"Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?"

[Myrddraal]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16702392

Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond has set out the question he intends to ask voters in a referendum on Scottish independence.
The SNP leader said Scots would be asked: "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?" in a ballot which he wants to hold in 2014.



So, since I think the members of the backroom will all agree with the principal of self determination, I'll ask a different question: What should the question be in the referendum?


Alex Salmond's proposed question is about as leading a question as they come.

Even if you can look past the outrageous opening "Do you agree" the use of the phrase "independent country" is bad enough by itself.

Scotland already is a separate country from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
"Independence" is a relative term, as any eurosceptic will emphatically tell you.

Alex Salmond knows perfectly well that the question he is proposing is leading and ambiguous. Most people who only give half a thought to the question will agree with his question. After all, Scotland should definitely be a country, right?

So what should the question be? Submissions on a postcard to Holyrood.

[Lemur]

I blame Mel Gibson. In this, as in all things.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Nope.

[Cute Wolf]

let's blame Mel Gibson about Braveheart...

even Scotland is my favourite faction in M2TW... :D

[Rhyfelwyr]

I really can't stand to watch any on the debate going on about this since it is stomach-churning and sadly reflective of what the world has become. I will not be voting in this referendum since that would imply that I thought it had some sort of legitimacy. But then I have never voted, I cannot express how angry I am at the government right now, my whole life has been a lie.

[Sarmatian]

That's kind of one-sided. Change it to "Do you think Scotland should remain part of the Union or become Independant?" would be a little more fair.

Either way, self-determination is a good thing. If I was a Scott, I'd probably vote to remain part of the UK--but I'm not a Scott, so I'm just happy to see referrendums like this get asked. It cuts away the rhetoric and shows you what the people think.

Question in a referendum must be phrased in way that you can answer with a simple yes or no.

[rory_20_uk]

If Scotland wants to go it alone, fine. I really couldn't care less. That the plan appears to be to leave the UK... and immediately join the EU seems nonsensical, but there we go.

I think that the "devolution plus" is having one's cake and eating it too.

Whichever choice is made, at least the Scots can say they chose it - and hopefully stop whining.

~:smoking:

[Kralizec]

Scotland already is a separate country from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
"Independence" is a relative term, as any eurosceptic will emphatically tell you.

Alex Salmond knows perfectly well that the question he is proposing is leading and ambiguous. Most people who only give half a thought to the question will agree with his question. After all, Scotland should definitely be a country, right?

So what should the question be? Submissions on a postcard to Holyrood.
[/COLOR][/FONT]

I don't think it's a leading question. Country is usually treated as being interchangeable with "sovereign state" - and Scotland clearly isn't at present, neither is Flanders, Quebec, Florida etc. I get the impression you're deliberately skipping over the "independent" part in the question.

I agree that this is all Mel Gibson's fault.

[Furunculus]

"Do you wish for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom?"

All three big Unionist parties to campaign for a "yes" vote alongside the promise of more localism/subsidiarity for all parts the UK.

[gaelic cowboy]

I know the one group who desperately and most definately want Scotland in the UK is Unionists from Northern Ireland.

A big part of there identity comes from the idea of Scotland and the England being in a union, there is most likely a university thesis going a begging on the implications of Scots independence for Northern Irish Unionism.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The Northern Irish link is definitely there and think it is really sad we will become a separate country from it. Ever since the Kingdom of Dal Riada the water has meant the west coast of Scotland has been more connected to Ulster than the rest of Scotland itself.

My whole family history is one of moving back and forth between the Clydeside and the Harland and Wolff shipyards, from Tigers Bay to Govan and back again etc. And if you go back a few hundred years they must have went over as settlers from Scotland in the plantations.

I love Ulster and I don't see any distinction between a Scottish or Ulster identity. I can't stand hearing any more of this talk about "the Scottish people" and how we are so different from the rest of the UK. And most of all I can't stand the fact that that Alex Salmond acts like he has a right to speak on my behalf and represent my interests.

I hate how this whole debate is based on axioms that I don't accept. Guess what, you don't know me and you don't know anything about me, so please shut up. :yes:

[InsaneApache]

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/27063

There you go. Sorted. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Alec me lad.

[Pannonian]

"Do you wish for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom?"

All three big Unionist parties to campaign for a "yes" vote alongside the promise of more localism/subsidiarity for all parts the UK.

IIRC there was a referendum a few years ago on whether or not there should be a local assembly for NE England. There was a big "No" vote, with the most popular argument against being that they didn't want another level of government which would cost yet more money.

[InsaneApache]

They asked the wrong region. Instead of the Geordies they should have asked Yorkshire. Then next on the agenda would be to teach those pesky Lancastrians a lesson.

[Furunculus]

IIRC there was a referendum a few years ago on whether or not there should be a local assembly for NE England. There was a big "No" vote, with the most popular argument against being that they didn't want another level of government which would cost yet more money.

and i agreed with the objection, i don't want another layer of government.

but i am quite happy to shift (some) more responsibility onto local government (including revenue raising power to match), whilst imbuing english MP's sitting in westminster with the same power that have been devolved to the WA and SP.

[Beskar]

IIRC there was a referendum a few years ago on whether or not there should be a local assembly for NE England. There was a big "No" vote, with the most popular argument against being that they didn't want another level of government which would cost yet more money.

Issue is, that isn't the case at all, since that "level of government" already exists, it simply wasn't democratic and controlled by an unelected quango. It is because of the North East that many other regions missed out big time, except for London who voted for "Yes" and thus us having the London Assembly.

[Pannonian]

They asked the wrong region. Instead of the Geordies they should have asked Yorkshire. Then next on the agenda would be to teach those pesky Lancastrians a lesson.

What colour rose do you think Liz should wear for the dust up? Do you think anyone with Welsh antecedents should be barred from any kind of power in England?

[Strike For The South]

England> than all the other countries on those two silly islands

[econ21]

I don't think it's a leading question.

I didn't think it was a leading question either, although Myrddaal has a point about the "agree" wording. (Who wants to be disagreeable? Well, probably the Scots, so that's ok, then. .... I kid, I kid).

But opinion poll results are very sensitive to the exact wording of the questions put. It would be interesting to do polling to see the % agreeing with Salmond's question and disagreeing with Fununculus's formulation ("Do you wish for Scotland to remain part of the UK?"). I'd wager the former is a bigger number. Aside from the different language ("independent country" vs "part of the UK"), I guess which you take to be the default answer (the "yes" option) may be significant. It has to be a yes, no question but which should be the yes and which the no?

As it's a vote on independence, perhaps that should be the yes. How about a compromise: "Do you wish Scotland to leave the United Kingdom?"

[Papewaio]

There should be an assembly for each of the lands in the Union & a combined UK parliament above that. The UK parliament can focus on external issues, defense and intra-land issues. The smaller assemblies can focus on policing, teaching and medical issues for their issues.

[Rhyfelwyr]

What would the benefits of elected institutions at sub-national level be? The only region on the UK that might have a unique enough situation to warrant such institutions would be Northern Ireland. But hardly Scotland.

[Sigurd]

If you guys ever lack funds... we could buy back the Shetlands for a decent compensation.

[spankythehippo]

If I vote yes, will I get a lifetime supply of deep-fried pizza, soon becoming Scotland's signature dish?

[InsaneApache]

No.

Deep fried Mars bars, yes.

[Myrddraal]

As far as I'm concerned, 'do you agree' is a definite no-no.

http://changingminds.org/techniques/questioning/leading_questions.htm#ask (http://changingminds.org/techniques/questioning/leading_questions.htm#ask)

As from the link above:
Ask for agreement

A very direct leading question is where they are closed questions (http://changingminds.org/techniques/questioning/closed_questions.htm) that clearly ask for agreement, making it easier for the other person to say 'yes' than 'no'.
"Do you agree that we need to save the whales?"
"Is it true that you are happier now?"

I think that a simple "Should..." is much cleaner, so to adapt econ21's question:

"Should Scotland leave the United Kingdom?"

I mean this is really basic stuff, which is why I don't doubt Alex Salmond knows it is leading and intentionally made it leading. Given that, I suspect that using the term 'country' is also a fully intentional attempt to steer voters into a 'yes' answer.

[Papewaio]

Mon dieu! Do you hold similar opinions for all nations? I see an opportunity here to make a states' rights-er out of you.

Australia or more completely the Commonwealth of Australia is a Federation of six states and several territories. The six states were all former self governing colonies. So all I'm suggesting is a similar model to this and I still uses he Westminister system and the Queen is still head of the Nation.

We have local, state and federal governments in Australia. In NSW you can be fined for not turning up for voting at any of those levels. Each level should be focused on its remit that is potholes, education and defense respectively.

[econ21]

I think that a simple "Should..." is much cleaner, so to adapt econ21's question:

"Should Scotland leave the United Kingdom?"

Agreed! Can you forward this suggestion to David Cameron please? Or has Salmond assumed control over the wording of the question? If he has, Cameron would have been a fool to pick a fight over the date and inclusion of a "third option" rather than the wording.

The Conservative position on the referendum is a curious one, and rather refreshing for someone opposed to the contemporary cynical view of politicians and politics. If Scotland goes independent, the consequent electoral arithmetic would be a near mortal blow to Labour and could keep the Conservatives in power for a generation or two. On purely partisan interest, the Tories should support independence. As a Labour supporter, I am glad they are more principled.

[lars573]

Australia or more completely the Commonwealth of Australia is a Federation of six states and several territories. The six states were all former self governing colonies. So all I'm suggesting is a similar model to this and I still uses he Westminister system and the Queen is still head of the Nation.
Which was brought to Australia after it had worked in Canada for 20+ years. Which only augments your point of the Westminister system being compatible with a federal state structure.

[Papewaio]

Because of the American Civil war the Australian Consitution does not allow a state to separate from the nation. As such to have the nations join in the first place the states had to be given fairly good rights. But once joined they cannot leave outside of brute force of course.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But, let's say, the citizens of <insert australian province here> all agreed on one thing: They didn't want to be part of Australia any more. Would it be right to use force to make them stay? If so, why? For the benefits that they provide to the rest of the nation? If so, how is that different from taking anything from anyone else at gun point?

They never would ALL agree. But I don't think a strong desire is enough to justify secession. There has to be a stronger justifying reason.

For example I don't think Martha's Vinyard has the right to secede from the US...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Why not? Because you don't want them to?

If I own a piece of land, can I secede from the union? Or what if it's my whole block? Just because.

They can secede when it's necessary, when the US is on the whole destructive to their basic political rights (equality, liberty, property, etc...). When they can form a legitimate fully fledged country on their own, without simply being a freeloader. Something like that.

[Sarmatian]

But if you're not a Realpolitiker, what is your argument against self-determination? What's wrong with it?

Because there are huge issues to consider. Property, investments, taxes... Could Nevada had built Hoover Dam on its own? Unlikely. What happens if Nevada wants to secede? Does the rest of the USA now have to pay for importing electricity from the dam that they've paid to build? What happens with the part that is in Arizona? What happens with public debt? What about the military? They may not be enough military in Nevada per se, but they have financed in part some military bases elsewhere in US. Or, even more complicated, what part of US military installations abroad should belong to them, and so on and so forth...

It is like an extremely messy divorce. People usually don't understand that and think, "ok, we now govern ourselves, yay!". In the hypothetical case of Nevada seceding, it would certainly still depend on the US for it's defence, it would have to constantly harmonize it's fiscal and economic policies with US or its economy would suffer. If you end up being de jure independent and de facto dependent, than you haven't really achieved anything, except ego inflation.

On the topic, should Scotland secede? I'm not familiar enough with their economy and their system in general to say. A lot depends on the oil - if there's really enough for long-term export than they might be financially better off on their own in the long run...

[Sarmatian]

Well, you're right. Some kind of treaty or negotiation would absolutely have to take place to settle the economics of the situation. I don't think anyone who's ever seriously proposed secession wasn't considering how to deal with those things. I'm asking you this, though: What's more important? What the people want, or what all the other people want? There is no large chunk of America that has a significant secessionist movement (I say significant.. but there are definitely a few wierd secessionist movements out there) but what if there was? If the state of Oregon polled its people and found out that, say, 80% of them wanted to secede, who has the right to say no? On what possible grounds? If the reasons against secession are anything along the lines of "We'll be worse off without you, so we can't let you go." then it really is a bad argument and goes against the idea of Freedom.

I understand that 80% of Oregon does not want to secede, so this is not an issue, but what if it was? It could be some day. How would you react? Would the government be justified in crushing a secession or would it simply be following precedent? If the latter, why are you okay with something that isn't justified?

Ok, I'm gonna go for the cheesy Mel Gibson quote: "Why would I trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away?". Generally, unless the federal government is extremely oppressive, there's more to lose than to gain usually. It's not just "we'll be worse off without you", it is also "you'll be worse off without us". If that is the case, and it usually is, the only reason for secession is national sentiment which is a non-issue in the case of the American states. Even though there are some differences in local customs, it is by and large the same nation. The only real secession movement might happen with the Hispanic population, which might bring problems in the future but that's not the issue now.

Basically, if there are no national issues and there isn't an oppressive federal government, a region would get enough local power to deal with things really important to it, like policing, separate tax policies, preservation of local customs etc... and would leave only those issues that it can't deal with alone, dependent or independent, like defence and foreign policy.

[Sarmatian]

So, not only could Oregon not seceed because the rest of the USA would be worse off, but also because Oregonians don't know how to take care of themselves and need to be patronized?

It seems like you're saying we can discount a majority as long as we believe the majority to be misguided. Boy, that's a slippery slope.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed EVER, I'm saying they would be doing it to their own detriment, and the politician(s) who would push such a platform would be doing it mostly for his interests rather than interests of the people, who would be, for all intents and purposes, worse off.

I'm also saying that if I were living in Oregon, it would be just the same for me if my head of state is called a governor who has to listen to guys from Washington, or a president who has to listen to guys from Washington, to put it bluntly.

[Vladimir]

This is why: http://familyguy.wikia.com/wiki/Petoria

[Strike For The South]

Oregon could never make it on its own, neither could any other state. Texas, New York, and California may have the best run at things but we are all to dependent on each other. The losses a single state would incur from seceding are much more than the gains

Not to mention treasonous

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What is the moral justification, though? The only reason we got together in the first place was because the British would've stomped us seperately. Is that still a real threat? Is there anyone looming who could come in and destroy the nation if we don't all come together? The USA is huge. There are a lot of different cultures and ways of living that are largely based on geography. Is it wrong to want to govern yourselves?

I've never heard a good argument against secession. It always comes back to "We'd be easier to attack without you." or "We'd have less money and stuff without you." I think both are unsound reasons. Any population should have the right to govern itself. I don't expect everyone to agree with me on that, but I think that's mostly just because they don't ever feel disenfranchised. And that's good. But if you did, wouldn't you want the right to say "Alright, we really don't wanna deal with you any more. Mo more taxes for you, we'll take it from here."

Is the argument against that a Realpolitik argument? Then you believe the state is more powerful than the individual and has more authority and more rights anyway. But if you're not a Realpolitiker, what is your argument against self-determination? What's wrong with it?

We are a country...all 50 states are one country, one people, and a country can't secede from itself so secession is impossible. The people of oregon would have to be different enough in some important (and legitimate) way for them to be a different people than the rest of the US. It can't simply be "We live here, and it's in our advantage to go it on our own". Otherwise individual towns and such could secede.

The south had majorly different interests than the north--their economy was based on slavery, it was based on exporting cotton and importing manufactured goods (so the hated tariffs while the north with its industry loved them), and they were paying for the large scale improvements in the north like canals and things. Except that since their difference was founded on slavery it was illegitimate.

[Papewaio]

New Zealand has a similar population and temperature to Oregon so there is no reason it could not function as a country. The USA after all is essentially a single nation similar in size to Western Europe. Which has done better?

As for seccession. As individuals you don't own your land, real estate is essentially a long term lease. Also you typically dont own the mineral rights on your land. So seccession would be for who's benefit? The individuals or the corporations or the politicians or a religion?

[Myrddraal]

I find it interesting that American members who I had assumed (perhaps wrongly) would be in favour of self-determination for Scotland are so opposed to secession from the USA. Do the same arguments apply to Scottish independence? Why/why not?

[Sarmatian]

I find it interesting that American members who I had assumed (perhaps wrongly) would be in favour of self-determination for Scotland are so opposed to secession from the USA. Do the same arguments apply to Scottish independence? Why/why not?

Americans are by definition in favour of secession from Britain, that's a natural law... like gravity :).

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I find it interesting that American members who I had assumed (perhaps wrongly) would be in favour of self-determination for Scotland are so opposed to secession from the USA. Do the same arguments apply to Scottish independence? Why/why not?

I don't know about scotland. They at least have a different culture and history.

Anyway, it's perfectly possible that a state could legitimately secede from the USA. It just requires certain circumstances...

I think alaska has a secessionist movement of some sort.


But in the end it comes down to what the people want. If the question is asked, and the people want to remain part of the UK (and I don't see why they wouldn't, but I'm not exactly an expert on the situation) then its settled. Until the next time someone asks the question.

I don't think it's enough to want it. They have to be justified in wanting it. e.g. Utah could not secede based on a desire to be an all mormon state, out of a desire to pass a law banning non mormons from holding office...it depends on the nature of the grievance.

[drone]

There's a bigger difference between Oregon and Texas than there ever will be between Scotland and England.
What do you base this on?

[rvg]

What do you base this on?

Mostly ideology I bet. Texas is die hard conservo while Oregon is full of bleeding heart liberals.

[Papewaio]

I think you would need to live in England and Scotland for a period of time to compare living in Oregon vs Texas etc

Genetically I presume given the Red head scot stereotype there is a genetic difference between scots and south of England.

[Strike For The South]

I'm sure there is. The ethnic demographics for Oregon and Texas are far more strikingly different than the ones between England and Scotland, I'd imagine, but I'll need to look it up. For one thing, there's less Oregonians in total than there are citizens of Dallas, Texas. For another, there's no dire need to know Spanish in Oregon, whereas you'd have trouble getting a minimum wage job in Texas if you don't at least have a rudimentary understanding.

Not true at all

[Strike For The South]

Really? Trying to find jobs in El Paso and San Antonio told me otherwise. The only places in Texas where you wouldn't need Spanish are small rural communities. Any urban center and it will be the number one reason for getting hired/not getting hired from McDonald's to Wal Mart. Especially during this job shortage. I could understand El Paso needing Spanish, but San Antonio is clear across the state. Admittedly this is subjective, so I really should get some numbers if we're going to do this.

San Antonio and El Paso are comparable in % of hispanics, and San Antonio is and always has been the center of Tejano culture. Bi-lingualism is a perk but no one I know has ever been denied an entry level postion because they don't speak spanish. I've worked with plenty of people of all races who spoke no spanish at all, the majority didnt in fact.

[drone]

There are fewer Scots (~5M) than people living in London (~7M).
Scotland is ~30K sq. miles, England is ~50K sq. miles. Population densities: Scotland 66 per sq mile, England 1023 per sq mile, a huge disparity.
Oregon is ~98K sq. miles, Texas is ~269K sq. miles. Pop densities: Oregon 40 per sq mile, Texas 98 per sq mile. Not so much.

Talking about ethnicities on the British Isles is a useless chore since it's such a jumbled mess, but the concentrations are there. Scots/Irish/Celts/Gaels/Picts/Danes/Norse/Angles/Saxons/Welsh/Normans/etc... I'll let one of the Brits handle this one.

England and Scotland each have their own official church, with a heavier Catholic presence in Scotland.
The Act of Union kept Scots law in place, so they have a separate legal system.
The Scots print their own money.
What they speak in London is not the same language as what they speak in Glasgow. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. :no:

I think you are dismissing the historical factors here. The Republic was founded in 1836, Oregon Country in 1843, that's Queen Vicky timeframe, it's just not that long ago. It might be different if the native cultures hadn't been marginalized so quickly, but it is what it is. The Kingdom of Scotland was created in 843, Kingdom of England in 927, and that's discounting all the stuff that happened through the Dark Ages, Roman era, and beyond. That's a lot of time to build up institutional memories and cultural idiosyncrasies. Texas has never invaded Oregon, or vice versa. There is no conflict history dating back centuries between Oregon and Texas, and both of those states probably have about the same amount of love for the federal government (Texas secession usually comes up every time the Feds do something stupid).

[InsaneApache]

What they speak in London is not the same language as what they speak in Glasgow. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

:laugh4:

[Myrddraal]

One thing that's interesting about the public debate over Scottish independence (in the UK) is that as far as I have seen, historical reasons for and against separation are off the table.


Nobody is debating culture (neither shared nor unique), nobody is debating history (neither the good nor the bad). The debate seems to be driven mainly be economic questions.

[Ja'chyra]

The question should be "Should Scotland be an independent country?" with the choices being yes and no.

The answer should be no.

The question that should really be asked is "Do you trust the political system in the UK?" with a follow on question of "Should politicians be held accountable for their actions and promises?"

Alex Salmond is a, how should I put this, bawbag, and should crawl back into the greasy hole he slimed his way out of.

[Domen]

The Scottish people must decide, others should have nothing to say. And the question shouldn't be "should?" or "should not?", because there are both pros and cons of being independent and being part of the UK / GB. It should be up to citizens of Scotland to decide in a referendum.

[Domen]

So what should the question be?

IMHO:

"Do you agree that Scotland should secede from the United Kingdom?"

Or something similar.

[Beskar]

One thing that's interesting about the public debate over Scottish independence (in the UK) is that as far as I have seen, historical reasons for and against separation are off the table.


Nobody is debating culture (neither shared nor unique), nobody is debating history (neither the good nor the bad). The debate seems to be driven mainly be economic questions.

The thing is, no one in Scotland votes Tory, we have a Tory government. The most tactical thing for David Cameron to do is to let Scotland leave the union, as it would ensure the conservatives would remain in power since it removes a big bulk of the opposition.

[rvg]

The thing is, no one in Scotland votes Tory, we have a Tory government. The most tactical thing for David Cameron to do is to let Scotland leave the union, as it would ensure the conservatives would remain in power since it removes a big bulk of the opposition.

Yeah, but what kind of patriot would he be if he lets his country fall apart for the sake of political gain?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yeah, but what kind of patriot would he be if he lets his country fall apart for the sake of political gain?

Just like every other one, bigging up his patriotism when it is convenient ? I'd much rather have a politician who does what is "right" for once, than one who insists on being patriotic. Blind adherence to a flag without regard for the people is misguided, destructive and irresponsible.

[Slyspy]

The Scottish people must decide, others should have nothing to say. And the question shouldn't be "should?" or "should not?", because there are both pros and cons of being independent and being part of the UK / GB. It should be up to citizens of Scotland to decide in a referendum.

Why shouldn't I have a say in any proposal to tear my country in two?

[Catiline]

Why shouldn't I have a say in any proposal to tear my country in two?

Because they know then they'd get the boot.

[rory_20_uk]

Why shouldn't I have a say in any proposal to tear my country in two?

Although if they don't want to stay then away they go.

~:smoking:

[Greyblades]

Sometimes I think that if they wish to leave they should go to America, or wherever it is that self exiles go these days let those who wish to stay get on with their lives.

[gaelic cowboy]

Why shouldn't I have a say in any proposal to tear my country in two?

English people have never got the chance to vote for or against any independence motion from Ireland or wherever else in the former empire you care to mention.

Plus as already mentioned England would probably vote to kick Scotland out.

[Tellos Athenaios]

English people have never got the chance to vote for or against any independence motion from Ireland or wherever else in the former empire you care to mention.

Plus as already mentioned England would probably vote to kick Scotland out.

Well to be fair, I don't think the Irish or wherever else were ever asked for their opinion when the English came in and proclaimed them subjects either...

Still, at a very basic level it makes little sense for the English to decide on whether or not Scotland would like to remain part of the union -- whatever its faults this referendum will be a good survey to test Scottish public sentiment.

Then again, judging by some of the comments here it might not be such a bad idea if the English had a referendum of their own as well.

[rory_20_uk]

Well to be fair, I don't think the Irish or wherever else were ever asked for their opinion when the English came in and proclaimed them subjects either...

Nor were the lands conquered exactly fully functioning democracies...

~:smoking:

[Greyblades]

The world was(and some would say still is) filled with what we would consider immoral jerks, Britain was the most successful bunch of immoral jerks, and apparently upon becoming less jerky over time became more embarrassed about it than everyone else because our jerks were jerks to the most amount of the other jerks that filled this jerky-jerk world. So we let the other jerks go from the empire whether or not their jerks could even handle being a independent nation full of jerks in this jerky world and predictably after leaving some of them started being jerks to each other to an extent that I wonder why we thought their jerks were better off being independent jerks instead of being jerks to the rest of the world instead of each other united under the British flag of jerk.

Jerk!

[gaelic cowboy]

Nor were the lands conquered exactly fully functioning democracies...

~:smoking:

The so called imperial louts going around conquering were hardly anymore or less democratic than the conquered now were they??

[rory_20_uk]

Depends on which part of the world you are referring to and what time period.

The dear Pilgrims committing ethnic genocide were as democratic as it got for the period.
Many of the Indian despots that were overthrown were worse than the British Raj. The caste system made it oh so easy to perch on top of the existing system, and by that point there was democracy in the UK for over 100 years and they were overthrowing an autocracy.

But I thought that this illustrated the flaw in stating that democracy can not be utilised now as when Henry II was fighting the French there was no damn vote...

I'm not trying to revise the British as some sort of great thing that happened any more than the Romans were. I'm also not trying to cast the overthrown as "noble savages", be that the cannabalistic Maoris or the war thirsty Zulus.
~:smoking:

[Sarmatian]

The world was(and some would say still is) filled with what we would consider immoral jerks, Britain was the most successful bunch of immoral jerks, and apparently upon becoming less jerky over time became more embarrassed about it than everyone else because our jerks were jerks to the most amount of the other jerks that filled this jerky-jerk world. So we let the other jerks go from the empire whether or not their jerks could even handle being a independent nation full of jerks in this jerky world and predictably after leaving some of them started being jerks to each other to an extent that I wonder why we thought their jerks were better off being independent jerks instead of being jerks to the rest of the world instead of each other united under the British flag of jerk.

Jerk!

Cry me a river, please.

[Greyblades]

Cry me a river, please.

Only if you build me a bridge and jump off it.

Don't mind me, I'm just failing to use humor to hide my dead pride over here.

By the way, the irony considering RvG's recent 'issue' is not eluding me.