Scotland to leave the UK?

[Sean Aaron]

Or does this refer to a fear of losing the Quebecois identity in the face of Anglophone Canada and globalization? Because that'd be a silly thing to be afraid of.

The funny thing is, Independent Quebec could immediately fall apart--as far as I am aware, the First Nations want to remain associated with Canada, not a Quebecois state, and the Anglophones would likely demand the right to secede from Quebec and form their own province of Canada. And they'd have to have that right, wouldn't they?

Well, some people don't feel the annihilation of their culture because of minority status in a larger nation is a silly thing. Culture and language a strongly tied together so fearing for the loss of the latter due to an increase in the anglophone population seems rational to me. Your mileage may vary.

As far as Quebec borders and First Nations, well, I notice that it's early days on giving the First Nations full representation in parliament. Nunavut is a good start, though I expect that's also down to the wishes of the groups in question. If the Mohawk and other groups want their own provinces in Canada, I don't see why Quebec needs to be a trigger for them realising their aspirations. Mentioning that in the context of an independent Quebec seems a bit disingenuous to me.

So what delusions does Scotland have? - The UK is great, but even then we get too big for our own boots.

I think Scotland's "delusions" are very realistic and don't involve trying to pretend like it's a great power on the world stage by wasting money on useless armaments like nuclear weapons.

What favor would that be?

As for Human Rights, there would obviously be people who did not vote for secession; assuming the people voted at all.

The favour would be not mentioning it because "property rights" is a crap reason for denying people the right to self-determination.

And losing a vote on secession isn't an automatic infringement of human rights unless part of the referendum is disenfranchisement for people who vote against it. I think it helps not to read more into the issues involved than what is actually there.

France upset me

I don't know how old you are, but I'm guessing you weren't alive when DeGaulle did whatever and it also appears more that he "upset you" and not the entire French nation. I think you need to work on separating the actions/words of a nation's leaders from the entire population of said nation and stop carrying a grudge for things that happened before you were born.

No, for depicting Bush as the master... True or whatever, that's racist! You may aswell call us the Monkey and them the Organ Grinder.

I don't see how that's racist unless Blair is depicted as a bulldog and Bush is feeding him fish and chips or something...

 

[Myasishchev]

Especially when you ran away from Dunkerque, that was glorious.

The alternatives for the BEF were?

Well, some people don't feel the annihilation of their culture because of minority status in a larger nation is a silly thing. Culture and language a strongly tied together so fearing for the loss of the latter due to an increase in the anglophone population seems rational to me. Your mileage may vary.

Well, I think it's the same basic fear that drives Arizonans to distraction--some kind of cultural inundation that will degrade the values of what "we" (whoever "we" are) hold dear. In some cases, that fear could conceivably be justified, but when dealing with basically compatible cultures like the Anglo-Canadians and Quebecois, it seems overstated.

Regarding language, I may be biased by the fact that my own is unlikely to face extinction or marginalization. But it's not like there's a tremendous pressure in Quebec to forget French. I'm sure the French language will persist as a primary language in North America for centuries to come, and of course it will survive in France for the indefinite future.

Who knows? America is approaching a bilingual society itself. Cual es bien.

As far as Quebec borders and First Nations, well, I notice that it's early days on giving the First Nations full representation in parliament. Nunavut is a good start, though I expect that's also down to the wishes of the groups in question. If the Mohawk and other groups want their own provinces in Canada, I don't see why Quebec needs to be a trigger for them realising their aspirations. Mentioning that in the context of an independent Quebec seems a bit disingenuous to me.

I don't know if they want their own provinces, only that I've read that they don't support Quebecois secession and would seek to carve out territory of the new state.

useless armaments like nuclear weapons

Whoa! Whoa. Whoa. They guaranteed the collapse of Japanese imperialism and guaranteed the Soviets would never make a bid for European supremacy (and, likewise, guaranteed that the United States would never attempt to liberate Eastern Europe and the USSR, although we almost certainly would not have done so anyway). Those are uses.

 

[Count Zero]

but Charles de Gaulle was rude,

He ate with his fingers at official dinners, the little sagouin.

Really? I'm shocked. It could be worse, though. At least he didn't throw up over other countries' leaders like Bush senior.

 

[Shaytan]

Especially when you ran away from Dunkerque, that was glorious.

The alternatives for the BEF were?

Oh, a sensitive topic apparently

No alternatives but I always find funny that the best way to run away can be called a miracle. In the end, it's not better than de Gaulle telling us that we were all resistants : you lost but you oficially lost with pride and glory

 

[Shaytan]

but Charles de Gaulle was rude,

He ate with his fingers at official dinners, the little sagouin.

Really?

Nah, I don't think so

Do you think it's wise to talk to each other ? I mean, you're German, I'm French, maybe we're annoying some Brits

 

[ITL]

He ate with his fingers at official dinners, the little sagouin.

Really?

Nah, I don't think so

Do you think it's wise to talk to each other ? I mean, you're German, I'm French, maybe we're annoying some Brits

Good grief! I may write a stern letter to the Daily Mail detailing this very outrage.
Will nobody think of the children?

 

[Myasishchev]

Especially when you ran away from Dunkerque, that was glorious.

The alternatives for the BEF were?

Oh, a sensitive topic apparently

No alternatives but I always find funny that the best way to run away can be called a miracle. In the end, it's not better than de Gaulle telling us that we were all resistants : you lost but you oficially lost with pride and glory

Not really a miracle, except in the sense that it was not what you'd have expected. But the Wehrmacht fucked up extremely badly, and the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force were great.

Not a sensitive topic for me, I just wondered what you expected the BEF to have done. They were done for once Gamelin deployed them on the Dyle.

In any event, the Soviets would have saved you anyhow.

 

[Count Zero]

Really?

Nah, I don't think so

Do you think it's wise to talk to each other ? I mean, you're German, I'm French, maybe we're annoying some Brits

Good grief! I may write a stern letter to the Daily Mail detailing this very outrage.
Will nobody think of the children?

Well, technically, we're not talking. It's more like exchanging written notes like little school girls.
So, I think we can safely continue to plot Britain's downfall. Mwahahahaha! I probably shouldn't have said that out loud, should I?

By the way, sometimes even Brits talk to us, and even in German. When Nick Clegg visited here a while ago (last year maybe) his German turned out to be better than our Foreign Minister's English (ok, that's actually not saying much ) so they spoke in German. But the Daily Mail probably already covered that with the appropriate outrage.

 

[{ Emilia }]

By the way, sometimes even Brits talk to us, and even in German. When Nick Clegg visited here a while ago (last year maybe) his German turned out to be better than our Foreign Minister's English (ok, that's actually not saying much ) so they spoke in German. But the Daily Mail probably already covered that with the appropriate outrage.

<iBender mode>

Oh. My. God. The Brits saved Europe in World War II! British soldiers died for that otherwise ALL OF EUROPE would speak German today... and Nick Clegg speaks GERMAN?????? That's like losing World War II after all!!!!!

/rage

</iBender mode>



Count Zero, you should try being an iBender once in a while, too. It's fun for a change even though I think I lost a couple of brain cells writing this post.

 

[Shaytan]

Well, technically, we're not talking. It's more like exchanging written notes like little school girls.

*giggles*

So, I think we can safely continue to plot Britain's downfall. Mwahahahaha! I probably shouldn't have said that out loud, should I?

I knew you would betray me one of these days

 

[Sean Aaron]

Regarding language, I may be biased by the fact that my own is unlikely to face extinction or marginalization. But it's not like there's a tremendous pressure in Quebec to forget French. I'm sure the French language will persist as a primary language in North America for centuries to come, and of course it will survive in France for the indefinite future.

Who knows? America is approaching a bilingual society itself. Cual es bien.

If there wasn't an effort to enshrine parity with English I could easily see French dying out in a few generations due to kids being less likely to teach their children the language since it would have no primary use outside their parent's household.

And I think America is not only approaching a bilingual society, but one in which English-speakers will be a minority; possibly not in my lifetime, but the demographic trends point to it unless a more draconian approach to immigration from the southern border is adopted.

I'm not personally fussed about these things: people migrate and change the places they migrate to. As long as my quality of life isn't severely impacted I'm okay with the ethnic make-up of Scotland changing, even if that means I have to learn Chinese to get by day-to-day.

useless armaments like nuclear weapons

Whoa! Whoa. Whoa. They guaranteed the collapse of Japanese imperialism and guaranteed the Soviets would never make a bid for European supremacy (and, likewise, guaranteed that the United States would never attempt to liberate Eastern Europe and the USSR, although we almost certainly would not have done so anyway). Those are uses.[/QUOTE]

I don't agree that a nuclear strike against Japan was required to end the war, but that aside I'm talking about the modern context.

Britain doesn't require nukes to be relevant on the world stage and given this government's bloody-minded attitude towards cutting social services I think spending billions on Trident is stupid and unjustifiable. Keep the subs but replace the warheads with something that has real deterrent threat: e.g. something you actually would fire in anger (and costs a whole lot less), but dump the nukes already. If the French want to blow money on them let them be the European nuclear power.

 

[Myasishchev]

As long as my quality of life isn't severely impacted I'm okay with the ethnic make-up of Scotland changing, even if that means I have to learn Chinese to get by day-to-day.

It'll certainly help you out with your job at Blue Sun.

I don't agree that a nuclear strike against Japan was required to end the war, but that aside I'm talking about the modern context.

I agree they weren't necessary either, but they probably wound up saving lives. Between the submarine and air blockade, continued conventional terror bombing, the chemical weapons we'd have used against Japanese fortified positions, and the possibility of a Soviet-held southern Korea, Hiroshima was a good decision. In retrospect, it could have saved even more lives, since it negated any usefulness to MacArthur cartwheeling through the South Pacific or the British counter-offensive in Burma. (And Nagasaki, of course, was a very tragic accident.)

Britain doesn't require nukes to be relevant on the world stage and given this government's bloody-minded attitude towards cutting social services I think spending billions on Trident is stupid and unjustifiable. Keep the subs but replace the warheads with something that has real deterrent threat: e.g. something you actually would fire in anger (and costs a whole lot less), but dump the nukes already. If the French want to blow money on them let them be the European nuclear power.

I can only grant that there is at present no existential threat to the United Kingdom (well, except Scotland ). Unless you could quickly reactivate them, maintaining a survivable, countervalue, second strike capability is the least the UK can do.

I myself prefer a first strike capability, but duplicating that would be a luxury.

 

[Sean Aaron]

I agree they weren't necessary either, but they probably wound up saving lives.

Well, I don't agree, but that's a topic for another thread.

Unless you could quickly reactivate them, maintaining a survivable, countervalue, second strike capability is the least the UK can do.

I myself prefer a first strike capability, but duplicating that would be a luxury.

No, I'd say the nukes should be put beyond use.

America has shown the willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against a civilian population repeatedly over the past half-century, so the deterrence is credible, but I cannot see a situation where an enemy of the United Kingdom would be deterred by the existence of Trident. Most would-be enemies could probably survive what few missiles we have and render Britain uninhabitable.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Well, technically, we're not talking. It's more like exchanging written notes like little school girls.

*giggles*

This is the funniest yet stunningly accurate description of what we usually do here.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Well, technically, we're not talking. It's more like exchanging written notes like little school girls.

*giggles*

This is the funniest yet stunningly accurate description of what we usually do here.

Back in school I never let the whole classroom read my little written notes.
I guess you could say it's more fun with an "audience", though?

 

[Squiggy]

I agree they weren't necessary either, but they probably wound up saving lives.

Well, I don't agree, but that's a topic for another thread.

Every historian and military expert for the past 66 years disagrees with you. On the conservative side, an Allied invasion of Japan would have cost hundreds of thousands of American deaths alone and would've resulted in the total destruction of Tokyo and everyone in it.

While Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrid, but the 250,000 deaths are obviously better than the millions who would've been killed on both sides had the alternative happened.

 

[Deckerd]

Never mind that. Would an independent Scotland put you off coming here on holiday? I suppose depending on what happened to the currency would decide its popularity as a holiday destination.

 

[Myasishchev]

I agree they weren't necessary either, but they probably wound up saving lives.

Well, I don't agree, but that's a topic for another thread.

Unless you could quickly reactivate them, maintaining a survivable, countervalue, second strike capability is the least the UK can do.

I myself prefer a first strike capability, but duplicating that would be a luxury.

No, I'd say the nukes should be put beyond use.

America has shown the willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against a civilian population repeatedly over the past half-century, so the deterrence is credible, but I cannot see a situation where an enemy of the United Kingdom would be deterred by the existence of Trident. Most would-be enemies could probably survive what few missiles we have and render Britain uninhabitable.

In a first strike scenario, the civilian population is not the target, the enemy nuclear force is. The United States would probably not, at present, be willing to use nuclear weapons against cities (except in retaliation), but it is comforting to know that in the event of a PRC crossing of the strait (for example) that the PRChinese nuclear "deterrent" could be readily destroyed and US conventional forces could operate freely.

As for Britain, assuming the likeliest enemy would be Russia, the Royal Navy's current Trident force is sufficient to place roughly 192 warheads (three per missile as per current deployment, sixteen per Vanguard), at 100 kilotons at maximum selected yield. That's not enough to kill everyone in the Russian Federation, but it's certainly a plausible deterrent.

Every historian and military expert for the past 66 years disagrees with you. On the conservative side, an Allied invasion of Japan would have cost hundreds of thousands of American deaths alone and would've resulted in the total destruction of Tokyo and everyone in it.

In fairness, it's certainly plausible that the Japanese might have surrendered after Olympic (invasion of Kyushu) and prior to Coronet (invasion of Honshu). It's amazing that they didn't surrender after Leyte Gulf, at the latest. I'm not sure what they thought would save them.

I've always been very dubious of the claims that American casualties would be tremendously high. The Japanese were godawful at ground warfare, and although their tactics were getting better (they actually intended, iirc, to defend the beaches on Kyushu, for example!), the IJA was basically broken by this point. In any event, after Iwo Jima we were prepared to simply use chemical weapons to deal with their fortification efforts.

On the other hand, the 100,000+ figures came from people actively involved, basing it on the Okinawa and Luzon campaigns. So I dunno. As a somewhat dubious point of comparison, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria only resulted in 36,000 casualties. Granted, this is fighting the Kwantung Army, which had been absolutely gutted by demands on other fronts; I don't think the home armies were in much better shape, however.

Anyway, Tokyo was virtually destroyed already.

 

[Goliath]

Never mind that. Would an independent Scotland put you off coming here on holiday? I suppose depending on what happened to the currency would decide its popularity as a holiday destination.

It wouldn't put me off. In fact, the chance to visit Europe's newest independent country would make it more likely. I would think that any celebrations surrounding independence itself would be a major tourist draw.

And what would happen to the currency? I'm curious to see what a Scottish Euro would look like.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Sean Connery's profile on the obverse!