry-picking. I'll say my point again, as you seemed to ignore it: Scotland gets lots of advantages over England such as free university education and free medical prescriptions, Scottish MPs can vote on English matters while English MPs can't vote on Scottish matters (apart from on powers which aren't devolved.) and before Cameron Britain had a Scottish Prime Minister. How is that oppression? I know that Scotland had wars with England but that's just medieval history, and yes it is racism just as it's racist to still call Germans Nazis.

I could equality cite examples where people have used the Scottish flag/name where the British flag/name would have been more appropriate; your point? I don't agree with that Olympic thing either, but it's hardly "opressionz!!1"

I assume you refer to the Jacobite Rebellions yes?

I am referring to those, and to the Scottish Wars of Independence.

WTF, the Jacobites Rebellions were just rebels, not Scotland vs England.

[Valdehmar]

I am referring to those, and to the Scottish Wars of Independence.

Well, for 1, the most famous of the many Jacobite Risings, the Second Rising, in 1745, which is what I'm assuming you refer to, was defeated by Scottish forces, and secondly Robert the Bruce was an oath breaking traitorous scum.

More importantly, a lot changed between the 13th century and when Scotland and England joined, and there's really no real link between the Jacobin cause and that of the Kingdom of Scotland.

The basis was that they fought, not necessarily for the same cause, but under the same national flag. It was defeated by not only Scottish forces, but Germans, English Irish and Hessians as well. The only reason there were any Scots in the opposing army at all is because they were lowlanders taken in by the government.

It was a power play by Bonnie Prince Charlie to reclaim the throne and re-establish an absolute monarchy.

[Shard_Head]

northern ireland should be with ireland - depends on whether the people want it or not My response: It would be a bloodbath. Catholic vs Protestant bickering and all that.
]

I can't imagine there would be a bloodbath if a majority voted for a change. Ireland wouldn't be able to get away with the same civil rights abuses that were all the rage during last century and as a result there wouldn't be the large supportive base in either community for paramilitary groups.

[Souseiseki]

Ireland wouldn't be able to get away with the same civil rights abuses that were all the rage during last centur

What has changed?

[Cromarty]

I can't imagine there would be a bloodbath if a majority voted for a change.

Not like that's going to happen. It's going the other way entirely.

[SD_Film Artists]

Scotland gets lots of advantages over England such as free university education and free medical prescriptions,

Again, this is a result of the selfish machination of English politicians and different "party" platforms.

Scottish MPs can vote on English matters while English MPs can't vote on Scottish matters (apart from on powers which aren't devolved.)

And for ~300 years, there were no devolved powers. The SNP refuses to vote on English matters.

[quite]and before Cameron Britain had a Scottish Prime Minister.
Oh what a crock of shit.

How is that oppression?

I won't say Scotland is oppressed, however I will say your implication that England has no powers over Scotland is wrong (INCOMING NAKDOR BEEP BOOP ENGLAND HAS NO POWERS!!!) and your attempt to imply that Scotland is one with the power is either 1) massively ignorant of historical context, 2) deliberately ignoring how the situation came to be, 3) ignoring reserved powers 4) cherry picking, 6) a good argument for independence or 5) all of the above.

or in short

http://i.imgur.com/19e8M.jpg

Of course England has powers over Scotland, as Scotland is in the UK just as England, Wales and Northern Ireland are. But to go with the "England is evil, we're so oppressed" mantra that Valdehmar is paddling is a fallacy. Infact you posted this earlier, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about, or why you were implying that I was calling Scottish Nationalists as "Nazis". As I said on another thread, if anything "Scots Nats" sounds to me more like "spetsnaz". And like him or not, Gordon Brown is Scottish.

The only reason why people want to see Scotland independant, is because they've watched far too much Braveheart.

Yeah, no idea why we might have negative impressions of Scot Nats.

more like scots natsis amirite

[Souseiseki]

Of course England has powers over Scotland, as it is the most populous nation

"I fail to see why. They are working towards independence because they are sick of the English. I'm going to suppose that's because England has powers over Scotland that they probably shouldn't have, and because we don't have full control over our own country."

Do you remember this, then?

You seemed to be in denial over England having powers over Scotland.

[SD_Film Artists]

Of course England has powers over Scotland, as it is the most populous nation

"I fail to see why. They are working towards independence because they are sick of the English. I'm going to suppose that's because England has powers over Scotland that they probably shouldn't have, and because we don't have full control over our own country."

Do you remember this, then?

You seemed to be in denial over England having powers over Scotland.

Too bad he blew it out of context with the Mel Gibson mantra rather than talking about the union.

Again:

Again, this is a result of the selfish machination of English politicians and different "party" platforms.



And for ~300 years, there were no devolved powers. The SNP refuses to vote on English matters.

[quite]and before Cameron Britain had a Scottish Prime Minister.
Oh what a crock of shit.


I won't say Scotland is oppressed, however I will say your implication that England has no powers over Scotland is wrong (INCOMING NAKDOR BEEP BOOP ENGLAND HAS NO POWERS!!!) and your attempt to imply that Scotland is one with the power is either 1) massively ignorant of historical context, 2) deliberately ignoring how the situation came to be, 3) ignoring reserved powers 4) cherry picking, 6) a good argument for independence or 5) all of the above.

or in short

http://i.imgur.com/19e8M.jpg

Of course England has powers over Scotland, as Scotland is in the UK just as England, Wales and Northern Ireland are. But to go with the "England is evil, we're so oppressed" mantra that Valdehmar is paddling is a fallacy. Infact you posted this earlier, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about, or why you were implying that I was calling Scottish Nationalists as "Nazis". As I said on another thread, if anything "Scots Nats" sounds to me more like "spetsnaz". And like him or not, Gordon Brown is Scottish.

more like scots natsis amirite

[Souseiseki]

scots natsis is something from the previous threads on scottish independence and i am sad you do not remember ):

he's definitely more scottish than the the other people like to talk about as a scottish PM ,yes

[Souseiseki]

of course, when you've gutted the "you'll never get anywhere in labour unless you go to london" party in the interests of appealing to the english middle class it is questionable whether their scottishness really matters on any level or why anyone would care beyond, you know, that whole racist thing. but i can't be arsed going down that path atm.

[Shard_Head]

What has changed?

The starting point.

[Shard_Head]

I can't imagine there would be a bloodbath if a majority voted for a change.

Not like that's going to happen. It's going the other way entirely.

I wasn't commenting on likelihood.

[Rio Cana]

Historically, it seems the English in order to guarantee there security had to gain control over the whole of the island of Britannia To do this they had to subdue Scotland, one way or another. if the English got into a major war with a European nation they needed to make sure there rear, Scotland, was 100% secure or they could be fighting a two front war.

Map of the United Kingdom.



This English-Scotland thing reminds me of another conflict which involved one island and two nations.

The Haitian invasion and occupation of the Dominican Republic which was known at first has the Republic of Spanish Haiti.

Read this - http://totheroots.wordpress.com/2009/02 ... -republic/

Map before the Invasion


Map after the Haitian invasion


Today


Today the Dominican Republic is much stronger economically and militarily then its neighbor. It is the only nation in the Caribbean that produces much of its food.

After fighting off invasions Dominicans are very patriotic.
Following video shows a flag raising event on private property. Tower was privately built by the landowner has a gift to the people of the region. Provincial Capital City is somewhere down there.

Video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CsXgvk1e5Q

[SD_Film Artists]

Historically, it seems the English in order to guarantee there security had to gain control over the whole of the island of Britannia To do this they had to subdue Scotland, one way or another. if the English got into a major war with a European nation they needed to make sure there rear, Scotland, was 100% secure or they could be fighting a two front war.

Map of the United Kingdom.
(Image)


This English-Scotland thing reminds me of another conflict which involved one island and two nations.

The Haitian invasion and occupation of the Dominican Republic which was known at first has the Republic of Spanish Haiti.

Read this - http://totheroots.wordpress.com/2009/02 ... -republic/

Map before the Invasion
(Image)

Map after the Haitian invasion
(Image)

Today
(Image)

Today the Dominican Republic is much stronger economically and militarily then its neighbor. It is the only nation in the Caribbean that produces much of its food.

After fighting off invasions Dominicans are very patriotic.
Following video shows a flag raising event on private property. Tower was privately built by the landowner has a gift to the people of the region. Provincial Capital City is somewhere down there.

Video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CsXgvk1e5Q

I agree that England is theoretically more secure as part of the United Kingdom but.....what is the point that you're making?

[Resot]

I've decided a long time ago to stop formulating opinions on these things because I don't know anything.

[Rio Cana]

[

I agree that England is theoretically more secure as part of the United Kingdom but.....what is the point that you're making?

England might have been more secure as part of the UK. decades ago but today technology has changed things. They have nukes. Nukes provide great protection. Also, there strong economy helps.


Concerning my prior post, I was just pointing out why the English probably got involved in Scotland in the first place.

England controlled just a little over the southern half of the island of Britannia. Scotland controlled the Northern half of the island of Britannia. In my Hispaniola example, what would become the Dominican Republic controlled 3/4 of the Eastern part of Hispaniola while the Haitian nation controlled the Western 1/3.

So the Haitian just like the English decided for security and wealth that it would be in their interests to control the entire island. The Dominicans managed to liberate themselves after being occupied. The Scottish, if that is what they want, will do it via a referendum.

[Valdehmar]

[

I agree that England is theoretically more secure as part of the United Kingdom but.....what is the point that you're making?

England might have been more secure as part of the UK. decades ago but that really is not true. They have nukes. Nukes provide great protection. Also, there strong economy helps.


Concerning my prior post, I was just pointing out why the English probably got involved in Scotland in the first place.

England controlled just a little over the southern half of the island of Britannia. Scotland controlled the Northern half of the island of Britannia. In my Hispaniola example, what would become the Dominican Republic controlled 3/4 of the Eastern part of Hispaniola while the Haitian nation controlled the Western 1/3.

So the Haitian just like the English decided for security and wealth that it would be in their interests to control the entire island. The Dominicans managed to liberate themselves afte

r being occupied. The Scottish, if that is what they want, will do it via a referendum.

Holy crap on a cracker that's inaccurate. Scotland is in possession of all of the nuclear submarines Britain possesses, and England is also on average ~£43 Billion in debt, while Scotland subsidised them £1.3 Billion last year.

[SD_Film Artists]

England might have been more secure as part of the UK. decades ago but that really is not true. They have nukes. Nukes provide great protection. Also, there strong economy helps.


Concerning my prior post, I was just pointing out why the English probably got involved in Scotland in the first place.

England controlled just a little over the southern half of the island of Britannia. Scotland controlled the Northern half of the island of Britannia. In my Hispaniola example, what would become the Dominican Republic controlled 3/4 of the Eastern part of Hispaniola while the Haitian nation controlled the Western 1/3.

So the Haitian just like the English decided for security and wealth that it would be in their interests to control the entire island. The Dominicans managed to liberate themselves afte

r being occupied. The Scottish, if that is what they want, will do it via a referendum.

Holy crap on a cracker that's inaccurate. Scotland is in possession of all of the nuclear submarines Britain possesses, and England is also on average ~£43 Billion in debt, while Scotland subsidised them £1.3 Billion last year.

No, the British Royal Navy possesses them. And even if Salmond suddenly decided to use the Scottish submarine bases to take the nukes for an independent Scotland, I'm not sure they'll have the finances let alone the will to continue maintaining the nuclear deterrent. And speaking of finances, how is Scotland subsidising England?

[SD_Film Artists]

[

I agree that England is theoretically more secure as part of the United Kingdom but.....what is the point that you're making?

England might have been more secure as part of the UK. decades ago but today technology has changed things. They have nukes. Nukes provide great protection. Also, there strong economy helps.

Decades? Try two centuries ago when France was still a threat and the hypothetical independent Scotland may have still had the Auld Alliance. And I think modern geopolitics is a much bigger reason why England doesn't have to worry about its back door.

Concerning my prior post, I was just pointing out why the English probably got involved in Scotland in the first place.

I agree that England could have seen it as strategically valuable, but do you think it was really that simple? Scotland is England's only neighbour if you don't count Wales, so it's not like England was ignoring Scotland until it thought "hmm....maybe we should seek union with Scotland...y'know, just incase we need to fight the French and not be in a war of two fronts." There were cross-boarder royal relationships.

So the Haitian just like the English decided for security and wealth that it would be in their interests to control the entire island. The Dominicans managed to liberate themselves after being occupied. The Scottish, if that is what they want, will do it via a referendum.

Pre-independence Hispaniola was one nation forcibly occupying another, where as Britain is a union of four nations. There's a very important difference there.

[Valdehmar]

Holy crap on a cracker that's inaccurate. Scotland is in possession of all of the nuclear submarines Britain possesses, and England is also on average ~£43 Billion in debt, while Scotland subsidised them £1.3 Billion last year.

No, the British Royal Navy possesses them. And even if Salmond suddenly decided to use the Scottish submarine bases to take the nukes for an independent Scotland, I'm not sure they'll have the finances let alone the will to continue maintaining the nuclear deterrent. And speaking of finances, how is Scotland subsidising England?

That first line is just inaccurate. The submarines may be part of the British Navy but they are on Scottish-built submarines and in Scottish waters.

What do you mean how? They are making money unlike the rest of the UK and are therefor giving spare money back to help re-stabilise the country. We are making huge amounts of money from Whiskey, Cashmere, Oil and Tourism.

[SD_Film Artists]

No, the British Royal Navy possesses them. And even if Salmond suddenly decided to use the Scottish submarine bases to take the nukes for an independent Scotland, I'm not sure they'll have the finances let alone the will to continue maintaining the nuclear deterrent. And speaking of finances, how is Scotland subsidising England?

That first line is just inaccurate. The submarines may be part of the British Navy but they are on Scottish-built submarines and in Scottish waters.

I already said that the submarine bases are in Scotland. What point are you trying to make?

What do you mean how? They are making money unlike the rest of the UK and are therefor giving spare money back to help re-stabilise the country. We are making huge amounts of money from Whiskey, Cashmere, Oil and Tourism.

I'm sure Scotland does have strong industries with Whiskey etc, but that still doens't explain how Scotland is subsidising England. It's not like Scotland is in a bubble free from the economic crisis. Is the money from Scotland more than the money that England Westminster gives to Scotland?