Scotch Independence - the countdown

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Should Scotland be an Independent Country?

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
Bert the homosexual **** said:
They are though. The USA is a collection of former independent states. Germany was formerly Prussia plus many city states up until 1815, the Italy of today was formerly a collection of independent states until 1856. Nations uniting, have happened throughout history. Poland and Lithuania, Austria and Hungary etcetera, to name a few, and will continue in the future.

The EU, Latin American Free Trade Association, ASEAN Free Trade Area, the African Union are all "Free Trade Bodies" that may very well unite to form a nation such is the way the world is going.

Cooperation and fairness is the key.
Click to expand...

How many of these former independent "States" (Not countries like Scotland mind you) formed a new country under the thrall of a Monarch?
 
Rupert The Gayer said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: any **** aged over 14 who reads Harry Potter (unless it's to their kids) deserves to drop kicked into a vat of boiling piss.
Click to expand...

Add to that any **** of any age who reads Dan Brown books.
 
DevAdvocate said:
How many of these former independent "States" (Not countries like Scotland mind you) formed a new country under the thrall of a Monarch?
Click to expand...

Don't know but that doesn't matter.

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had a monarch, as did the Prussian/German empire and I'm sure Italy unified under a monarch. My point remains exactly the same though, countries/states are generally formed through said unions, I'm sure you've heard of the Kingdom of Fife and the Kingdom of Strathclyde which eventually made way for the Kingdom of Scotland. Ireland used to be 4 or 5 different countries/states/kingdoms/autonomous regions.
 
Bert the homosexual **** said:
Don't know but that doesn't matter.

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had a monarch, as did the Prussian/German empire and I'm sure Italy unified under a monarch. My point remains exactly the same though, countries/states are generally formed through said unions, I'm sure you've heard of the Kingdom of Fife and the Kingdom of Strathclyde which eventually made way for the Kingdom of Scotland. Ireland used to be 4 or 5 different countries/states/kingdoms/autonomous regions.
Click to expand...

Why does it not matter? One of the examples you gave, the USA (The 12 colonies) broke away from Britain because they were fed up with King George. Germany originally had an Emperor, Wilhelm, and as for the Scots Kings, where are they now?

Any modern forward thinking Democracy has long since distanced itself from the notion of Monarchy, in the case of the UK our Monarch is protector of the faith and was appointed by God, that's reason all on it's own to break away from Britain because most people simply don't buy into the idea that leaders can be born into power. That's not a democracy.
 
DevAdvocate said:
Why does it not matter? One of the examples you gave, the USA (The 12 colonies) broke away from Britain because they were fed up with King George. Germany originally had an Emperor, Wilhelm, and as for the Scots Kings, where are they now?

Any modern forward thinking Democracy has long since distanced itself from the notion of Monarchy, in the case of the UK our Monarch is protector of the faith and was appointed by God, that's reason all on it's own to break away from Britain because most people simply don't buy into the idea that leaders can be born into power. That's not a democracy.
Click to expand...

In the context in why I stated, in the reply to AboBhoy, that states are generally formed from a conglomeration of existing states/countries, it doesn't matter if those states had monarchs as it had nothing to do with my original case in point.

The 13 colonies did break away from the UK, but most of the other States were independent, albeit very briefly in the context of time, at the time of joining the USA.

You may be trying to steer the thread towards an anti-monarchy debate but it is entirely irrelevant to the point that I had originally made. Most, if not all countries were formed from the unionisation of other states/countries.
 
Bert the homosexual **** said:
In the context in why I stated, in the reply to AboBhoy, that states are generally formed from a conglomeration of existing states/countries, it doesn't matter if those states had monarchs as it had nothing to do with my original case in point.

The 13 colonies did break away from the UK, but most of the other States were independent, albeit very briefly in the context of time, at the time of joining the USA.

You may be trying to steer the thread towards an anti-monarchy debate but it is entirely irrelevant to the point that I had originally made. Most, if not all countries were formed from the unionisation of other states/countries.
Click to expand...

But you did use the unification of these independent states as a defence of the Unification of 4 Independent countries under one flag, and as a reason why Scotland should stay in the Union? Many countries have broken away from their big brothers and become independent and succesful, they obviously did not agree with your summary.

My own view is that i'm still undecided however the fact that Italy or Germany decided strength in numbers was the answer remains an unconvincing argument as to why Scotland should not go it alone.
 
DevAdvocate said:
But you did use the unification of these independent states as a defence of the Unification of 4 Independent countries under one flag, and as a reason why Scotland should stay in the Union? Many countries have broken away from their big brothers and become independent and succesful, they obviously did not agree with your summary.

My own view is that i'm still undecided however the fact that Italy or Germany decided strength in numbers was the answer remains an unconvincing argument as to why Scotland should not go it alone.
Click to expand...

I didn't use the comment as justification for staying in the Union. I said it in reply to the Abo, who said "if it was so successful, why isn't everyone else doing it", I said they are and have done and will continue to do so in relation to other states/countries. I didn't give a summary on anything. I merely stated a fact or two.

I am not anti-Indy. I was brought up in an SNP house as my dad is a fervent Jock, albeit probably the polar opposite to many of ST's views, so I'm entirely undecided, but I'm 100% certain that I don't want to live in a Socialist country, hence my reservations on Indy mostly due to the rhetoric being spouted by the Yessers and the radical left is entirely opposite to my long held beliefs on a small state and wealth creation for all, not just the poorest.
 
Bert the homosexual **** said:
I didn't use the comment as justification for staying in the Union. I said it in reply to the Abo, who said "if it was so successful, why isn't everyone else doing it", I said they are and have done and will continue to do so in relation to other states/countries. I didn't give a summary on anything. I merely stated a fact or two.

I am not anti-Indy. I was brought up in an SNP house as my dad is a fervent Jock, albeit probably the polar opposite to many of ST's views, so I'm entirely undecided, but I'm 100% certain that I don't want to live in a Socialist country, hence my reservations on Indy mostly due to the rhetoric being spouted by the Yessers and the radical left is entirely opposite to my long held beliefs on a small state and wealth creation for all, not just the poorest.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back