Go, Scotland, go!

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Sorrel

Sorry, Erimir. I don't know what you think I was trying to imply. That was me agreeing with you. I too think that Scotland would have the right to secede -if we want independence we vote for the SNP, and once in power they would hold a referendum on the issue.

Ah, well sorry then.

A clear indicator of the Scottish public wanting independence would be an SNP majority. The 2005 UK general election awarded them 6 of 59 Scottish seats. 2003 Scottish parliament election gave them 9/73.

Well, I don't know that that's true. It would indicate that a strong majority of the population wants independence, if you ask me. Most people aren't one-issue voters, so in order for that party to win a majority, it would seem that a lot of people would have to put aside their other disagreements/other issues in order to vote for them. Just like you can't assume based on the amount of votes that the Green Party gets in the US that only that percentage of Americans care about the environment, etc.

The only real way to tell if that's what the majority want is a referendum or poll of the population. Although with polls you have to take into account margins of error, so when it's only a small difference one way or the other it isn't conclusive.

[Veritas]

Originally Posted by slimshady2357

It makes me wonder if the people who are for seperation have really though about the level of subsidies that they receive from the British government. because all that money would be gone.

It reminds me of Quebec wanting to seperate from the rest of Canada. They would lose all of the federal funding they now enjoy. Financially, I think it would be a nightmare for either Scotland or Quebec.

Scotland is part of Britain anyway.

And we have all the oil.

[Dingfod]

For the Scots: Freedom!!! Except for VeryToss, she gets to remain under British rule.

[godfry n. glad]

Ah, yes...oil.

Well, that changes everything. You probably have WMD, too.

Prepare for invasion.

[Veritas]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

For the Scots: Freedom!!! Except for VeryToss, she gets to remain under British rule.

For the last time - Scotland is part of Britain. If we were independent, we wouldn't be devolved from Britain - Britain as it stands now simply would cease to exist.

England, Wales and N.Ireland could get their own damned pseudo-state.

[Veritas]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Ah, yes...oil.

Well, that changes everything. You probably have WMD, too.

Prepare for invasion.

Aw, crap.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Veritas

For the last time - Scotland is part of Britain. If we were independent, we wouldn't be devolved from Britain - Britain as it stands now simply would cease to exist.

England, Wales and N.Ireland could get their own damned pseudo-state.

Britain would NOT cease to exist. It is the island you share with the English, Cymru, and Cornish.

As for Northern Ireland, it should be tossed to Eire, to become an eternal pain in the backside to those smug damned Irish.

Yes, I know, it's the United Kingdom of which you would no longer be part.

[Veritas]

Double crap.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

The current boundaries are tools of the "divide and rule" paradigm. In many cases, they were designed by the imperial power to lump certain mixtures of ethnic and religious groups together so that imperial rule became an imperative.

Maybe so but I am sure it is still quite possible to live in peace together even for the people of middle east.Putting borders between every ethnic or religious group is neither realistic nor helpful.Even the idea of correcting the mistakes of imperial powers is a mistake.Because at the end you are doing what they did , trying to manipulate the borders and creating more hostilities.
I am sure you have only what is best for those people in your mind
but it won`t work that way.

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

The USA is not going to do that. Nor is anyone other than the participants themselves. Ergo, I doubt if it will ever happen, as it is not the interests of present ruling powers within existing boundaries, nor is it in the interests of former imperial powers intent on playing off existing rivalries, internal and external.

Of course it will happen , but only if/when USA/Europe stop interfering and supporting dictators , changing borders , invading countries etc.And when life standards are much higher than it is now.When people have something to lose they won`t grab a gun so easily.

But because of the oil it won`t happen anytime soon.Instead someone will export democracy because they love arabs and they will sacrifice 3000 of their soldiers and kill 600.000 of arabs to do that.
But of course USA is not another imperial power or we won`t see lots of new maps of the area and CNN and Wikipedia are the most objective information sources ever.People will think new borders are necessary but surely USA or Europe won`t do that , participants will.USA will only create new maps and sells them new guns and ensure that there is enough hostility between them.

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

I'm not suggesting that this should be done, or will be done, but it would be better had it been done in a manner which more closely approximated group boundaries and self-rule was made a comfortable and accessible option. Then, I suspect that the various groups would find that they have certain interests in common and ally or federate to address those interests.

I am against any border in theory but realities of the time we are living in or the Middle east can not be ignored.Even suggesting a new map creates hostilities between groups over there.We see a new Kurdistan map everyday.It includes large territories from Iran,Turkey and Syria.And some kurds actually think usa will support their greater kurdistan claims.In the past Britain and Russia provoked Kurds to rebel and at the end they lost , not only countless lives but also trust of other groups and countries in the area. And now USa wants to use them. More death and more hatred will be what`s left when Usa no longer needs them.

Generally I understand your point of view and even support to some degree but in Theory ! In practice drawing new maps and encouraging some people to actually fight for those maps is a very dangerous game and it will only bring more death.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Raven

People will think new borders are necessary but surely USA or Europe won`t do that , participants will.USA will only create new maps and sells them new guns and ensure that there is enough hostility between them.

This is making the very big assumption that there's any need for the USA to do anything to ensure that there is enough hostility between them.

The way it looks to me, and most other observers, is that there is a very large amount of hostility between the Shi'a, Sunni and Kurds. What you need to show is that there's a way to stop the violence between them that doesn't involve redrawing borders, or at the very least, creating three autonomous sections with a very weak central government. Iraq does not have national unity right now - the question is how can we stop the violence, because I don't see how we're going to achieve national unity at this point.

Generally I understand your point of view and even support to some degree but in Theory ! In practice drawing new maps and encouraging some people to actually fight for those maps is a very dangerous game and it will only bring more death.

So according to you, there could be no possible situation in which dividing a country into smaller ones could ever be beneficial?