Independence for Scotland - Page 6

marko.t · #51 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpankyTheWhale

No you won't You lost that chance. Kosovo declared independence, remember?

Well the UN resolution 1244 states that Kosovo is and will remain part of Serbia. And the NATO officials signed that agreement.
But the US recognized the Kosovo as a indepented state. So when you look at it that way. The declaration does not mean so much in future.

xDonnax · #52 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marko.t

Well the UN resolution 1244 states that Kosovo is and will remain part of Serbia. And the NATO officials signed that agreement.
But the US recognized the Kosovo as a indepented state. So when you look at it that way. The declaration does not mean so much in future.

1244 specifically says that Kosova is part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, NOT Serbia just like it has never been part of Serbia.
Yugoslavia ceased to exist in 2003 when it became Serbia and Montenegro.

Resulution 1244; http://www.nato.int/Kosovo/docu/u990610a.htm

Quote:

e. Facilitating a political process designed to determine Kosovo's future status, taking into account the Rambouillet accords

The Rambouillet Accords; http://www.kosovo.mod.uk/rambouillet_text.htm

Chapter 8 of the Rambouillet Accords; the final settlement of Kosovo should be determined on the basis of the will of the people. Now, over 90 % of Kosova's population does not want to be part of Serbia.

Reality has its own language. Over 30 countries has recognized The Republic of Kosova, as a sovereign and independent state. More countries will follow.

SpankyTheWhale · #53 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marko.t

Well the UN resolution 1244 states that Kosovo is and will remain part of Serbia. And the NATO officials signed that agreement.
But the US recognized the Kosovo as a indepented state. So when you look at it that way. The declaration does not mean so much in future.

The way I see it, the UN doesn't mean much. Its decisions do not determine or suggest morality or justice.

hairymarx · #54 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008, 09:21 PM

....is part of the United Kingdom and Kosovo is part of Serbia. These are undeniable facts. Now Wallace represented a section of the Scottish nobility/aristocracy. He simply wanted to replace one section of the British aristocracy (namely the Scottish aristocracy) with the English aristocracy. As a internationalist and socialist, I have no interest in whether one section of the ruling class defeats another section of the ruling class. So for me, Wallace has no relevance whatsoever. I am interested in furthering the interests of the working class and not in the exploits and internal infighting between sections of the ruling aristocracy. So in terms of relevance for the mass of the people in Britain today, I would say that Wallace has absolutely no relevance whatsoever, unless of course to those people who are fascinated by the mythology and romanticism of Wallace as personified by that misogynistic racist Australian Mel Gibson.

The upshot of all this is that one ought not to confuse the exploits of Wallace with contemporary Scottish nationalism because there are no parallels. Now, like Kosovo, I am totally opposed to the concept of Scottish nationalism because I believe in the existence of minimal nation states as opposed to the breaking up of nation states. We already have too many countries in the world as it is without the further break up of the United Kingdom which has served the people of Britain extremely well for 300 years.

You see many of those in favour of Scottish independence, including many on this site, wrongly perceive that it is the English that are oppressing the Scottish which has its roots in ancient aritocratic feuds as I explained above. The truth is that it is not the English that oppress the Scots, rather it is the British ruling class that oppress both Scots and English. This is the truth of the matter. In historical terms, the reality has been that in proportionate terms more Scots as opposed to the English have lined up with the British ruling class against the working class of both England and Scotland.

Now those Scots in favour of an independent Scotland, argue that Scotland has in her possession north sea oil deposits which would contribute greatly to her economic dependence from the union. Now the geographical location of these deposits is contentious - are they within the geographical borders of Scotland or not? Many have argued that they are, but equally many have also argued that they are technically not. But anyway, many coal deposits are located in English terrority for example - this is not disputed - but England has shared the economic benefits of these coal deposits.

This notwithstanding, England is the economic powerhouse of the union, particularly London which generates more GDP per capita then any other region in the union. Despite this, I think that Scotland would be capable of going it alone, but the simple truth is that time after time the Scots have rejected outright independence as countless referenda testify.

So my position is that I fundamentally disagree with the break up of the 300 year old union, but I would respect the wishes of the Scots to their independence if they so decided. But the majority of Scots up until now have seen sense. But for how much longer?

TrueAlbo2006 · #55 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008, 10:16 PM

Republic of Kosova is an independent country!

lunecat · #56 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hairymarx

....is part of the United Kingdom and Kosovo is part of Serbia. These are undeniable facts. Now Wallace represented a section of the Scottish nobility/aristocracy. He simply wanted to replace one section of the British aristocracy (namely the Scottish aristocracy) with the English aristocracy. As a internationalist and socialist, I have no interest in whether one section of the ruling class defeats another section of the ruling class. So for me, Wallace has no relevance whatsoever. I am interested in furthering the interests of the working class and not in the exploits and internal infighting between sections of the ruling aristocracy. So in terms of relevance for the mass of the people in Britain today, I would say that Wallace has absolutely no relevance whatsoever, unless of course to those people who are fascinated by the mythology and romanticism of Wallace as personified by that misogynistic racist Australian Mel Gibson.

The upshot of all this is that one ought not to confuse the exploits of Wallace with contemporary Scottish nationalism because there are no parallels. Now, like Kosovo, I am totally opposed to the concept of Scottish nationalism because I believe in the existence of minimal nation states as opposed to the breaking up of nation states. We already have too many countries in the world as it is without the further break up of the United Kingdom which has served the people of Britain extremely well for 300 years.

You see many of those in favour of Scottish independence, including many on this site, wrongly perceive that it is the English that are oppressing the Scottish which has its roots in ancient aritocratic feuds as I explained above. The truth is that it is not the English that oppress the Scots, rather it is the British ruling class that oppress both Scots and English. This is the truth of the matter. In historical terms, the reality has been that in proportionate terms more Scots as opposed to the English have lined up with the British ruling class against the working class of both England and Scotland.

Now those Scots in favour of an independent Scotland, argue that Scotland has in her possession north sea oil deposits which would contribute greatly to her economic dependence from the union. Now the geographical location of these deposits is contentious - are they within the geographical borders of Scotland or not? Many have argued that they are, but equally many have also argued that they are technically not. But anyway, many coal deposits are located in English terrority for example - this is not disputed - but England has shared the economic benefits of these coal deposits.

This notwithstanding, England is the economic powerhouse of the union, particularly London which generates more GDP per capita then any other region in the union. Despite this, I think that Scotland would be capable of going it alone, but the simple truth is that time after time the Scots have rejected outright independence as countless referenda testify.

So my position is that I fundamentally disagree with the break up of the 300 year old union, but I would respect the wishes of the Scots to their independence if they so decided. But the majority of Scots up until now have seen sense. But for how much longer?

Interestingly the Scottish National Party (the only Party with Independence as part of its manifesto) is a strongly Socialist party.

SpankyTheWhale · #57 (**permalink**) 04-01-2008, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hairymarx

....is part of the United Kingdom and Kosovo is part of Serbia. These are undeniable facts. Now Wallace represented a section of the Scottish nobility/aristocracy. He simply wanted to replace one section of the British aristocracy (namely the Scottish aristocracy) with the English aristocracy. As a internationalist and socialist, I have no interest in whether one section of the ruling class defeats another section of the ruling class. So for me, Wallace has no relevance whatsoever. I am interested in furthering the interests of the working class and not in the exploits and internal infighting between sections of the ruling aristocracy. So in terms of relevance for the mass of the people in Britain today, I would say that Wallace has absolutely no relevance whatsoever, unless of course to those people who are fascinated by the mythology and romanticism of Wallace as personified by that misogynistic racist Australian Mel Gibson.

The upshot of all this is that one ought not to confuse the exploits of Wallace with contemporary Scottish nationalism because there are no parallels. Now, like Kosovo, I am totally opposed to the concept of Scottish nationalism because I believe in the existence of minimal nation states as opposed to the breaking up of nation states. We already have too many countries in the world as it is without the further break up of the United Kingdom which has served the people of Britain extremely well for 300 years.

You see many of those in favour of Scottish independence, including many on this site, wrongly perceive that it is the English that are oppressing the Scottish which has its roots in ancient aritocratic feuds as I explained above. The truth is that it is not the English that oppress the Scots, rather it is the British ruling class that oppress both Scots and English. This is the truth of the matter. In historical terms, the reality has been that in proportionate terms more Scots as opposed to the English have lined up with the British ruling class against the working class of both England and Scotland.

Now those Scots in favour of an independent Scotland, argue that Scotland has in her possession north sea oil deposits which would contribute greatly to her economic dependence from the union. Now the geographical location of these deposits is contentious - are they within the geographical borders of Scotland or not? Many have argued that they are, but equally many have also argued that they are technically not. But anyway, many coal deposits are located in English terrority for example - this is not disputed - but England has shared the economic benefits of these coal deposits.

This notwithstanding, England is the economic powerhouse of the union, particularly London which generates more GDP per capita then any other region in the union. Despite this, I think that Scotland would be capable of going it alone, but the simple truth is that time after time the Scots have rejected outright independence as countless referenda testify.

So my position is that I fundamentally disagree with the break up of the 300 year old union, but I would respect the wishes of the Scots to their independence if they so decided. But the majority of Scots up until now have seen sense. But for how much longer?

You are free to go to war against Kosovo (Kosova?) if you want to take it back, but take care, in your development of strategy and tactics, to note who its allies are.

lunecat · #58 (**permalink**) 04-03-2008, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hairymarx

....
I am interested in furthering the interests of the working class
....

Do you work in the marketing department of a tobacco or alcohol manufacturer by any chance?

hairymarx · #59 (**permalink**) 04-04-2008, 02:50 PM

yes, i chuckled to that one - very good. I too, have had the pleasure of watching the excellent US drama 'Mad Men'.

lunecat · #60 (**permalink**) 04-05-2008, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hairymarx

yes, i chuckled to that one - very good. I too, have had the pleasure of watching the excellent US drama 'Mad Men'.

Arrgh but you see I haven't had that pleasure. I don't generally like US drama - sorry.

I was thinking more along the lines of the lyrics to Oasis "Cigarettes & Alcohol"

YouTube - Oasis - Cigarettes & Alcohol (Live...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Scotland wants independence	AmusedToDeath	Political Opinions & Beliefs	12	02-27-2008 10:15 PM
Scotland Yard Says Bhutto Died From Blast	SweetnessBlog	Political Blogs	0	02-08-2008 10:30 AM
Scotland	lunecat	Humor & Satire	0	01-17-2007 05:14 AM
Scotland protests	lunecat	Terrorism	11	08-09-2006 08:11 AM
Wait, didnt Scotland win its freedom?	Printer2	History & Past Politicians	3	10-23-2005 03:41 PM