Post Archive

Region: The Confederacy of Free Nations

History

Yukona wrote:This is mah swamp.

Regardless of that, I recognised the name, but World War I history is more my thing.

Bet you're a fan of the Kaiser.

Continental Commonwealths wrote:Oh, boyo. I didn't need a youtube link to get the reference :P

I know you didn't but I wanted to provide it anyway. ;)

Nuremgard wrote:Bet you're a fan of the Kaiser.

Who isn't?

Continental Commonwealths wrote:Oh, boyo. I didn't need a youtube link to get the reference :P

Make like a tree and f*ck off Randy, we don't want you in our trailer park

Nuremgard wrote:Bet you're a fan of the Kaiser.

I know you didn't but I wanted to provide it anyway. ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3WPted_ihs - the only things I need in my life is a solid Bren gun, a nice cup of PG Tips and a sturdy pair of hobnail boots. No need for a Kaiser if there's no German Empire :^)

Yukona wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3WPted_ihs - the only things I need in my life is a solid Bren gun, a nice cup of PG Tips and a sturdy pair of hobnail boots. No need for a Kaiser if there's no German Empire :^)

According to hardcore Brexiteers, the German Empire is alive and well and led by the Fuhrerin, Angela Merkel.

Peoples Liberation Republic wrote:....ermmmm I like being primitive

Filthy savage, just another Evient unfit for the shifting tide

Nuremgard wrote:According to hardcore Brexiteers, the German Empire is alive and well and led by the Fuhrerin, Angela Merkel.

According to flat earthers the earth is flat, what else is new? And considering the Kaiser wanted an economic union centered on Germany, it's not exactly the most ridiculous stupid comparison I've ever heard.

South Hyder wrote:Anyone else...?

Quick question: Do you have a socialist party?

Yukona wrote:According to flat earthers the earth is flat, what else is new? And considering the Kaiser wanted an economic union centered on Germany, it's not exactly the most ridiculous stupid comparison I've ever heard.

They're just jealous that Germany, despite losing both wars, is an economic powerhouse and the UK is in the financial sh!tter.

The Royal Republic Of Kumania, Friedensreich, Penguania And Antarctica

South Hyder wrote:Anyone else...?

Komm mit, mein Freund

Nuremgard wrote:According to hardcore Brexiteers, the German Empire is alive and well and led by the Fuhrerin, Angela Merkel.

Merkelreich is best Reich. Spanning from the western shores of Ireland to the Black Sea, Merkelreich will rule 1000 years.

Nuremgard, The Royal Republic Of Kumania, United Continental States

Friedensreich wrote:Merkelreich is best Reich. Spanning from the western shores of Ireland to the Black Sea, Merkelreich will rule 1000 years.

I'd rather be in the Merkelreich than the Mayreich.

The Royal Republic Of Kumania, Vista Major, United Continental States

Nuremgard wrote:They're just jealous that Germany, despite losing both wars, is an economic powerhouse and the UK is in the financial sh!tter.

But Britain lost the entirety of her empire - considering she has traditionally been a trading and maritime nation (hence why we made an empire) - so that's again yet another ridiculous comparison ggwp Jock

Nuremgard wrote:I'd rather be in the Merkelreich than the Mayreich.

I think you mean Maydom

Nuremgard, Penguania And Antarctica, Yukona

Yukona wrote:But Britain lost the entirety of her empire - considering she has traditionally been a trading and maritime nation (hence why we made an empire) - so that's again yet another ridiculous comparison ggwp Jock

That's England's problem. It lost the empire so lost its sense of identity. So its elite must console themselves by bossing around the colonies (home nations) in the domestic empire (UK.)

Vista Major wrote:I think you mean Maydom

Or Mayhem.

Vista Major

Nuremgard wrote:Or Mayhem.

Even better

Nuremgard

Nuremgard wrote:That's England's problem. It lost the empire so lost its sense of identity. So its elite must console themselves by bossing around the colonies (home nations) in the domestic empire (UK.)

Yeah but you just compared it to Germany's economic performance so that's no the issue at hand. Of course the vast majority of our history makes the most of our identity, why wouldn't it? Scotland lost Scots, so it lost its identity....yeah? Correct. Your point?

I don't think the elite bossing the home nations around in the United Kingdom (which I would go far from calling a domestic empire) is a direct result of the British Empire but instead a product of Westminster being generally tradtionalist and like most government bodies not really akin to giving up power. You have to remember you're talking about people who were still alive when the Empire was kicking, one this generation parts with us the trappings of old will disappear and the country - like many others - will diversify dynamically and progress.

You could say that Germany, America, France, literally any modern nation is a 'domestic empire', so it's really a poor comparison.

Killdash

Nuremgard wrote:That's England's problem. It lost the empire so lost its sense of identity. So its elite must console themselves by bossing around the colonies (home nations) in the domestic empire (UK.)

At least it keeps the Welsh fed and civilised...:p

Yukona wrote:Yeah but you just compared it to Germany's economic performance so that's no the issue at hand. Of course the vast majority of our history makes the most of our identity, why wouldn't it? Scotland lost Scots, so it lost its identity....yeah? Correct. Your point?

I don't think the elite bossing the home nations around in the United Kingdom (which I would go far from calling a domestic empire) is a direct result of the British Empire but instead a product of Westminster being generally tradtionalist and like most government bodies not really akin to giving up power. You have to remember you're talking about people who were still alive when the Empire was kicking, one this generation parts with us the trappings of old will disappear and the country - like many others - will diversify dynamically and progress.

You could say that Germany, America, France, literally any modern nation is a 'domestic empire', so it's really a poor comparison.

The difference between the UK and countries like France, America etc. (excluding Germany) is that they were not artificial states created out of various countries. The UK is not a "country" in the traditional sense of the word. It's a state comprised of three countries and the arse end of Ireland.

British, in my opinion, is just a word Westminster uses to dominate the island and lay claim to resources that does not belong to it.

Killdash wrote:At least it keeps the Welsh fed and civilised...:p

The Welsh capitulated too easily to Edward I.

Yukona wrote:Yeah but you just compared it to Germany's economic performance so that's no the issue at hand. Of course the vast majority of our history makes the most of our identity, why wouldn't it? Scotland lost Scots, so it lost its identity....yeah? Correct. Your point?

I don't think the elite bossing the home nations around in the United Kingdom (which I would go far from calling a domestic empire) is a direct result of the British Empire but instead a product of Westminster being generally tradtionalist and like most government bodies not really akin to giving up power. You have to remember you're talking about people who were still alive when the Empire was kicking, one this generation parts with us the trappings of old will disappear and the country - like many others - will diversify dynamically and progress.

You could say that Germany, America, France, literally any modern nation is a 'domestic empire', so it's really a poor comparison.

Yeah, I've always found it strange how the U.K. has maintained such a slipshod attitude to liberal politics in general.

Andromitus wrote:Filthy savage, just another Evient unfit for the shifting tide

Ill take him,

Andromitus wrote:Filthy savage, just another Evient unfit for the shifting tide

Shifting tide? Have I missed something?

Nuremgard wrote:The difference between the UK and countries like France, America etc. (excluding Germany) is that they were not artificial states created out of various countries. The UK is not a "country" in the traditional sense of the word. It's a state comprised of three countries and the arse end of Ireland.

British, in my opinion, is just a word Westminster uses to dominate the island and lay claim to resources that does not belong to it.

Well, a traditionalist would say that the Westminster does indeed use it as a claim to the place, but that they do so out of the "pure" desire to run a unified place.

Like calling yourself "American" before "Texan"

Nuremgard wrote:The difference between the UK and countries like France, America etc. (excluding Germany) is that they were not artificial states created out of various countries. The UK is not a "country" in the traditional sense of the word. It's a state comprised of three countries and the arse end of Ireland.

British, in my opinion, is just a word Westminster uses to dominate the island and lay claim to resources that does not belong to it.

*United States of America intensifies*

The Royal Republic Of Kumania, Vista Major, Tserra, United Continental States

Nuremgard wrote:The difference between the UK and countries like France, America etc. (excluding Germany) is that they were not artificial states created out of various countries. The UK is not a "country" in the traditional sense of the word. It's a state comprised of three countries and the arse end of Ireland.

British, in my opinion, is just a word Westminster uses to dominate the island and lay claim to resources that does not belong to it.

Yeah, that's where you're wrong. Bavaria is very different to say Saxony-Anhalt, where Peng is from. In-fact, they speak a different language, hold on the whole totally different political views and so on. France is comprised of areas such as Savoy, Ossetia, Britanny, etc. all that have their own languages and identities that have been forcibly assimilated over time. Italy the same, with Veneto pushing to leave the Republic. Same goes with Spain, Catalonia, Andalusia and Galicia; the list just goes on. If your definition of a country has to be one homogeneous state that speaks one language and speaks one history, well you're limiting yourself to about I'd say at a push 15% of the countries in the world, if that. Even Finland and Estonia, off the top of my head some of the most homogeneous countries in the world have population of Voru, Veps, Swedish, Danish and Sami people that all predate their countries and provide problems to unison.

Killdash wrote:Yeah, I've always found it strange how the U.K. has maintained such a slipshod attitude to liberal politics in general.

You're going to have to explain this.

Aghrabia

Yukona wrote:Yeah, that's where you're wrong. Bavaria is very different to say Saxony-Anhalt, where Peng is from. In-fact, they speak a different language, hold on the whole totally different political views and so on. France is comprised of areas such as Savoy, Ossetia, Britanny, etc. all that have their own languages and identities that have been forcibly assimilated over time. Italy the same, with Veneto pushing to leave the Republic. Same goes with Spain, Catalonia, Andalusia and Galicia; the list just goes on. If your definition of a country has to be one homogeneous state that speaks one language and speaks one history, well you're limiting yourself to about I'd say at a push 15% of the countries in the world, if that. Even Finland and Estonia, off the top of my head some of the most homogeneous countries in the world have population of Voru, Veps, Swedish, Danish and Sami people that all predate their countries and provide problems to unison.

You're going to have to explain this.

Regardless, the UK has run out of steam. Might have worked in the past in terms of imperialism but it's time to confine this sordid union to history and let Scotland and England be true equals once more as independent states.

Killdash wrote:Well, a traditionalist would say that the Westminster does indeed use it as a claim to the place, but that they do so out of the "pure" desire to run a unified place.

Like calling yourself "American" before "Texan"

Fair enough. I'll never identify as British though. I may be legally British (for now) but I'll never see myself as such. I'm Scottish and European, in that order.

Nuremgard wrote:The difference between the UK and countries like France, America etc. (excluding Germany) is that they were not artificial states created out of various countries. The UK is not a "country" in the traditional sense of the word. It's a state comprised of three countries and the arse end of Ireland.

British, in my opinion, is just a word Westminster uses to dominate the island and lay claim to resources that does not belong to it.

*Looks at Texas, California, Louisiana, Florida, and other French, Spanish, and other former dominions of expansive/imperial states*

Killdash wrote:Well, a traditionalist would say that the Westminster does indeed use it as a claim to the place, but that they do so out of the "pure" desire to run a unified place.

Like calling yourself "American" before "Texan"

That moment that the South African talks about the few sane Texans who aren't nationalistic arschlöcher

Yukona

Nuremgard wrote:Regardless, the UK has run out of steam. Might have worked in the past in terms of imperialism but it's time to confine this sordid union to history and let Scotland and England be true equals once more as independent states.

So your argument that the UK is a 'false country' which literally can apply to any country is clearly defunct so subsequently we've come to the conclusion that the 'UK has run out of steam'. I'm a strong supporter of self-determination and the right to independence, however it's clear that not everyone wants to leave as strongly as you do and for a country who has blended with my own to form a fantastic culture, great figures of history and amazing cities, ground breaking laws, advancements in medicine and so on I can see why people want Scotland to stay. Ultimately, if push comes to shove, go; but - and I'm not saying you are explicitly arguing this but it seems to have been a trend in your arguments - just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they're inherently wrong, stupid or don't know what's best for your country. Everyone thinks they know best and they probably think you're a moron. I don't want to make it a sob story either, Scotland unfortunately got assimilated into British culture and lost its own (which is subsequently more English than anything else) but England too has lost its national identity from the union. That's not to say I think we should break the union for the sake of it, but it's not all about England taking it all and giving nothing, you will always be able to find situations and arguments that either support or challenge that ideal, hence why it's not such a black and white argument.

Aghrabia, United Continental States

El-Aaiun Al-Khalifa wrote:*Looks at Texas, California, Louisiana, Florida, and other French, Spanish, and other former dominions of expansive/imperial states*

That moment that the South African talks about the few sane Texans who aren't nationalistic arschlöcher

I get the point. But I'll always be a Scots nationalist as I want my country to be like every other: self-governing. I don't want it to be a region of Britain stuck under governments the bigger country next door voted for.

Yukona wrote:Yeah, that's where you're wrong. Bavaria is very different to say Saxony-Anhalt, where Peng is from. In-fact, they speak a different language, hold on the whole totally different political views and so on. France is comprised of areas such as Savoy, Ossetia, Britanny, etc. all that have their own languages and identities that have been forcibly assimilated over time. Italy the same, with Veneto pushing to leave the Republic. Same goes with Spain, Catalonia, Andalusia and Galicia; the list just goes on. If your definition of a country has to be one homogeneous state that speaks one language and speaks one history, well you're limiting yourself to about I'd say at a push 15% of the countries in the world, if that. Even Finland and Estonia, off the top of my head some of the most homogeneous countries in the world have population of Voru, Veps, Swedish, Danish and Sami people that all predate their countries and provide problems to unison.

You're going to have to explain this.

I'm saying, for a place that is consistently at the forefront of so much anti-authority, liberal ideas in political, musical, bookish and social movements in history, the Isles are pretty conservative compared to their Western European neighbours.

Yukona wrote:So your argument that the UK is a 'false country' which literally can apply to any country is clearly defunct so subsequently we've come to the conclusion that the 'UK has run out of steam'. I'm a strong supporter of self-determination and the right to independence, however it's clear that not everyone wants to leave as strongly as you do and for a country who has blended with my own to form a fantastic culture, great figures of history and amazing cities, ground breaking laws, advancements in medicine and so on I can see why people want Scotland to stay. Ultimately, if push comes to shove, go; but - and I'm not saying you are explicitly arguing this but it seems to have been a trend in your arguments - just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they're inherently wrong, stupid or don't know what's best for your country. Everyone thinks they know best and they probably think you're a moron. I don't want to make it a sob story either, Scotland unfortunately got assimilated into British culture and lost its own (which is subsequently more English than anything else) but England too has lost its national identity from the union. That's not to say I think we should break the union for the sake of it, but it's not all about England taking it all and giving nothing, you will always be able to find situations and arguments that either support or challenge that ideal, hence why it's not such a black and white argument.

I understand where you're coming from and why some don't want to see the UK break up. That's fair enough. Some people think I'm a moron/Nazi/nasty nationalist/bigot for wanting self-determination and I think some people are cringing children who need the bigger nation next door to bottle feed them forever. I know not everyone is as hardcore as that. There are moderate nationalists and moderate unionists.

If the UK does break up, you'll survive. But if it stays together, I reserve the right to always believe in Scotland as an independent state and my right to vote for a party that fights for that.

C'est la vie.

Killdash wrote:I'm saying, for a place that is consistently at the forefront of so much anti-authority, liberal ideas in political, musical, bookish and social movements in history, the Isles are pretty conservative compared to their Western European neighbours.

It's really, really, not as clear cut as that.

El-Aaiun Al-Khalifa wrote:*Looks at Texas, California, Louisiana, Florida, and other French, Spanish, and other former dominions of expansive/imperial states*

That moment that the South African talks about the few sane Texans who aren't nationalistic arschlöcher

I've been to Texas. It's a beautiful and cheerful place. Expect for Galveston. Galveston looks like a dreary, dull, walking in black rain kinda town.

El-Aaiun Al-Khalifa

Killdash wrote:I'm saying, for a place that is consistently at the forefront of so much anti-authority, liberal ideas in political, musical, bookish and social movements in history, the Isles are pretty conservative compared to their Western European neighbours.

Perhaps because the isle is so conservative that's why it has produced so many rebels and liberals.

Yukona wrote:It's really, really, not as clear cut as that.

I understand, I'm just simplifying my viewpoint.

What would you like to bring up, under that umbrella idea I offered?

Nuremgard wrote:Perhaps because the isle is so conservative that's why it has produced so many rebels and liberals.

A possibilitiy for the music and literature revolutions, but what about the great political revolutions? These took mass support to achieve.

Nuremgard wrote:I understand where you're coming from and why some don't want to see the UK break up. That's fair enough. Some people think I'm a moron/Nazi/nasty nationalist/bigot for wanting self-determination and I think some people are cringing children who need the bigger nation next door to bottle feed them forever. I know not everyone is as hardcore as that. There are moderate nationalists and moderate unionists.

If the UK does break up, you'll survive. But if it stays together, I reserve the right to always believe in Scotland as an independent state and my right to vote for a party that fights for that.

C'est la vie.

Man, am I glad we in the US (Ok, mostly) already went through our rebellious secessionist phase. Makes people that say "kick California out of the US" or "make Texas independent" look especially ignorant of US history and law. No state may leave the union, ever. Period.

United Continental States

Killdash wrote:A possibilitiy for the music and literature revolutions, but what about the great political revolutions? These took mass support to achieve.

Britain has never had a revolution as such. I don't count the Glorious Revolution. That was just the establishment inviting a foreigner to come take the throne from the rightful king. And the Jacobite uprisings were quelled.

Nuremgard wrote:I understand where you're coming from and why some don't want to see the UK break up. That's fair enough. Some people think I'm a moron/Nazi/nasty nationalist/bigot for wanting self-determination and I think some people are cringing children who need the bigger nation next door to bottle feed them forever. I know not everyone is as hardcore as that. There are moderate nationalists and moderate unionists.

If the UK does break up, you'll survive. But if it stays together, I reserve the right to always believe in Scotland as an independent state and my right to vote for a party that fights for that.

C'est la vie.

I know, and I respect you for that. I will survive but it will be another door closing on one of history's greatest nations that stood the test of the majority of time. I think if Scotland did leave I'd prefer that Westminster would just call the UK a done job and dissolve it and maybe call it the Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland or something like that - it would be nice to leave it all on a good note rather than try and continue something that's clearly finished.

But ultimately, just as much as you say people might say you're this, this and that - you seem to be your own worst enemy. Without being overt or harsh, you seem to very often demonize your opposition as much as possible - and I know I've said this before. This kind of attitude to your political rivals does not exactly promote peace and understanding. Trying to promote a wider grasp of your own ideology and teach other people about it can only deepen your connection with your opponents which is often one of the most important things you can do in politics.

Aghrabia

Friedensreich wrote:Man, am I glad we in the US (Ok, mostly) already went through our rebellious secessionist phase. Makes people that say "kick California out of the US" or "make Texas independent" look especially ignorant of US history and law. No state may leave the union, ever. Period.

I wouldn't call wanting Scotland to be independent "rebellious" or "secessionist" as that implies revolting against the rightful or natural state/government. I see wanting Scotland to be independent as simply wanting it to return to its normal, pre-Union status as a free state.

Yukona wrote:I know, and I respect you for that. I will survive but it will be another door closing on one of history's greatest nations that stood the test of the majority of time. I think if Scotland did leave I'd prefer that Westminster would just call the UK a done job and dissolve it and maybe call it the Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland or something like that - it would be nice to leave it all on a good note rather than try and continue something that's clearly finished.

But ultimately, just as much as you say people might say you're this, this and that - you seem to be your own worst enemy. Without being overt or harsh, you seem to very often demonize your opposition as much as possible - and I know I've said this before. This kind of attitude to your political rivals does not exactly promote peace and understanding. Trying to promote a wider grasp of your own ideology and teach other people about it can only deepen your connection with your opponents which is often one of the most important things you can do in politics.

I would also like to see the UK split to be amicable. Britain may have been one of history's greatest nations in terms of what it achieved in regards to the Empire but I disagree about the supposed glorious past. I wont get into that, however.

I do realise I can be my own worst enemy and I do demonise my opposition a lot. This is because many of our (the Yes side) political rivals demonise us so I can be very bitter.

Friedensreich wrote:Shifting tide? Have I missed something?

The Andrealls (My demonym) are very ideological as I've written them; The best way to think of the Shifting Tide is the rise of automation and informational access making true Technocratic Direct Democracy possible

Andromitus wrote:The Andrealls (My demonym) are very ideological as I've written them; The best way to think of the Shifting Tide is the rise of automation and informational access making true Technocratic Direct Democracy possible

And because its cooler to say "Shifting Tide" than "Rise of Better Democracy"

Killdash wrote:I understand, I'm just simplifying my viewpoint.

What would you like to bring up, under that umbrella idea I offered?

Britain is fairly traditional, as a people - we like people to abide by the rules (don't jump queues), not act like a prat and to be reserved and proper. We've seen very little change as a country, since probably the inception of the respective Kingdoms themselves that form up the UK today. Rather than radical change, we've only seen an evolution of the existing system since probably 1066 (the Norman invasion) and the introduction of French culture into a primarily Germanic country (England at this time, even though it didn't exist).

However, this ignores some absolutely huge things that we brought about as you probably were thinking of, the magna carta, massively advanced legal code, universal healthcare and suffrage, we had our civil war (English Civil War, not UK - although it can probably be linked to events in Scotland and did spill over) and so on.

The point is, Britain hasn't really had to change that much. It remains isolated from ideals that bombard central Europe, you have to remember that France and Germany are the crossroads of a continent with such a high concentration of people and different cultures, which brings up the issue Nurem has and many other minorities across Europe have. However, we're not too dissimilar to France in a political sense, although they are a bit more socialist than us (but that was the French Revolution that did that), but it doesn't mean we as a country are not progressive.

Often the pendulum swings between right and left, and Britain is not stranger to this phenomenon, portraying the country as some kind of traditional, palace living bunch of old aristocrats is such a generalisation of the government and the country it does not warrant addressing.

Nuremgard, Killdash, Aghrabia, Penguania And Antarctica

Nuremgard wrote:I would also like to see the UK split to be amicable. Britain may have been one of history's greatest nations in terms of what it achieved in regards to the Empire but I disagree about the supposed glorious past. I wont get into that, however.

I do realise I can be my own worst enemy and I do demonise my opposition a lot. This is because many of our (the Yes side) political rivals demonise us so I can be very bitter.

No country is innocent, with every step forward there are two steps back. With the UK, it was a product of its times. I will always say that no matter what, there's no reason in apologising as unfortunately that's just what empires did and the people who deride this simply don't understand what it would be like if their own country had an empire. If Scotland had an empire, for example, it'd do the same - due to the nature of our world, subjugating vast tracts of land will always have a huge impact on our international community and local societies, there's no avoiding it. But history was history.

Nuremgard

Yukona wrote:portraying the country as some kind of traditional, palace living bunch of old aristocrats is such a generalisation of the government and the country it does not warrant addressing.

This was a good post but can you at least concede that Britain's rigid and complex class system has played a role in its conservatism and traditionalism? After all, the aristocracy are still prominent today since many landowning families dominate politics. We have a House of -Lords- and a monarchy for heaven's sake. This instills a kind of deference for the upper class that many working and middle class people in Britain still retain.

Yukona wrote:No country is innocent, with every step forward there are two steps back. With the UK, it was a product of its times. I will always say that no matter what, there's no reason in apologising as unfortunately that's just what empires did and the people who deride this simply don't understand what it would be like if their own country had an empire. If Scotland had an empire, for example, it'd do the same - due to the nature of our world, subjugating vast tracts of land will always have a huge impact on our international community and local societies, there's no avoiding it. But history was history.

Yes but at least some countries acknowledge their chequered pasts. Germany for example. But Britain suffers from what I call Japan Syndrome. Many Brits will simply not acknowledge the crimes or atrocities committed by the British Empire and believe it was a force for good. And while they do this, they decry and criticise other empires. That attitude irritates me.

Yukona wrote:Britain is fairly traditional, as a people - we like people to abide by the rules (don't jump queues), not act like a prat and to be reserved and proper. We've seen very little change as a country, since probably the inception of the respective Kingdoms themselves that form up the UK today. Rather than radical change, we've only seen an evolution of the existing system since probably 1066 (the Norman invasion) and the introduction of French culture into a primarily Germanic country (England at this time, even though it didn't exist).

However, this ignores some absolutely huge things that we brought about as you probably were thinking of, the magna carta, massively advanced legal code, universal healthcare and suffrage, we had our civil war (English Civil War, not UK - although it can probably be linked to events in Scotland and did spill over) and so on.

The point is, Britain hasn't really had to change that much. It remains isolated from ideals that bombard central Europe, you have to remember that France and Germany are the crossroads of a continent with such a high concentration of people and different cultures, which brings up the issue Nurem has and many other minorities across Europe have. However, we're not too dissimilar to France in a political sense, although they are a bit more socialist than us (but that was the French Revolution that did that), but it doesn't mean we as a country are not progressive.

Often the pendulum swings between right and left, and Britain is not stranger to this phenomenon, portraying the country as some kind of traditional, palace living bunch of old aristocrats is such a generalisation of the government and the country it does not warrant addressing.

My point was just the opposite. It did indeed build on the former revolutions in the scientific and legal-political fields, but I didn't want to call Britain an old conservative member of gentry or anything.

Instead I wanted to highlight how, diverse as the country is, we can see such a strong streak of nationalism in the country today, both for its constitutive parts, and the country as a whole.

Nor did I want to say that conservative victories are not "revolutionary" or not "progress", I was just commenting on how a liberal and diverse country with a long history of rebellion would perform such a conservative act.

Maybe it is this very spirit of rebellion that led to events like Brexit and May?

Nuremgard

Killdash wrote:My point was just the opposite. It did indeed build on the former revolutions in the scientific and legal-political fields, but I didn't want to call Britain an old conservative member of gentry or anything.

Instead I wanted to highlight how, diverse as the country is, we can see such a strong streak of nationalism in the country today, both for its constitutive parts, and the country as a whole.

Nor did I want to say that conservative victories are not "revolutionary" or not "progress", I was just commenting on how a liberal and diverse country with a long history of rebellion would perform such a conservative act.

Maybe it is this very spirit of rebellion that led to events like Brexit and May?

I think Brexit has much to do with the British character. Bear in mind that this is just my opinion. Britain is an island nation and so is isolated from the rest of Europe. This makes it feel more unique, different from its European neighbours who all share a stronger sense of shared identity because their nations are clustered together and share borders. It makes many feel less European and more British basically (whatever that may mean to them.)

I also think that because the EU is a union of equals and consensus, that Britain never really liked this. Westminster is too used to getting its own way and dominating politics so it was floored when it got involved with Europe because it actually had to compromise and do diplomacy rather than send in the gunboats, so to speak.

Killdash

Nuremgard wrote:I think Brexit has much to do with the British character. Bear in mind that this is just my opinion. Britain is an island nation and so is isolated from the rest of Europe. This makes it feel more unique, different from its European neighbours who all share a stronger sense of shared identity because their nations are clustered together and share borders. It makes many feel less European and more British basically (whatever that may mean to them.)

I also think that because the EU is a union of equals and consensus, that Britain never really liked this. Westminster is too used to getting its own way and dominating politics so it was floored when it got involved with Europe because it actually had to compromise and do diplomacy rather than send in the gunboats, so to speak.

It makes sense. The Channel stands as a natural border to most forms of extreme cultural inter-mingling.

But do you think, in this day and age, Britain can hang on to the idea of an Island Nation?

Nuremgard

Nuremgard wrote:This was a good post but can you at least concede that Britain's rigid and complex class system has played a role in its conservatism and traditionalism? After all, the aristocracy are still prominent today since many landowning families dominate politics. We have a House of -Lords- and a monarchy for heaven's sake. This instills a kind of deference for the upper class that many working and middle class people in Britain still retain.

Yes, I support the abolition of the House of Lords but keeping titles as purely an honorary system for people who've done awesome things for our country, for example Sir Nelson Mandela (I know he's not British and I personally don't like him because of what the ANC has done, but you get the type I mean). Does class divide Britain more than nationality? I'd say so, yes; but then again, it's not the British class system as in its unique to Britain, I'm not saying it's something we shouldn't take responsibility for but it's not purely a product of Britain's government.

Nuremgard wrote:Yes but at least some countries acknowledge their chequered pasts. Germany for example. But Britain suffers from what I call Japan Syndrome. Many Brits will simply not acknowledge the crimes or atrocities committed by the British Empire and believe it was a force for good. And while they do this, they decry and criticise other empires. That attitude irritates me.

Or I think they do acknowledge the chequered past but since our Empire lasted nigh on 500 years it's a bit impossible to acknowledge all atrocities unless you're a history buff. Many average British people don't care and don't associate themselves with the Empire as proper nationalism and Jingoism all but died with World War II. On the other hand, countries like Japan still have very active right-wing and imperialist notions and their crimes are closer to the surface, as they are more recent and still within living memory. In addition to this, like Japan, Britain has apologised to many countries such as India for the atrocities committed. My point is, the British Empire was inherently a bad thing for other nations (just like any super power), but it was not inherently evil. If it was not the British it was the French then it was the Germans then on and on and on and on, strangers waiting, up and down the boulevard, their shadows searching in the niiiiight. Street lights, people, living just to find emotion, hiding somewhere in the night.

Nuremgard, Killdash

Killdash wrote:It makes sense. The Channel stands as a natural border to most forms of extreme cultural inter-mingling.

But do you think, in this day and age, Britain can hang on to the idea of an Island Nation?

It's hard to say. In these turbulent times, the United Kingdom has never been so disunited. Scotland and England are growing apart politically, not just because of how the Brexit vote panned out but also because of the growing tide of nationalism on either side of the border. The political paths of the two home nations are diverging. Furthermore, the UK is one of the most unequal nations in the world and it's only getting worse. England and Scotland have their own internal north-south/country-city divides and of course, Scotland is divided between nationalist and unionist sentiment. Northern Ireland is becoming more uncertain because of Brexit: will it stay with the UK? Could there be a desire for joining the Republic?

The future is so uncertain for Britain. In the wake of Brexit, the nations of Europe are closing ranks and coming together whereas Britain, at a time when it should be, for all intents and purposes, coming together, is ripping itself apart.

Killdash

Killdash wrote:My point was just the opposite. It did indeed build on the former revolutions in the scientific and legal-political fields, but I didn't want to call Britain an old conservative member of gentry or anything.

Instead I wanted to highlight how, diverse as the country is, we can see such a strong streak of nationalism in the country today, both for its constitutive parts, and the country as a whole.

Nor did I want to say that conservative victories are not "revolutionary" or not "progress", I was just commenting on how a liberal and diverse country with a long history of rebellion would perform such a conservative act.

Maybe it is this very spirit of rebellion that led to events like Brexit and May?

Then sorry, your point went way over my head. Britain's nationalism isn't simple as "burn anyone who doesn't want cricket", it's much more complicated and historically charged than that. English people especially are very proud of Britain, but I wouldn't call them some zealous patriots like America has, the gentlemanly part of British culture comes to play, for example flying the English flag in England can actually be seen as very weird and potentially very nationalistic or red-neck'y. And I agree with Nurem, we're both European and not European, we love it - but we like to keep it at arms length and historically we went all across the bloody globe just to get away from the gits because we had nothing in common (language wise or culturally) with people on the continent and had no chance of expanding our land empire in Europe once Normandy and Gascoigne was annexed by France.

Killdash wrote:It makes sense. The Channel stands as a natural border to most forms of extreme cultural inter-mingling.

But do you think, in this day and age, Britain can hang on to the idea of an Island Nation?

It absolutely does act as a natural border and the Channel has become part of who we are. Can we last as an island nation? What, do you want us to attach ourselves to France? Can Japan last as an island nation? The fact of the matter is British people don't want complete isolation, they just hate the idea of the people who were traditionally our rivals telling us what to do and this overrides for many the economic benefits the EU held. Don't forget that Brexit was a total f*cking mess. There were lies from both side, the Remain campaign was a shambles and couldn't get it's sh*t together, there were hundreds of incomprehensible external factors and the old generation - who like every nation are traditionally conservative, the ideology not the party - voted for it when really the young population hardly got a vote only at the age of 18 when it should have probably been lowered to 16.

Nuremgard

Yukona wrote:hiding somewhere in the night.

Well written post.

I wanted to ask. You support federalism, right? How would you propose to solve the issue of England dominating federal matters/a federal parliament by virtue of it being the biggest, most populous nation of the Union? My solution would be a national veto for each home nation.

Yukona

Post self-deleted by Yukona.

Nuremgard wrote:Well written post.

I wanted to ask. You support federalism, right? How would you propose to solve the issue of England dominating federal matters/a federal parliament by virtue of it being the biggest, most populous nation of the Union? My solution would be a national veto for each home nation.

Drop the bill in parliament, go to the pub, get a nice warm pint then wait for it all to blow over.

[spoiler]I have no f*cking clue[/spoiler]

Nuremgard

Yukona wrote:The fact of the matter is British people don't want complete isolation, they just hate the idea of the people who were traditionally our rivals telling us what to do

This right here is how I feel about Scotland and England.

Yukona wrote:Drop the bill in parliament, go to the pub, get a nice warm pint then wait for it all to blow over.

[spoiler]I have no f*cking clue[/spoiler]

This is why a federal solution, while a noble idea, could never last.

Nuremgard wrote:This right here is how I feel about Scotland and England.

Yeah but in this sense England and Scotland stopped being rivals 500 years ago.

Nuremgard wrote:This is why a federal solution, while a noble idea, could never last.

Could do, I'm just not an expert. My own stupidity and ignorance of the problem does not act as a shortcut for defeat in the matter my bonny lad

Nuremgard

Yukona wrote:Yeah but in this sense England and Scotland stopped being rivals 500 years ago.

That's because Scotland was forced into a political union that the majority of the population was against. The Scots nobility sold us out to pay off their debts. I'd still say there is a rivalry because I certainly resent Westminster having power over my country. I know you don't feel this way but to be blunt, for me, Westminster is a foreign parliament and a foreign government dictating to my nation.

Let me give you an example. The UK, when it wanted to hold a referendum on EU membership just held one. There was no recourse to Brussels. If Scotland wants a vote on its future, it has to go cap in hand to London and ask for f*cking permission.

That in a nutshell is why I resent the whole concept of the UK. It's not a union of equals.

Nuremgard wrote:That's because Scotland was forced into a political union that the majority of the population was against. The Scots nobility sold us out to pay off their debts. I'd still say there is a rivalry because I certainly resent Westminster having power over my country. I know you don't feel this way but to be blunt, for me, Westminster is a foreign parliament and a foreign government dictating to my nation.

Let me give you an example. The UK, when it wanted to hold a referendum on EU membership just held one. There was no recourse to Brussels. If Scotland wants a vote on its future, it has to go cap in hand to London and ask for f*cking permission.

That in a nutshell is why I resent the whole concept of the UK. It's not a union of equals.

Then it should be, that's all I can say, I'm not going to argue with you for the sake of arguing with you and pretend that I don't believe Scotland wasn't f*cked.

Yukona wrote:Then it should be, that's all I can say, I'm not going to argue with you for the sake of arguing with you and pretend that I don't believe Scotland wasn't f*cked.

It can never be a union of equals because no matter how much federalism could be conjured up, England will always dominate because it is the biggest country. This is the fundamental reason why I want independence. I want Scotland to choose its own governments and run its own affairs, with no politicians from down south interfering and no English people picking the government for us.

Putting aside your emotional attachment to the Union, surely you can appreciate this viewpoint?

Yukona wrote:Then it should be, that's all I can say, I'm not going to argue with you for the sake of arguing with you and pretend that I don't believe Scotland wasn't f*cked.

What does the vote percentage break down to?

Nuremgard wrote:It can never be a union of equals because no matter how much federalism could be conjured up, England will always dominate because it is the biggest country. This is the fundamental reason why I want independence. I want Scotland to choose its own governments and run its own affairs, with no politicians from down south interfering and no English people picking the government for us.

Putting aside your emotional attachment to the Union, surely you can appreciate this viewpoint?

I can.

Killdash wrote:What does the vote percentage break down to?

We need strong and stable leadership in the United Kingdom.

Nuremgard

Killdash wrote:What does the vote percentage break down to?

I don't know about percentages but look at it this way. Westminster has 650 seats. There are 533 constituencies for England and 59 for Scotland.

We will always be outvoted in the Union. We cannot make any kind of impact or effect. That is why the UK must end.

Kalaron

Yukona wrote:I can.

We need strong and stable leadership in the United Kingdom.

Thank you.

Funny poll by the way.

Yukona

Nuremgard wrote:Thank you.

Funny poll by the way.

Quote of the day in the group chat - Joe: I hope that she finds a strong and stable beam in her house and does us all a f*cking favour

Nuremgard

Yukona wrote:Quote of the day in the group chat - Joe: I hope that she finds a strong and stable beam in her house and does us all a f*cking favour

As my sister would say, she needs to go play tig with the buses.

Yukona

Nuremgard wrote:I don't know about percentages but look at it this way. Westminster has 650 seats. There are 533 constituencies for England and 59 for Scotland.

We will always be outvoted in the Union. We cannot make any kind of impact or effect. That is why the UK must end.

That is quite a discrepancy. Even with the votes of the other Home Countries, it's interesting that England alone could still almost veto any decision. Or approve any decision.

Killdash wrote:I've been to Texas. It's a beautiful and cheerful place. Expect for Galveston. Galveston looks like a dreary, dull, walking in black rain kinda town.

Kinda surprised Houston and all the LA-esque smog aren't mentioned

Killdash wrote:That is quite a discrepancy. Even with the votes of the other Home Countries, it's interesting that England alone could still almost veto any decision. Or approve any decision.

The discrepancy is a Jacobite conspiracy

Nuremgard, Killdash

El-Aaiun Al-Khalifa wrote:Kinda surprised Houston and all the LA-esque smog aren't mentioned

Houston wasn't so bad. Pleasant Walmart there.

El-Aaiun Al-Khalifa

Killdash wrote:That is quite a discrepancy. Even with the votes of the other Home Countries, it's interesting that England alone could still almost veto any decision. Or approve any decision.

That is what happens and has been happening for over three hundred years. Scotland always gets the government England votes for. Scottish soldiers fight in wars that English politicians vote for. Scottish money and resources flows into the London Treasury and we get a tiny fraction back.

This is not the way an ancient nation like Scotland should work. But it does. And many Scots are content with the arrangement. This is what baffles me most. But it's not surprising. Tell a country it's sh!t and is reliant on its neighbour for survival for three centuries and it's going to inflict an inferiority complex onto many of the natives.

Yukona wrote:The discrepancy is a Jacobite conspiracy

I'd have been a Jacobite. 'Moan Jamesy boy!

Nuremgard wrote:That is what happens and has been happening for over three hundred years. Scotland always gets the government England votes for. Scottish soldiers fight in wars that English politicians vote for. Scottish money and resources flows into the London Treasury and we get a tiny fraction back.

This is not the way an ancient nation like Scotland should work. But it does. And many Scots are content with the arrangement. This is what baffles me most. But it's not surprising. Tell a country it's sh!t and is reliant on its neighbour for survival for three centuries and it's going to inflict an inferiority complex onto many of the natives.

Pretty sure you run a fiscal deficit with the British government and that your public services would be severely under funded without the rest of the UK's tax payers.

Nuremgard wrote:That is what happens and has been happening for over three hundred years. Scotland always gets the government England votes for. Scottish soldiers fight in wars that English politicians vote for. Scottish money and resources flows into the London Treasury and we get a tiny fraction back.

This is not the way an ancient nation like Scotland should work. But it does. And many Scots are content with the arrangement. This is what baffles me most. But it's not surprising. Tell a country it's sh!t and is reliant on its neighbour for survival for three centuries and it's going to inflict an inferiority complex onto many of the natives.

I don't know about breaking up the Union, but I definitely think the Home Countries should get vetoes on policies they deem, "not in states interest". Or just be allowed to say, pull military service in their country for an unsupported war, or immune to certain agreements not made in the countries interest.

Yukona

Killdash wrote:I don't know about breaking up the Union, but I definitely think the Home Countries should get vetoes on policies they deem, "not in states interest". Or just be allowed to say, pull military service in their country for an unsupported war, or immune to certain agreements not made in the countries interest.

You're a true patriot, son, you ever heard of the Royal Navy? We could do with more young lads like you. See the world, be the best!

Yukona wrote:Pretty sure you run a fiscal deficit with the British government and that your public services would be severely under funded without the rest of the UK's tax payers.

Pretty sure your own deficit and national debt would be a lot worse without Scottish oil and tax money helping to prop you up. Check out the McCrone Report.

Scotland has no deficit because Scotland has no borrowing powers. We are assigned a notional deficit by Westminster because it assigns a share of it to Scotland for spending on reserved matters and national projects.

If you want to talk about scroungers, look to Northern Ireland. They receive the largest subsidy of taxpayer money yet us Scots are the ones who get flack for being subsidy junkies.

This "we pay for you" attitude is one that makes people like me want Scotland out. Do you have any idea how demeaning and insulting it is to be told by someone that their country pays for yours so you must sit down and do as you're told?

Killdash wrote:I don't know about breaking up the Union, but I definitely think the Home Countries should get vetoes on policies they deem, "not in states interest". Or just be allowed to say, pull military service in their country for an unsupported war, or immune to certain agreements not made in the countries interest.

Well I do want the Union broke up.

Nuremgard wrote:Well I do want the Union broke up.

There are no compromises?

Nuremgard wrote:Pretty sure your own deficit and national debt would be a lot worse without Scottish oil and tax money helping to prop you up. Check out the McCrone Report.

Scotland has no deficit because Scotland has no borrowing powers. We are assigned a notional deficit by Westminster because it assigns a share of it to Scotland for spending on reserved matters and national projects.

If you want to talk about scroungers, look to Northern Ireland. They receive the largest subsidy of taxpayer money yet us Scots are the ones who get flack for being subsidy junkies.

This "we pay for you" attitude is one that makes people like me want Scotland out. Do you have any idea how demeaning and insulting it is to be told by someone that their country pays for yours so you must sit down and do as you're told?

North Sea Oil is greatly invested in with British tax payer money and is only really of the quality to be able to build plastics, so it's not even the good kind of oil and petroleum exports only make 11% of our economy and not all of that is Scottish oil. I'm not saying you're a subsidy junky, it's just like you're talking as if Scotland is the powerhouse of the UK and gets nothing in return when in fact its quite the opposite.

Killdash wrote:There are no compromises?

No. What's the point?

Let's say we get federalism. Let's say the home nations get a veto on federal matters. Why should Scotland control all policy but leave things like defence and foreign affairs to Westminster? Why not just go the whole nine yards and decide these things for ourselves by becoming fully independent?

The Royal Republic Of Kumania

Yukona wrote:North Sea Oil is greatly invested in with British tax payer money and is only really of the quality to be able to build plastics, so it's not even the good kind of oil and petroleum exports only make 11% of our economy and not all of that is Scottish oil. I'm not saying you're a subsidy junky, it's just like you're talking as if Scotland is the powerhouse of the UK and gets nothing in return when in fact its quite the opposite.

Scotland is the third most productive part of the UK outside London and the South-East. Scots pay more tax per head. Scottish money and resources help keep the UK afloat. Why do you think Westminster politicians are so desperate for Scotland to stay in the Union? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Don't make me laugh.

Nuremgard wrote:No. What's the point?

Let's say we get federalism. Let's say the home nations get a veto on federal matters. Why should Scotland control all policy but leave things like defence and foreign affairs to Westminster? Why not just go the whole nine yards and decide these things for ourselves by becoming fully independent?

What if we destroyed british

The Royal Republic Of Kumania

Magnatronia wrote:What if we destroyed british

That would include us since we are British too (for now unfortunately!)

Magnatronia wrote:What if we destroyed british

We will lay waste to Old Humanity with the cleansing blast of Atomic Fire only to rebuild the world in our holy image!

Nuremgard wrote:No. What's the point?

Let's say we get federalism. Let's say the home nations get a veto on federal matters. Why should Scotland control all policy but leave things like defence and foreign affairs to Westminster? Why not just go the whole nine yards and decide these things for ourselves by becoming fully independent?

Fair, but a no compromise attitude tends to invite a no compromise attitude back.

But it is your right to have a no compromise attitude, and who knows? Maybe it works out.

Killdash wrote:Fair, but a no compromise attitude tends to invite a no compromise attitude back.

But it is your right to have a no compromise attitude, and who knows? Maybe it works out.

The discussion is moot anyway. Westminster will never federalise because it's full of control freak politicians. It's independence or the status quo. There is no middle ground.

Nuremgard wrote:Scotland is the third most productive part of the UK outside London and the South-East. Scots pay more tax per head. Scottish money and resources help keep the UK afloat. Why do you think Westminster politicians are so desperate for Scotland to stay in the Union? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Don't make me laugh.

That's incorrect, North-Eastern Scotland is the third most productive region and that's doesn't take into account population, type of industry or distribution. The next most productive is 11th, and that's Eastern Scotland. Scots pay more tax per head because you have a bigger NHS and free university. North Sea Oil is dwindling and UK oil exports are decreasing in actual crude oil and reverting back to oil based products. I think a part from the oil, which I said was dwindling, and without being harsh - there is literally nothing you have a comparative advantage over the rest of the UK at.

Yukona wrote:That's incorrect, North-Eastern Scotland is the third most productive region and that's doesn't take into account population, type of industry or distribution. The next most productive is 11th, and that's Eastern Scotland. Scots pay more tax per head because you have a bigger NHS and free university. North Sea Oil is dwindling and UK oil exports are decreasing in actual crude oil and reverting back to oil based products. I think a part from the oil, which I said was dwindling, and without being harsh - there is literally nothing you have a comparative advantage over the rest of the UK at.

I don't care what we have a comparative advantage over. If Scotland is so dependent on English money as you like to claim, you should be praying for independence. It will save taxpayers down south a bomb, no?

Although if it does happen, good luck losing Scots whisky exports. That comprises a quarter of all UK food and drink exports. And I'm sure Trident will look very pretty on the Thames.

By the power invested in me as Ambassador to Libertatem, I, [nation=short+noflag]Baxten[/nation], hereby sign the Sister Region Treaty

Post self-deleted by Baxten.

Andromitus wrote:Filthy savage, just another Evient unfit for the shifting tide

Watch your mouth when you talk to me. You will bow to this filthy savage

Magnatronia

Nuremgard wrote:I don't care what we have a comparative advantage over. If Scotland is so dependent on English money as you like to claim, you should be praying for independence. It will save taxpayers down south a bomb, no?

Although if it does happen, good luck losing Scots whisky exports. That comprises a quarter of all UK food and drink exports. And I'm sure Trident will look very pretty on the Thames.

Nope, just said you make Scotland look like it gives it all and takes nothing wh that's not correct and your figures were wrong. And comparative advantage is hugely important in international trade so quite a few probably care not to mention the fact that if trident moved down south I'd be glad for the jobs but I don't support it anyway

Peoples Liberation Republic wrote:Watch your mouth when you talk to me. You will bow to this filthy savage

Is someone calling you a savage, brother? Tangshan's army is on standby to crush them.

Yukona wrote:Nope, just said you make Scotland look like it gives it all and takes nothing wh that's not correct and your figures were wrong. And comparative advantage is hugely important in international trade so quite a few probably care not to mention the fact that if trident moved down south I'd be glad for the jobs but I don't support it anyway

And you're acting as if Scotland takes and takes and gives nothing back.

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.