Nah, it's just good to know that you see the UN's charter as a law, like prohibition, segregation or sodomy laws, and not some sort of timeless moral imperative.
Is your argument that the civil war happened after the UN charter? If not, it's hard to see what your point is.
Also, no need for quotes around illegal for what israel has done. There's really no question about it.
Nah, it's just good to know that you see the UN's charter as a law, like prohibition, segregation or sodomy laws, and not some sort of timeless moral imperative.
You tried to leave, the northeast kicked your ass.
Are you a moron in real life, or do you just play one on the internet?
There were a couple of battles in Sabine Pass and Galveston, but besides those Texas pretty much sat out the civil war.
Are you a moron in real life, or do you just play one on the internet?
There were a couple of battles in Sabine Pass and Galveston, but besides those Texas pretty much sat out the civil war.
The U.S. state of Texas declared its secession from the United States on February 1, 1861, and joined the Confederate States of America on March 2, 1861, replacing its Governor, Sam Houston, when he refused to take an oath of allegiance to the Confederacy. During the subsequent American Civil War, Texas was most useful for supplying soldiers for Confederate forces and in the cavalry.
Except for all the troops they supplied to the confederacy and all.
So you're arguing that Texas surrendered and was occupied by northern troops without even putting up a fight? Texas seceded, got its ass kicked, surrendered, and was occupied.
Don't they teach you guys history? If Scotland is a conquered people so are you.
Sam Houston himself did not want to leave the union. He thought leaving the union during the civil war was rushed. Sam Houston died 2 years before the civil war was over. One of his last hopes was Texas would rejoin the union.
If Texas had really joined the civil war, you would be speaking with a southern accent right now.
Kid you do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about.
Sam Houston himself did not want to leave the union. He thought leaving the union during the civil war was rushed. Sam Houston died 2 years before the civil war was over. One of his last hopes was Texas would rejoin the union.
Texas was destined to rejoin the union before the civil war even got started good.
Regardless of "what" you think, Texas did not get its ass kicked during the civil war. A bunch of rag-tag volunteers beat one of the best standing armies at the time in 1836.
If Texas had really joined the civil war, you would be speaking with a southern accent right now.
I don't know the details and the history of this movement, but from what I've heard second-handed the Scotts insisted/planned on keeping Pound Sterling as their currency even after the independence, while threatening a default on the existing Scott's share of the national debt if the rest of UK did not approve of that proposal? How could that be justified or even practical?
.
Scotland was conquered, and a conquered people they wish to stay.
Kid you do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about.
Sam Houston himself did not want to leave the union. He thought leaving the union during the civil war was rushed. Sam Houston died 2 years before the civil war was over. One of his last hopes was Texas would rejoin the union.
Texas was destined to rejoin the union before the civil war even got started good.
Regardless of "what" you think, Texas did not get its ass kicked during the civil war. A bunch of rag-tag volunteers beat one of the best standing armies at the time in 1836.
If Texas had really joined the civil war, you would be speaking with a southern accent right now.
They didnt have a lot of choice.
The EU wouldnt let them use the Euro straight away.
Setting up their own currency would be extremely risky and expensive.
The only option that the independance movement could put forward that wouldnt scare the hell out of the electorate would be that theyd use the pound and nothing would change.
In a UK democracy, Scotland is less than 10% of the vote based on population.
I stand by smaller, more local denominations of power and decision making. Where policy can reflect local interests. This does not preclude Unions on shared topics, where one is happy with a 'foreign' leadership. If Scotland was happy with UK healthcare, for example, there's no reason they couldn't contribute and remain a part of that system - if they wanted to.
I stand for voluntary Unions where common interests are shared on a mutual basis. In contrast to compulsory Unions made by force. I stand by Democracies small enough that you can protest your capitol and sleep in your own bed later that day. Where your voice is actually heard and not drown out by thousands of miles or hundreds of millions of other voices.
The United States is a prime example where 50 States deserve a greater share of power. This is how our Union was formed, with them being more responsible managers of their own affairs. Over time we have eroded the rights of our local representatives in favor of centralize power. In the past hundred years we started collecting taxes straight from the people to 1: bypass the States, then 2: to enslave them with this money. Federal funding means federal ownership, which is pretty much everything these days.
There are separatist movements the world over. Scotland did not win today, but they didn't need to. There are plenty of other opportunities for the next stage of representative government to take shape. I say nothing lasts forever, because no Union ever has. It's just that we folks in Western Civilization have, for the time being, put down the use of force and decided to discuss these things. It's a slower, but hopefully better process where we try to keep both civility and our interests.
These modern secession movements are a test to see if the human race is ready to be civilized. Civil enough to let borders change without bloodshed. It is a trying time, it is our nature to use power - to use force to control others. It must be very tempting to simply shoot and take. It would be very good for our species if we learned not to be unnecessarily violent. If we learned to let changes happen and to let people form Unions as they see fit.
I thought the nobles sold their land to England? Of corse my information comes from a gamer friend of mine that is a Scot and lives there.
I believe that England and Scotland were brought under one kingdom by royal marriage.
didn't it come about because the Scot's lost all their money trying to create a colony in Panama? KMFJD is online now Report Post
Previous attempts at union
England and Scotland were separate states for several centuries before eventual union, and English attempts to take over Scotland by military force in the late 13th and early 14th centuries were ultimately unsuccessful (see the Wars of Scottish Independence). The first attempts at Union surrounded the foreseen unification[clarification needed] of the Royal lines of Scotland and England. In pursuing the Scottish throne in the 1560s, Mary, Queen of Scots pledged herself to a peaceful union between the two kingdoms.[5]
England and Scotland were ruled by the same king for the first time in 1603 when James VI of Scotland also became the king of England. However they remained two separate states until 1 May 1707.
The independence movement was strong on emotion and weak on actually explaining how they'd get things to work.It's like their independence movement learned nothing from the euro catastrophe. They would be voluntarily pegging themselves to a currency they had no control over.
It would have caused an economic mess for them in very short order.
Someone's been reading his motivational pamphlets.Try? You know what I think when I see that word? He doesn't really mean it.
When you use the word try, you program your subconscious to not really do it.
Look at these two examples:
Blubba says he's going to try to lose some weight soon.
Thor said: "I WILL lose this weight!"
Which one do you think is more likely to achieve his goal?
One of them is wishy washy and weak. The other one is certain what he wants to accomplish.
It's like President Obama's campaign slogan. "Yes we can!"
What kind of a weak ass slogan was that? It should have been "Yes we will!"
It was the kind used by people who don't understand human minds. That's what kind it was.
Two more examples:
Dweeber says: "Well I guess I can do that."
Zoltan says: "Yes, I will. I'll get right on it."
One of those people is certain what he wants to do. The other one has the confidence of a theologian biting his fingernails at a science symposium.
The independence movement was strong on emotion and weak on actually explaining how they'd get things to work.
Any questions about logistics was just brushed away as "fearmungering" even if it was the sort of issue that you'd think would be the first thing that you'd sort out if you were going to run your own country.
Try?
Sounds like they should go back to the drawing board and come up with a real proposal then. Try it again in 10 or so years. That constructive effort is the best response those who want secession can do in the face of defeat. Campaign for their people to believe in them.
For humans to be nonviolent in the face of change? Yes...
Sounds like they should go back to the drawing board and come up with a real proposal then. Try it again in 10 or so years. That constructive effort is the best response those who want secession can do in the face of defeat. Campaign for their people to believe in them.
The problem is that it was a good time for the independence movement. There was a tory government, an economic downturn and the Scottish oil hasn't run out yet.
That is already well under way.Maybe Scotland needs to focus on producing powerful high tech and green technology industries to counter the possible loss of oil.