Scottish independence - as an Englishman, am I "wrong" not to give a crap?

[DotCommunist]

salmond. Sturgeon. is scottish future to be governed by people with fishy names? Lord Turbot

 

[Pickman's model]

Historically, isn't it the case that federal states have tended to come about by a voluntary (at least among their rulers) agreement between existing states, rather than by conquest.

This is not to say that a state which came together largely through conquest couldn't decide to become federal, but it doesn't seem very likely.

the united states famously came about through conquest

 

[andysays]

the united states famously came about through conquest

Well, the geographical area was colonised/conquered by outsiders, but after independence from England each of its constituent states had significant autonomy which they agreed to cede some of to a federal state structure. That's what I'm talking about.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

the united states famously came about through conquest

And Argentina, Brazil, Australia, India etc etc

 

[Quartz]

That's nice to know. Thanks.

Sorry, should have cited you and pogofish too.

 

[Pickman's model]

Well, the geographical area was colonised/conquered by outsiders, but after independence from England each of its constituent states had significant autonomy which they agreed to cede some of to a federal state structure. That's what I'm talking about.

which "outsiders" killed the indians in the nineteenth century?

when did the indians agree to this federal structure?

 

[andysays]

And Argentina, Brazil, Australia, India etc etc

OK, I obviously haven't made my point very clearly.

These are all examples of conquest, colonisation and then independence, so not the sort of "straight" conquest I was thinking of, where one state conquers another, or part of another, and it becomes part of the conquering state.

With the notable exception of Scotland, this is how the UK was formed.

 

[Pickman's model]

OK, I obviously haven't made my point very clearly.

These are all examples of conquest, colonisation and then independence, so not the sort of "straight" conquest I was thinking of, where one state conquers another, or part of another, and it becomes part of the conquering state.

With the notable exception of Scotland, this is how the UK was formed.

so scotland sprang into being fully formed?

 

[andysays]

which "outsiders" killed the indians in the nineteenth century?

when did the indians agree to this federal structure?

I may not have expressed myself as clearly as I might, but I suggest you can get the gist of what I'm talking about.

And I think you'll find that the currently accepted term is "native americans"

 

[andysays]

so scotland sprang into being fully formed?

No, Scotland was itself formed as a nation by conquest, but became part of the UK by agreement.

Now please fuck off with your pointless derailing pedantry

 

[Pickman's model]

I may not have expressed myself as clearly as I might, but I suggest you can get the gist of what I'm talking about.

And I think you'll find that the currently accepted term is "native americans"

yes. indian. native american. all very good to the living but you haven't accepted the point that the united states was very much formed through conquest and the massacre of the indians/native americans, despite the lousiana purchase and the purchase of alaska from russia. did new mexico voluntarily join the united states? you seem to be forgetting deliberately e.g. the mexican-american war of the 1840s or the indian wars of the second half of the nineteenth century.

 

[andysays]

yes. indian. native american. all very good to the living but you haven't accepted the point that the united states was very much formed through conquest and the massacre of the indians/native americans, despite the lousiana purchase and the purchase of alaska from russia. did new mexico voluntarily join the united states? you seem to be forgetting deliberately e.g. the mexican-american war of the 1840s or the indian wars of the second half of the nineteenth century.

I'm talking about the formation of the United States immediately after the war of independence, not the subsequent history and expansion of the United States which has, obviously, involved various acts of conquest.

Anyway, getting back to the possibility of a federal structure in post-Scottish independence UK...

 

[Dr_Herbz]

yes. indian. native american. all very good to the living but you haven't accepted the point that the united states was very much formed through conquest and the massacre of the indians/native americans, despite the lousiana purchase and the purchase of alaska from russia. did new mexico voluntarily join the united states? you seem to be forgetting deliberately e.g. the mexican-american war of the 1840s or the indian wars of the second half of the nineteenth century.

No, it was formed by the big bang, you fucking moron

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm talking about the formation of the United States immediately after the war of independence, not the subsequent history and expansion of the United States which has, obviously, involved various acts of conquest.

Anyway, getting back to the possibility of a federal structure in post-Scottish independence UK...

before which let's not forget a) you're wrong about the united states, 37 of whose 50 states joined after 1783, and b) wrong to say

This is not to say that a state which came together largely through conquest couldn't decide to become federal, but it doesn't seem very likely.

as the example of canada shows.

 

[andysays]

before which let's not forget a) you're wrong about the united states, 37 of whose 50 states joined after 1783, and b) wrong to say as the example of canada shows.

Christ, you're a boring, pedantic, destructive cunt.

OK, I choose a bad example in an attempt to illustrate a point which may or may not be relevant to the subject of the thread.

You've have demonstrated conclusively that you know more about the United States than me, that you are more knowledgeable generally than me, that you are better than me in every way possible. You have won on the internet.

Now why don't you just go and have a victory wank to celebrate, you sad point-scoring arse.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

which "outsiders" killed the indians in the nineteenth century?

when did the indians agree to this federal structure?

I think you'll find that since 1995 they prefer to be called American Indians ...

 

[Pickman's model]

I think you'll find that since 1995 they prefer to be called American Indians ...

i think you'll find you've missed that particular boat.

 

[andysays]

i think you'll find you've missed that particular boat.

Ah, but is it really a boat, and if so what sort of boat, and what do the appropriate marine regulations say about missing the boat?

 

[Pickman's model]

Christ, you're a boring, pedantic, destructive cunt.

OK, I choose a bad example in an attempt to illustrate a point which may or may not be relevant to the subject of the thread.

You've have demonstrated conclusively that you know more about the United States than me, that you are more knowledgeable generally than me, that you are better than me in every way possible. You have won on the internet.

Now why don't you just go and have a victory wank to celebrate, you sad point-scoring arse.

the way this place works is you say something and then other people address the point. your claims shown to be bollocks yet instead of gracefully accepting such, you go on something of a spree of abuse. you're like a spoilt brat, tho' at least a brat has an excuse due to their tender years.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And I think you'll find that the currently accepted term is "native americans"

Many indigenous people in the US still prefer American Indians fwiw, and consider 'native Americans' to be just another inaccurate term for them that has been coined by others. The Canadian 'First Nations' sounds better than either to my ears.

 

[andysays]

the way this place works is you say something and then other people address the point

Other people address the point. You indulge in the sort of boring, unhelpful and derailing pedantry for which you're infamous. I suspect there are as yet undiscovered tribes of hunter gatherers in far-flung corners of the globe for whom "Pickman's model" is not a short story by HP Lovecraft but a by-word for pedantry.

your claims shown to be bollocks yet instead of gracefully accepting such, you go on something of a spree of abuse. you're like a spoilt brat, tho' at least a brat has an excuse due to their tender years.

I've accepted that my suggestion was ill-expressed and perhaps even ill-informed.

If calling you a boring, pedantic, destructive cunt is spree of abuse, behaving like a spoilt brat, then you're absolutely correct. But it isn't, and you're not, you're just being a boring, pedantic, destructive cunt. Again.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

i think you'll find you've missed that particular boat.

As of 1995, according to the US Census Bureau, 50% of people who identified as indigenous preferred the term American Indian, 37% preferred Native American, and the remainder preferred other terms or had no preference.

In 2002 the words Indigenous people of America were being used / proposed. But still a majority of indigenous Americans use the older term.

As the Bureau of Indian Affairs elaborates:

The term, 'Native American,' came into usage in the 1960s to denote the groups served by the Bureau of Indian Affairs: American Indians and Alaska Native (Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts of Alaska). Later the term also included Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders in some Federal programs. It, therefore, came into disfavor among some Indian groups. The preferred term is American Indian.
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, from the Bureau of Indian Affairs

Russell Means, the Lakota activist and founder of the American Indian Movement (AIM), has strongly rejected Native American in favor of Indian:

I abhor the term Native American. It is a generic government term used to describe all the indigenous prisoners of the United States. These are the American Samoans, the Micronesians, the Aleuts, the original Hawaiians, and the erroneously termed Eskimos, who are actually Upiks and Inupiats. And, of course, the American Indian.

I prefer the term American Indian because I know its origins . . . As an added distinction the American Indian is the only ethnic group in the United States with the American before our ethnicity . . . We were enslaved as American Indians, we were colonized as American Indians, and we will gain our freedom as American Indians, and then we will call ourselves any damn thing we choose.


It is generally accepted that Americans with indian heritage or the indigenous American Indians prefer to be referred to as American Indians .

​

 

[DotCommunist]

mind you, this thread is the wank, arsehatted cousin to the actual sensible one so I am happy to see the walls smeared with shit and gabba being played at volume 110%

 

[Pickman's model]

Other people address the point. You indulge in the sort of boring, unhelpful and derailing pedantry for which you're infamous. I suspect there are as yet undiscovered tribes of hunter gatherers in far-flung corners of the globe for whom "Pickman's model" is not a short story by HP Lovecraft but a by-word for pedantry.



I've accepted that my suggestion was ill-expressed and perhaps even ill-informed.

If calling you a boring, pedantic, destructive cunt is spree of abuse, behaving like a spoilt brat, then you're absolutely correct. But it isn't, and you're not, you're just being a boring, pedantic, destructive cunt. Again.

you're using accusations of pedantry here as a shorthand for 'i'm embarrassed to have been caught out'. if there's been any pedantry in our exchange, it's your declaration about the united states in its 1783 form. so much for your claim to want to move on.

 

[teqniq]

mind you, this thread is the wank, arsehatted cousin to the actual sensible one so I am happy to see the walls smeared with shit and gabba being played at volume 110%

lol

Which is the sensible one btw? The one Danny pointed me at?

 

[Pickman's model]

As of 1995, according to the US Cens<snip>

​

i meant the discussion has moved on.

 

[DotCommunist]

lol

Which is the sensible one btw? The one Danny pointed me at?

yersh. There is some facepalmery in that one but in the main its proper grown up talking over the issues and implications. Maybe it should be the rule that every thread about serious things should have a crap also-ran, in this specific case its worked brilliantly

 

[RedDragon]

Scottish Battles, interesting reading

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

OK, I obviously haven't made my point very clearly.

These are all examples of conquest, colonisation and then independence, so not the sort of "straight" conquest I was thinking of, where one state conquers another, or part of another, and it becomes part of the conquering state.

With the notable exception of Scotland, this is how the UK was formed.

What about Germany and the Low Countries? And Spain and Italy?

 

[Pickman's model]

What about Germany and the Low Countries? And Spain and Italy?

not to mention that any conquest in great britain was completed centuries ago.