Scotland Vote No In Referendum – Selfish, Scared People, Well Done!

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: bigman88

Technically, no, England has never committed any War crimes. Neither has Scotland, or Wales, or Ireland.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland may have, but England, no. The concept of War crimes only came about towards the end of the 19th century - England ceased to be an independent nation in 1707.

You are seriously trying to redirect and play down the suffering wrought by your government.

Which one is it? Technically the UK did not commit any war crimes, but next, it's the UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland maybe did something.

Which one?

And it is pretty pathetic trying to blame the subject territories for the war crimes. So England never directed the affairs of it's business overseas when "helping" other nations? Are you saying it was citizens of the subject territories that filled ALL the ranks of the forces sent overseas? A large portion of the troops were not the parent territory, England?

Is that how it went?

originally posted by: eletheia
a reply to: bigman88

Actually it was far more complicated than that: The Indian Army had their

own men and weaponry, and their own police force, the Indian Government

had more control of their own affairs than you seem to think......

However that is another story for another thread and off topic on this thread.

I'm sure they did, but all of that was directed by the England. They did not have there own armed police force without the consent of the masters, and were there to do the bidding of the masters.

It is not what i think, it is what i learned. Colonialism is colonialism is colonialism.

a reply to: bigman88

The government that commited war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan ect were done at a time when the Labour party were in power... a government that most of Scotland voted for.

a reply to: bigman88
FFS are you trolling?
The UK has committed all sorts of horrible stuff in the world with Northern Irish, Welsh, Scottish, and English troops.
England is the most populated bit of the UK so for that reason alone you appear to desperately imply that it is all the fault of the English.
I'm a Welsh bloke with a Welsh brother who fought in the Falklands, and Wales lost more service people in that fight than anyone else. Was that an English conflict in your eyes? Really?
No, it was British, and the British army which is full of folk from all four nations.
Get over it and stop desperately and lamely searching for something to bitch about the English.

a reply to: bigman88

Well if that's what you were taught then i would recommend brushing up on your history, we were just as involved in colonialism as the rest of the UK.
Your just making yourself look like a fool with your anti-english rhetoric.

originally posted by: bigman88
a reply to: waynos

I am not Anglophobic at all, just fasciophobic. Your-land-is-mine-phobic.

And yet you were going on about "England's" past crimes, rather than Britains. This shows a lack of understanding. The British Empire story is a complex one with good and bad within it, the bad part of conquering territories to plunder their riches is undeniable, but how come Critics like yourself are fixated on that part (which was normal for any country historically since the dawn of civilisation), but cannot give any credit for the much more recent and relevant history when the British Empire became the first ever to willingly withdraw from its territories, rather than be forced out by a more powerful empire and replace formerly rigid ties with a loose cultural and trade confederation that former empire nations could choose to join or not. This as clear an example of one eyed bias one can ever wish to see, but we still see "evil imperialist England" nonsense even now in the 21st century.

where in my previous post did you read anything about the British Empire never doing anything wrong? I did however predict your exact response on that matter.

originally posted by: bigman88

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: bigman88

Technically, no, England has never committed any War crimes. Neither has Scotland, or Wales, or Ireland.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland may have, but England, no. The concept of War crimes only came about towards the end of the 19th century - England ceased to be an independent nation in 1707.

You are seriously trying to redirect and play down the suffering wrought by your government.

Which one is it? Technically the UK did not commit any war crimes, but next, it's the UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland maybe did something.

Which one?

And it is pretty pathetic trying to blame the subject territories for the war crimes. So England never directed the affairs of it's business overseas when "helping" other nations? Are you saying it was citizens of the subject territories that filled ALL the ranks of the forces sent overseas? A large portion of the troops were not the parent territory, England?

Is that how it went?

You see? There you go again, you can't even tell the difference between English and British, there's no wonder you're confused. Maybe think of blaming Texas for the Crimes of the U.S. government if that helps get the point over. The Government seat may be situated in England, but it is made up of Lords and Ministers from all over the UK, that's why it is the British Government, not the English Government.
If you look I to it, you'll actually see that the BRITISH Army was itself never big enough to govern the Empire, but local troops were enlisted in various territories. The current Indian Army, Navy and Air Force, for example, were created as local units withing the Royal Navy, British Army and RAF and fought as such in WW2 before transferring to the newly independent Indian state in the late forties.

This is just an example of why the situation was far more complex than your simplistic digs suggest you think it was

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: bigman88
a reply to: stumason



It's not too hard to find citizens of an occupied territory that do not identify or do not really care about there national identity or heritage, and they end up gladly working for the masters in exchange for security, sustenance, and status.

You have described perfectly in the above description, what Native American Indians endure.

You are very perceptive.

That is exactly what any colonized nation that has been given "independence" endure. Why is the most of Africa is still in turmoil, whit the rest of the world, especially North America and Europe, commenting that blacks are naturally savage and wild? Carefully selected puppets put into power to continue siphoning off all the wealth to the masters who still control through corporations and policies.

But it seems you were being sarcastic, so

a reply to: liverlad

Different matter; the southern states were not a separate people with their own history, language, heritage, culture, genealogy... but i get your point though.

If Scotland truly became part of this union voluntarily, ALL of scotland, like really MOST of the citizens voted and said, we can't were lost all these years without you guys, and the majority of that country said yeah sure, and this is not something that was either decided by Scottish leaders despite the people not agreeing with it, or a lie told yo you by the government, then time for me to shutup.

I hate most holywood and it's movies. I hate the most of the culture in my country as a matter of fact.

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: bigman88
Great Britain is Wales Ireland, Scotland and England. Missing anything?

Yep, slight correction, Great Britain is Wales, Scotland and England. You know, the nations who share the biggest island in the UK. Northern Ireland is an area in union with Great Britain on the island of Ireland.
The collective name for the union of nations is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

And you forgot the rest of the pro-UK run governments. Basically still part of the Kingdom, in my book.

But thank you for the lesson.

originally posted by: liverlad
a reply to: bigman88

The government that commited war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan ect were done at a time when the Labour party were in power... a government that most of Scotland voted for.

If that's so, Scotland is full of idiots and brutes, or they were not aware that there desired party would go around committing war crimes.

Thanks for the lesson. Never knew that.

But what was the point of this info?

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: bigman88
FFS are you trolling?
The UK has committed all sorts of horrible stuff in the world with Northern Irish, Welsh, Scottish, and English troops.
England is the most populated bit of the UK so for that reason alone you appear to desperately imply that it is all the fault of the English.
I'm a Welsh bloke with a Welsh brother who fought in the Falklands, and Wales lost more service people in that fight than anyone else. Was that an English conflict in your eyes? Really?
No, it was British, and the British army which is full of folk from all four nations.
Get over it and stop desperately and lamely searching for something to bitch about the English.

No, i am responding to the other dudes post of him saying that England did not commit any of these crimes, it was some of the Welsh and Northern Ireland, and a few English. I am saying that all of these crimes were committed under the direction of the English government, who are mostly populated with English in the positions of those who call the shots. I kind of took the other guys post as him saying the Welsh, and Northern Irish, went off on there own prerogative and mashed up the place. You have Irish and Welsh in positions of authority in your parliament, but they are the few, and will obviously go along with the agenda.

Now if the Welsh people did in fact want to go to war in the Falklands, then i guess you guys wanted war in the Falklands, then.

a reply to: mclarenmp4

I am not anti English at all, i am anti-colonialism.

originally posted by: waynos

originally posted by: bigman88
a reply to: waynos

I am not Anglophobic at all, just fasciophobic. Your-land-is-mine-phobic.

And yet you were going on about "England's" past crimes, rather than Britains. This shows a lack of understanding. The British Empire story is a complex one with good and bad within it, the bad part of conquering territories to plunder their riches is undeniable, but how come Critics like yourself are fixated on that part (which was normal for any country historically since the dawn of civilisation), but cannot give any credit for the much more recent and relevant history when the British Empire became the first ever to willingly withdraw from its territories, rather than be forced out by a more powerful empire and replace formerly rigid ties with a loose cultural and trade confederation that former empire nations could choose to join or not. This as clear an example of one eyed bias one can ever wish to see, but we still see "evil imperialist England" nonsense even now in the 21st century.

where in my previous post did you read anything about the British Empire never doing anything wrong? I did however predict your exact response on that matter.

British empire never withdrew from ANYWHERE. They still run things by making sure the government in place of these territories will respond positively to it's influence and desires in that country.

originally posted by: waynos

originally posted by: bigman88

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: bigman88

Technically, no, England has never committed any War crimes. Neither has Scotland, or Wales, or Ireland.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland may have, but England, no. The concept of War crimes only came about towards the end of the 19th century - England ceased to be an independent nation in 1707.

You are seriously trying to redirect and play down the suffering wrought by your government.

Which one is it? Technically the UK did not commit any war crimes, but next, it's the UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland maybe did something.

Which one?

And it is pretty pathetic trying to blame the subject territories for the war crimes. So England never directed the affairs of it's business overseas when "helping" other nations? Are you saying it was citizens of the subject territories that filled ALL the ranks of the forces sent overseas? A large portion of the troops were not the parent territory, England?

Is that how it went?

You see? There you go again, you can't even tell the difference between English and British, there's no wonder you're confused. Maybe think of blaming Texas for the Crimes of the U.S. government if that helps get the point over. The Government seat may be situated in England, but it is made up of Lords and Ministers from all over the UK, that's why it is the British Government, not the English Government.
If you look I to it, you'll actually see that the BRITISH Army was itself never big enough to govern the Empire, but local troops were enlisted in various territories. The current Indian Army, Navy and Air Force, for example, were created as local units withing the Royal Navy, British Army and RAF and fought as such in WW2 before transferring to the newly independent Indian state in the late forties.

This is just an example of why the situation was far more complex than your simplistic digs suggest you think it was

If it's the case that Wales, Scotland and northern Ireland, and the people of those countries, and it's lords and ministers were really integral in the policies of this empire, and truly wanted conquest, i'll shut it. It's just i don't think that's the case. People of those nations who disagree with any of that will not be sitting in positions of power, is what i am thinking.

And yes, locals with no sense of national pride and heritage and/or wants to support there family, will gladly be apart of an armed force under of their government,, who is under direction of the empire.

a reply to: mclarenmp4

Thanks for the lesson.

I bow.

a reply to: angelchemuel

I mentioned on here months ago that there was a Catholic v Protestant underlying element to all of this, people disagreed. I stay in Glasgow and i have seen it for myself. The rammy at George Square included yes voters singing Up the Ra (IRA). I now that folk's like George Galloway supported the Union but there is probably some sort of self interest in there.

Is this bloke on the wind-up?