The thing is you are not looking at the information, you are making your own judgement everytime, your opinion isnt an information.

I am looking at the information, and making my judgement which is argued. You are just copying someone's judgement who reflects what your unread judgement is.

Panda, you are increasingly trying to devalue my comments each time you disagree with your opinions.

Edited 6/8/2015 21:05:12

I play your game: Anything different than your opinion is, in fine, wrong. Now you see the thing.

Edited 6/8/2015 21:40:58

Yes, that's everyone's game in an argument. What you're trying to do is not argue against the comment, but try to devalue the comment by saying it's pure judgement or it's too "deginirating".

Well we managed to turn this from what are the most livable countries to European genetic history.
Well done.

Drop it. England will not declare war on Scotland for oil, how many times do I have to tell you that we are not in the middle ages, declaring war on each other for resources? America would not HAVE to involve themselves, because England wouldn't declare war in the first place. England would accept Scottish independence as it is, and not try to mess with their national affairs.

We are "in the middle times". Iraq war=oil and strategic position against Iran, Afghanistan war=Some pipeline from Turkmenistan and strategic position against Iran. What makes you think that Scotland is any different? Maybe England wouldn't even declare by itself, but NATO would deign that Scotland is building WMDs and "intervene".

Unity is power for some, not for all. Sure, America are not in full support for an independent Scotland, but they would recognise one seeing as UK would soon after the referendum. Scotland would not have to hand over the oil, as England are not entitled to it, due to their geographic location. There would be no war, non invasion, stop making up stuff. Also, England would not make up fabrications of Scottish aggression. Firstly, Scotland are highly anti-WMDs, and have protested multiple times to stop the continuation of Trident, and to try and get WMDs out of the country as fast as possible. And for the other one, nobody would believe the UK, if they are to blame Scotland for housing terrorists, because Scotland would have theoretically just seceded. In addition, one of the only things I like about the Conservatives, is their lack of aggression to other nations. The Iraq and Afghan wars were Tony Blair's, Labour's fault. With David Cameron in charge, it's highly unlikely that he would start an invasion.

There would - Scotland would be an easy target with great payback (Oil). And I'm only saying WMDs as one example - housing terrorists. This wouldn't be just be England and Wales saying this - it would be NATO saying this - and to everyone else, this is just a small transfering of powers in the NATO to NATO. Maybe David Cameron would be too shy for this, but David Cameron's not allowing another Scottish election anyway, and if David Cameron won't, someone will, America the most likely (Somalian pirates roaming in the Norwegian Sea, you understand, right, Scotland?).

ANOTHER paragraph about England invading Scotland for oil? Just drop it! They won't! Also, Scotland is rife in industry, and you seem to continue to deny this. Britain would not be better off without Scotland, because of the amount of money that Scotland pull into the United Kingdom, and losing it would be a nightmare. Why would you go on so much about Britain invading Scotland for oil, if Britain would be better off without Scotland apparently?

Why are you so sure? There's little work to be done (just capture Edinburgh and Glasgow, already close to the English border, and you're done) to make Scotland surrender. And a payback of one of Europe's biggest oil reserves. Also, you said yourself, why would anyone want to bomb Scotland? Wha would they get? You list various industries, but face it, nothing compared to England or Germany.

England would be worse off with Scotland in most ways, but better in some ways. Also, Britain would be better off without ScotLand in some ways, not ScotWater. And if it's such a nightmare, why did they allow a referendum at all?

No, there is no ethnic violence, or genocide. Scotland are not extremely ethnically close to English, there are quite a lot of differences. Scotland has a majority of Celts, who are ginger/brown haired, vary in build and don't tan well. Since you deny the fact of Scotland's ethnicity, here is quick map showing where the the Celtic distribution is in Europe. There are majorities in Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, Man, and Brittany, with an exceptional majority in the Outer Hebrides.

They are very close to the English, due to interbreeding going way back to a divided England. There are still some Celtic genes in there, but you'll find way more English genes. The only place where there are more Celtic genes than English genes is in the Outer Hebrides, since it's so cold and rainy and foggy there, noone wants to go there in the first place. There is minority in Scotland (except Outer Hebrides), Ireland (some various areas on the west coast have a majority, but still not much), Cornwall (No exceptions), Man (No exceptions), Bretagne (no exception), Wales (Majority in Anglesey and Northwest coast). Way too much interbreeding for Celtics to live on, really.

Actually, this is false. At one point, the isle of Iona become the centre of Catholicism in Europe for hundreds of years, it was the place for pilgrimage, congregation, and missionaries. Here is a small excerpt from Wikipedia.

"Saint Columba (Irish: Colm Cille, 'church dove'; 7 December 521 – 9 June 597) was an Irish abbot and missionary credited with spreading Christianity in present-day Scotland. He founded the important abbey on Iona, which became a dominant religious and political institution in the region for centuries. He is the Patron Saint of Derry. He was highly regarded by both the Gaels of Dál Riata and the Picts, and is remembered today as a Christian saint and one of the Twelve Apostles of Ireland."

"...institution in the region"

Yes I have given several reasons, here is a few paragraphs from my first post on the topic with my main points about the economy that you seem to have disregarded.

And I gave my response, you didn't have to copypaste so much. Scotland does not have a "diverse economy", just agriculture and some odd manufacturing in the south. Oh, and tourism, but can't beat Britain (and no, you even said yourself, tourists don't come to see the towns or folk of Scotland rather than the nature and wildlife.

By "Screwed over by the European nations", I mean that all European colonial powers blocked trade with Scotland during this, and refused to lend help to Scotland's colonial expeditions, and to be honest, Scotland were terrible at colonising, and wasted a ton of money on their trips that they shouldn't have and were forced to merge with England. Is Germany asking to be hugely divided again? No. Are Indonesia, Malaysia, America asking to split again? No. Scotland's historical independence, and its ability to retain autonomy throughout the entire time it's been in a union with England is only one of the reasons it should become independent again.

Expand on your first sentence, how do you mean, all European colonial powers blocked trade with Scotland? Also, Scotland's own fault that Scotland was bad at settling and wasted tonnes.

Also, there are folk asking to be independent, but at the stage Scotland was 20 years ago. Bayern, Oostfreesland, Franken, Łužica, Schlewsig-Holstein, LOADS OF TROUBLE IN INDONESIA, Sarawak and Sabah also want to separate, Alaska, Dakota, the South, Texas, Vermont, Cascadia, Hawai'i and Puerto Rico.

Socialism is taboo in America, not so much in UK, let alone Scotland, a largely left-winged nation.

Not so much, I imagine, but still.

We are "in the middle times". Iraq war=oil and strategic position against Iran, Afghanistan war=Some pipeline from Turkmenistan and strategic position against Iran. What makes you think that Scotland is any different? Maybe England wouldn't even declare by itself, but NATO would deign that Scotland is building WMDs and "intervene".

Compared to Scotland, England had very little diplomatic relations with Iraq, so a war with Iraq would not be hurtful for them. But England, who would almost definitely recognise Scotland. If England were to "intervene" without war, it would surely be recognised as a breach of international war, for violating other's territorial waters, and the resources inside of which, and would receive a humongous amount of backlash from the international community for doing so. Scotland is different, because they are a western, developed country, who would likely have good diplomatic relations with England, unlike Iraq.

There would - Scotland would be an easy target with great payback (Oil). And I'm only saying WMDs as one example - housing terrorists. This wouldn't be just be England and Wales saying this - it would be NATO saying this - and to everyone else, this is just a small transfering of powers in the NATO to NATO. Maybe David Cameron would be too shy for this, but David Cameron's not allowing another Scottish election anyway, and if David Cameron won't, someone will, America the most likely (Somalian pirates roaming in the Norwegian Sea, you understand, right, Scotland?).

Scotland would largely not be invaded, because there is a 4/5 chance, that the UK would allow Scottish citizens to apply to join the British military, much like the Republic of Ireland. Surely with people's citizens in your military, it wouldn't be smart to start a war with said country? Yes, Scotland is rich in oil, but this would not start a war with the English, due to the diplomatic relations that would be formed, and the fact that the Tories are anti-invasion.

Why are you so sure? There's little work to be done (just capture Edinburgh and Glasgow, already close to the English border, and you're done) to make Scotland surrender. And a payback of one of Europe's biggest oil reserves. Also, you said yourself, why would anyone want to bomb Scotland? Wha would they get? You list various industries, but face it, nothing compared to England or Germany.

England would be worse off with Scotland in most ways, but better in some ways. Also, Britain would be better off without ScotLand in some ways, not ScotWater. And if it's such a nightmare, why did they allow a referendum at all?

I am so sure that England would not invade Scotland because they would have no valid casus belli. It would be disapproved even from NATO because of how unjust it would be. Do you see Denmark constantly invading Norway for oil? I did indeed list various industries, and I am not trying to compare these industries to England's or Germany's. What I am trying to do, is show you the amount of revenue Scotland is pulling in, and how diverse their economy is. This is surely enough evidence to show you that Scotland is economically strong enough to stay afloat as an independent nation.

England and Scotland would both be better off without each other, it's quite clear by now. They allowed a referendum, because they wanted to show the world that the UK is a fair country, it is a nation that allows referendums to places that have strong independence movements (*cough cough* Spain *cough cough*).

Also! Aye! Glaikit Sassenach coods ne'er dae thae Soothern Uplains! Thae hills ur tay strang fur th' Sassenach!

They are very close to the English, due to interbreeding going way back to a divided England. There are still some Celtic genes in there, but you'll find way more English genes. The only place where there are more Celtic genes than English genes is in the Outer Hebrides, since it's so cold and rainy and foggy there, noone wants to go there in the first place. There is minority in Scotland (except Outer Hebrides), Ireland (some various areas on the west coast have a majority, but still not much), Cornwall (No exceptions), Man (No exceptions), Bretagne (no exception), Wales (Majority in Anglesey and Northwest coast). Way too much interbreeding for Celtics to live on, really.

Have you been to Scotland? Clearly not. Yes, there has been some interbreeding throughout history, but most people remain largely Celtic due to their geographic location, and genes from ancestors. Go to Scotland and you will see about 6/10 people (INCLUDING immigrants) with the description I gave. The Celts are surviving, and stronger than you think. If you have the Celtic bump, you are a Celt. You are clearly saying the majorities of the Celtic languages, not the Celtic ethnicity.

...institution in the region

While I may have exaggerated, wouldn't you agree that Scotland would have more tourists if Iona was still such a destination for pilgrimage as it was for centuries during medieval times? That is the point I'm trying to get across.

And I gave my response, you didn't have to copypaste so much. Scotland does not have a "diverse economy", just agriculture and some odd manufacturing in the south. Oh, and tourism, but can't beat Britain (and no, you even said yourself, tourists don't come to see the towns or folk of Scotland rather than the nature and wildlife.

Actually Scotland does have a diverse economy. Did you read it? I meant that the thing Scotland does have, that England doesn't have is their landscapes, and nature. There is still quite some tourism in the cities. This explains why Scotland gets 60% of the tourists, but only 20% of tourist profit in the UK, because seeing nature in Scotland is free.

Expand on your first sentence, how do you mean, all European colonial powers blocked trade with Scotland? Also, Scotland's own fault that Scotland was bad at settling and wasted tonnes.

What I meant is, with Scotland's economy at the time being relatively small compared to the superpower colonial nations, such as Spain, France, England, Portugal, and Netherlands. Scotland asked for a bit of support to get their colony up and running, but instead, they got all of these countries blocking trade with them, severely hindering their economy, which just steepened their decline. I do agree with Scotland being a bad colonial settler, but who cares now? The colonial times are over, except for very few islands and settlements, that UK, France, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, and Denmark manage to hold onto.

Also, there are folk asking to be independent, but at the stage Scotland was 20 years ago. Bayern, Oostfreesland, Franken, Łužica, Schlewsig-Holstein, LOADS OF TROUBLE IN INDONESIA, Sarawak and Sabah also want to separate, Alaska, Dakota, the South, Texas, Vermont, Cascadia, Hawai'i and Puerto Rico.

Alright. Other (sub-)autonomous regions want to separate? Good luck for them? What do you expect me to say to this, and how is it relevant?

Not so much, I imagine, but still.

The reason I brought up the SSP is that you made an assertion that Scotland were too poor to hold their own weight, and how if they were actually so poor, then more people would be voting for SSP. To conclude this aspect of the debate, I'd like to say that Socialism is stronger in Scotland than America, it can't rebuild because they had a corrupt leader and the MSPs and MPs don't want to band together again because of the Tommy Sheridan incident, and Scotland is not poor, and therefore it does not need to go all-out socialist. (Although I am a socialist and I do think that it that socialism would be beneficial to Scotland).

Edited 6/12/2015 18:11:29

I have toppled the mighty Juq! Take that!

Edited 6/30/2015 10:54:12