Why doesn't Cameron want Scottish Independence?

adouglasmhor

Generali wrote: »

The motto of the British Royal Family is still in French!

Is it?

Generali

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Is it?

Isn't Dieu et mon droit?

Ah ha! A quick Google suggests that your version is the Scottish version which is in Latin, the motto came from the Scottish army. Thanks for that, you live and learn or I do at least.

FTBFun

sss555s wrote: »

We all know why Cameron or any other political leader want's Scotland to remain in the uk. London and the south east has most to lose.

Why would the richest part of the UK lose out if Scotland became independent? It doesn't make any sense.

adouglasmhor

Generali wrote: »

Isn't Dieu et mon droit?

Ah ha! A quick Google suggests that your version is the Scottish version which is in Latin, the motto came from the Scottish army. Thanks for that, you live and learn or I do at least.

I thought the two lion rampants would give me away, and only one triple lion.

Generali

adouglasmhor wrote: »

I thought the two lion rampants would give me away, and only one triple lion.

I know nothing about heraldry. It's an interesting topic but the few times I've tried to understand a bit about heraldry it's gone in one eye and out the other.

There are some things that I simply can't cope with, two of which are long legal documents and heraldry. Funnily enough, I'd like to understand both!

zagubov

Generali wrote: »

Fair enough. I was going to add the English in the USA to my list but I won't bother now.

C20th:
NATO in various bits of what used to be Yugo seems to have ended well although IMHO the troops should have gone in much sooner (this is peacekeeping not invasion as such).
Red Russians in Ukraine? The Ukraine ended up as part of the USSR for the best part of a century.
Soviet invasion of Poland (and indeed much of Eastern, Central and Southern Europe)? Lasted nearly 50 years until the Poles kicked Marx in the cojones (and good on them!).

Yes, but Churchill, God bless him, kept us out of the Vietnam fiasco after predicting how long the Soviet empire / communist enterprise was going to last ("worst case of indigestion I've ever seen"). I think he gave it 30-40 years and his prediciton was close to the actual date it all fell down.

Communist countries were all heavily militarised as it is, but in Poland the Soviet puppet government imposed Martial Law on top of that and ventually a State of Emergency on top of that. Still didn't stop the changes as we well know. So after invading East Germany, hungary, Czechoslovakia, and some say Poland, they lose them all to NATO membership. Fat lot of good invading was in the long term.

I think the Soviet takeover of Ukraine was before the war, too.

I don't doubt that peacekeeping missions to counter armed aggression works; in fact I reckon it does.

What I'm strugging to think of is a recent time when a country got its army together, looked at a neighbour's territory or assets and said " I'm having that" and then managing to do it and hold onto it without having to surrender it because the politicans realise it was daft letting hotheads make military decisions.

pop_gun

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I'm not sure where you get territorial rights from. United Nations Conventions have for a long time defined these as 12 nautical miles out from low tide. Not many platforms there!

All I am saying is that current licenses belong to the United Kingdom. Scotland is planning to leave the United Kingdom. Hence any licencing rights to be acquired by Scotland will have to be negotiated. Nothing wrong with that.

I have never 'complained' about Scotland being a drain. I simply state it as a fact. There's a difference.

As for the issue itself, I have no "indignation" whatsoever. Seems you might have to look in the mirror for that. The Scottish voted for a government that wants independence. Wonderful. A referendum on the subject is forthcoming. Great. If that confirms independence, then all well and good.

Why get so uppity about it? I assume you want independence?

But it's not a fact my dear boy

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/04/an-independent-scotland-could-pay-its-own-wayand65279/

I never knew monkeys could type. Please let me know when they learn to think.

ruggedtoast

zagubov wrote: »

Read my posts carefully. Locals and their backers won. Unwanted aggressors/invaders lost. Argentina's not got the Falklands any more. The French don't have Indochina. The Americans are welcome as tourists in Vietnam IIRC.

By all means think that invading countries that don't want you there gets long-term results. Just show me evidence that military invasion by outsiders gains lasting results or achieves long-term goals. Nothing you've described looks convincing; in fact, the opposite.:D

You seem to be labouring under this unfortunate misconception that the wars in Indochina were the result of a noble and oppressed populace throwing off the yoke of foreign aggression.

This is simply not the case. In fact you are so wrong I dont even know where to begin.

Why dont you try reading about the fall of Saigon and what the South Vietnamese thought about it, or the Chinese communists invading Laos.

I know you think you are right but honestly, you really dont have a clue on this subject.

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

What I'm strugging to think of is a recent time when a country got its army together, looked at a neighbour's territory or assets and said " I'm having that" and then managing to do it and hold onto it without having to surrender it because the politicans realise it was daft letting hotheads make military decisions.

China & Tibet?

Loughton_Monkey

sss555s wrote: »

That means we can leave the UK debt with the UK also or are you just making it up as you go along?

We all know why Cameron or any other political leader want's Scotland to remain in the uk. London and the south east has most to lose.

sss555s wrote: »

That was my whole point. It was Mr Monkey who posted as if he wanted his cake and eat it.

As just one of 63 million people involved, I think you are talking of crumbs rather than cake, and I tend not to eat crumbs!

I don't really want any cake. I simply assume that should the vote be 'yes', then a huge team of Civil Servants will negotiate long and hard to distribute the UK's assets (net assets <£0 I assume) proportionally in a fair way.

Future revenue would then sort itself out naturally.

Although I don't know - because we haven't had a referendum here - I assume that the majority of English people would love to see Scotland float off as a separate country. Maybe I'm wrong but certainly I believe it should be independent if that's what the Scots want.

In round figures, there are 4 segments of society:

1. Scottish people who want Independence.
2. Scottish people who don't want Independence.
3. English/Welsh/NI people who want Scotland to be Independent.
4. English/Welsh/NI people who don't want Scotland to be Independent.

I declare my segment as (3), and am surprised that this position seems not to be favoured by Scottish people.