Why doesn't Cameron want Scottish Independence?

ruggedtoast

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I suspect allowing all the 16/17 year olds in will swing the vote in favour of independence - not least so they don't have to pay university fees [until, of course, Scotland works out it can't afford it].

Its the current Scottish government which has decided that students pay no tuition fees, so they better vote SNP if they want that to continue.

If they want the English to keep providing the actual money for free tuition fees though, they better vote NO in the referendum.

Whether they are old enough to realise that though I don't know.

zagubov

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Falklands.

Nope! Next!

Edit: the aggressors took a drubbing if I recall and achieved, at great cost in lives, big fat nothing. The defenders, also at great expense, defeated them and restored the status quo so the land was returned to the people who lived there.


'

ruggedtoast

zagubov wrote: »

Could you remind me of any single instance since WW2 that sending the troops in anywhere instead of politicians has ever achieved any long-term goal whatsoever?:)

I know nats like to rewrite history to support their claims, but I think writing off everything that happened pre 1946 because it doesn't suit your agenda is going a bit far.

In any case, how about:

Korea
Vietnam
Indo-China
The Falklands
Bosnia

PaulF81

Be nice to end the Barnett formula. Jock land would be third world in a week.

zagubov

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I know nats like to rewrite history to support their claims, but I think writing off everything that happened pre 1946 because it doesn't suit your agenda is going a bit far.

In any case, how about:

Korea (what, is there not a rogue state on their soil, threatening nuclear war?- and isn't it still a cold war didvided country)
Vietnam the outsiders lost. So did the Chinese when they invaded.
Indo-China Be specific
The Falklands read my last post
Bosnia The aggressors /ethnic cleansers were confined to thier own territory and eventually pacified

Politics wins. Agression doesn't.:)

A._Badger

zagubov wrote: »

Politics wins. Agression doesn't.:)

Ghengis Khan.

Game, set and match.

zagubov

A._Badger wrote: »

Ghengis Khan.

Game, set and match.

Yep, back when waging war might actually achieve things.

That was then, this is now.:D

Shall I give you three chances to find modern examples or do you want to admit defeat now?;)

chewmylegoff

zagubov wrote: »

Politics wins. Agression doesn't.:)

so as long as england are not the aggressor, and we are just sending in the troops to pacify the aggressive scots, things will turn out fine

A._Badger

zagubov wrote: »

Yep, back when waging war might actually achieve things.

That was then, this is now.:D

Shall I give you three chances to find modern examples or do you want to admit defeat now?;)

You don't think waging war achieves anything? Really? I'm glad no one told the Viet Cong. Or even the IRA, come to that.

Methods may change but the principle doesn't.

zagubov

A._Badger wrote: »

You don't think waging war achieves anything? Really? I'm glad no one told the Viet Cong. Or even the IRA, come to that.

Methods may change but the principle doesn't.

Both defending paramilitaries chucking out what they saw (rightly or wrongly) as foreign invaders. Both now in stable long-term government in their respective lands. Neither of them invaded their occupiers militarily if I recall. And a good thing too as it doesn't work.;)