Apech

Yes, my mistake Brian already told me.

I don't know what the Russian Empire is ... I already admitted my lack of knowledge of the history of Russia. The point I have been trying to make all along is that the United Kingdom was formed through acts passed by the English and Scottish parliaments ... i.e. by constitutional legislation by both sides following a number of failed attempts and also following a period of about 100 years when the same monarch held both crowns. Despite hostility from some quarters it was a great success economically and so on and did not lead to the suppression of the Scottish national character or culture as can still be seen today. This I think indicates it's uniqueness when compared to other more forced unions and empires. Many Scots like to hate the English (sometimes with justification sometimes not) but a lot of people like myself have English and Scottish blood and I would guess generally that most English like and admire the Scots (there are exceptions). However the final outcome is that the benefits both parties.

@Taomeow I accept I know too little about the USSR. But I suspect it could be classed a a huge powerblock rather than a coalition of mutual self interest. As regards the NWO I think this in part entails the splitting down of national communities on a divide and conquer basis and replacing them with organisation based on continental and then global power.

Uruguay? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/27/jose-mujica-uruguay-maverick-president

Ok didn't know that, thanks.

Wot like baby seals?

They could indeed legally and constitutionally stand on their own - but no one would have voted for that. the model presented was that of small EU countries which did very well before 2008 credit crunch and banking collapse ... like Ireland. they are resurgent now as is Iceland probably because the problem they faced was not structural but part of the global meltdown. People are not stupid and while the romantic appeal of going it alone was a big draw ... in the end most scots know that they do not wear kilts and live in the highlands striding across the mountains in the Celtic mists. that's about as realistic as thinking all Appalachians are like the folk in Deliverance or that everyone in Mexico wears a sombrero and only eats pork and beans. National stereotypes. Scotland is a modern country and has historical ties to Europe particularly France. Scotland already has its own parliament and government, its own legal system, its own education system and so on - as well as cultural traditions and of course language (though not many speak it). Ironically to date scottish MPs to Westminster have so far been able to vote on policy in England while the English MPs cannot do the same for Scotland. They have been promised more self governing powers. Its called having your cake and eating it.

http://www.cb.is/the-bank/

Sorry but your analogy doesn't make any sense. mexico is just one country not a union of any kind as far as I know. If you were to ask would a seceded Texas want to remain part of NAFTA that would be closer to the mark. And I think the answer to that would almost certainly be yes. There is already a Bank of Scotland which issues its own currency by the way - but it is traded as part of sterling.

fair enough

I just snipped that to cut down the repaste ... your ideas are great no doubt ... as are Russell Brand's in that video ... but I think this vote was not about what you think it was about. Scotland has been in union with England for 300 years and actually a hundred years before that there was already a union because the Scottish King (James I) was the Scottish king (and that's what counted in those days. Many English like me are part Scottish (my grandfather) and many Scottish are part English. And despite this 400 year (longer than the existence of the USA) the Scottish have not lost their separate culture and identity - nor have the Welsh, Irish, Cornish ... even the division North to South which goes back to the Vikings and the Saxons has not gone away in terms of different attitudes, dialects and so on. So that's a cultural division which goes back maybe a 1000 years. Scottish independence would actually be a move towards the creation of yet another small European nation which as part of the EU would be completely at the mercy of the EU. A slave of Brussels. And if you want to see something that sucks the lifeblood out of individuality and freedom you need look no further. And the reason for this is that it was not created through generations of agreement, co-operation and struggle by people but was created by the bankers and financiers and politicians after WWII as a way to control the whole of Europe when war had failed to do the same. The EU is nothing more than a giant bureaucracy ... unaccountable and corporate ... so the Scots were right to stick with Britain out of the Eurozone ... its far from perfect but at least has some hope. Anyway that's what I think.

Want to share?

Would you expect to see some kilted gentlemen striding across the Highlands with broadsword in hand?

Oh well if you insist!!! behind, within or developed from (it matters little) the NT story is a tradition which holds that man exists in a fallen state, that is out of relation with God = the Absolute nature or reality. That we exist like the prodigal son eating husks (the outer shell of things) with pigs (fellow ignorant beings). That Jesus as saviour demonstrated a way back to Truth which leads to union with God and finding the Kingdom (which is within) - 'when thine eye be single then thy whole body also is filled with light' - this way is one of individuation = finding within yourself the keys to the kingdom and involved the embodiment of love (that is the energy of willing the benefit of all beings which reflects the original creative power of God). Not so very different in some ways to saying we as individual beings exist in ignorance which leads to suffering. And that there is a way (8 fold path) which leads away from this towards a realisation of the true nature of things = liberation. That this way is both ethical and introspective and that it is possible because we have within us the seed of Buddha-nature. That's more or less it. two paths very different in origin and cultural trappings which some praxis at odds with each other ... but beneath the surface not so very different at all. One for people who relate to and have a connection with the idea of God as a person, the other for those who do not.

I'm all for individual freedom - don't get me wrong. In fact the philosophy that underpins the west is this for me ... individual liberty and the rule of law (which protects this freedom). I'm not saying this doesn't go wrong .. like now for instance. I would say that the US for instance was a force for good and liberty in the world up to the 1950s or so. the idea that free thinking people can join together is a good things.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

A meaningless word if there is no God and a meaningless word if there is.

Eh? Buddhism is soteriological also. Different approach granted but not very different ethically from NT and both believe in liberation of sorts.

That's an incredibly negative view of history. These unions are not theory - that's the point - they are actually and functional. And they are based on enlightened self interest of the parties involved. Your way - we would ultimately devolve down to the smallest units, the tribe, the family or just a person all incapable of living in community with others - of facing the shared experience, compromise, wealth and stability that comes from community. Anyway that's what I think. I like to be practical not romantic.

As an American I thought maybe you would understand the concept of strength in union. The tendency nowadays of everyone who disagrees with others or has a different cultural heritage being unable to stand their neighbours and thus break off into another country - witness the break up of the balkan states - is a weakness and not a strength. Working together is a strength and the secret of success, or so I believe. The two most successful nations of the last 200 years ...United Kingdom and United States.

Pinch it off, Dundee. Throw Peebles in a Glass Cow Or ban Inverness.

You can't expect much more from the Church of England these days ... there does not seem to be any contemplative side to their activities and it's almost considered bad taste to have any conviction about God or Jesus. I imagine God feels much the same about the Archbishop ... vague sense he might exist but really not quite sure what the point of him is. All religions need contemplatives as a kind of resource for renewal ... without that it becomes more or less an intellectual exercise. Thin, weedy and etiolated.

Thankfully it's a no vote. What was interesting was that when this referendum was set up the govt. assumed it would be a massive 'no' vote because of opinion polls. When opinion began to slide towards yes the panic from all the political parties in England was such that they jointly offered massively increased devolution status as a kind of bribe. Now let's see if this ever gets introduced.

ha ha in your dreams.

Link?