Should Scotland become an independent country?

Nothing, the topic briefly came on British Nationalist Mr.Farage and I stated my support for him, even if he disagrees of course with a Fascist mindset. But I like how he wants independence for the Crown. I strongly believe in standing on two feet.

Nosferatsu on the other hand contended that he doesn't deserve respect because of his beliefs, and I disagree with that. That means political movements as a whole, and any political candidate for any office should be shunned for their opposing positions.

Not really I said he doesn't deserve any respect because of the way he threats other people and then I gave his reaction to the EU president as example of his intolerable behaviour. There are lots of people in politics that I don't agree with but that I can respect because of how they behave.
.

As to the link with Scotisch independence and the EU, well I think that spliting up is the wrong approach when the goal should be teaming up. By all means they should got more autonomy if they aren't respresented well.
And I know that the EU is not perfect and has alot of problems but it's the idea I find valuable and that can only be realised if we put our nationalistic views aside.
What it comes down to is this, "Will you lend a man your hand or will you walk away because he is foreign".

Keep in mind though that since David Cameron has promised a Referendum on the UK's membership to the European Union by 2016, and that UKIP are gaining popularity in a nation that uses First Past the Post as its electoral system, Scotland may have no choice but to become an independent country if it wishes to remain in the EU, which we do. If anything one of the biggest reasons that Scots nationalism is on the rise is because of the dramatic downturn in our country that we expect as a result of Eurosceptics and English Nationalists gaining more power in the south.

If we want to remain at the EU dinner party we might need to divorce England.

I think if Scotland split from the rest of the U.K. it would weaken both countries. I'm all for seeking independence and all but not if it leaves your country in a weak and volunerable position.

In what ways do you think Scotland would be weaker as a result of independence?

Smaller army, loss of superpower status. Of course, I could be completely wrong too.

In this day and age a country is not only measured by military strenght if that was the case every country would just have a high military budget. Also Great Britain is not really a super power.

If they have the means to be independent then they should go for it.

Just to be clear. I unlike many people on Fakku am totally cool with the federal government holding sway over the states. As I believe that the states are retarded and have no idea what's good for them. Which is why segregation for example needed to be federally enforced. :D

Don't you mean integration? Segregation would be the separation of powers, or as you're likely referring to: The laws in which classes and individuals were held as separate but equal.

I concur though, I do want segregation to be upheld. Not because I'm a racist bigot(I'm clearly not. I have NO business being on this forum if I were). But because I believe that not everyone can hold hands, give candy and the whole world's fine and dandy!

I also happen to believe we're not "equal" from a physical standpoint. Perhaps
we're lawfully protected from abuses against the other, but we compete in sports, and in finding a job, etc. The Haves and the Have Nots.

Even in a society that'll push for further inclusion, there will be those who can fit in more neatly than others. Integration, the global economy, equality for all, etc. All it's done is its pushed various social classes, social groups of people(The word 'social group' is much more politically correct and aesthetic than 'race') against one another.

Truth is, all peoples, classes and ranks are inherently different. This doesn't denote superiority or inferiority but is a mere matter of fact.

>Implying that Federal governments are incapable of being retarded, corrupt or any other negative adjective one can associate with such institutions. Especially when considering the smaller influence a group or individual have on their respective representatives.

The smaller and more local a government, the more it can be held accountable for it's actions. The smaller and more local a government requires fewer number of people and substantially less money to affect change within the institutions rather than distant ones.

You have a substantially more impact on the state and local governments compared to the federal government.

You're about to demonstrate later on in this post why the federal government is in fact less capable of being as retarded as state governments.



There you go. You have more influence as an individual on a local or state scale, totally agree. So does everyone else. And considering the majority of people are stupid to some degree, that means the local and state governments are more susceptible to individual stupidity rather than the federal government, because the federal government works in aggregate with the entirety of the country's voters rahter than a small number of constitutents, some of which will have bad ideas and ill informed stances on issues. In aggregate though, you get all the people who have good ideas, and all the people who have bad ideas, and the people with good ideas and are poltiically active in a large group can have more positive influence in the federal government. So there you go. What you just described is the reason why states SHOULDN'T have power over the federal government in precedence and law.

That would still make you a racist bigot. You're saying that people should not mix, so you deny anyone who is in a inter-racial relationship their freedom to love each other because you'd rather us be seperated. To which you'd also deny those people their freedom of choice to which school they want to go to, because schools get to base thier own corriculums and we see that people who go to "segretaged" schools often perform poorly compared to those who go to mixed schools.

It also denies anyone of mixed origin the ability to go to any school whatsoever because they aren't fully of one race or another.

Your opinion can only be taken as a racist bigot. And above all it violates the universal declaration of human rights and freedoms.

Wow, that went off topic pretty quickly! Okay I need to reaffirm that as a Scots nationalist I am all for the separation of Scotland from the UK, and point out that as a socialist I feel the segregation and stratification of peoples leads to their eventual exploitation by more powerful groups and in no way leads to a just society.

Separation of states to minimise conflict certainly works during the times when empires are broken and kings are disposed, but not on a national basis when everyone should be retaining their pride as a nation and the segregation of people within a society based on something as trivial as as race is only detrimental to that. Segregation of races breeds racism, wich like patriarchy and social class stratification are social cancers.

---

As for BigLundi


If you were to argue that democracy on a local level is flawed because people are poorly educated but are still enfranchised then you need to remember that the majority of schools in the US are funded in some part by the federal government. If you are going to argue that that people whom you label unintelligent shouldn't have the right to vote in an election then you have little appreciation of democracy.

And you also must understand that if Americans did have the power to influence social policy at a state or federal level to the extent you describe then things such as the teaching of evolution in schools wouldn't exist, as the majority of your country doesn't accept it. Therefore your country isn't a very stupid democracy its a very well constructed plutonomous oligarchy dressed up like a democracy. If the wealthy and well-to-do of American society paid higher taxes then state and public schools may provide a more intelligent workforce and the country would function better, maybe they would even reconstruct the current US political system to form a government that isn't represented by the interest of two parties but rather the political interests of the nation as a whole and where constituents can have their needs more adequately represented on a national basis.

---

Now lets get back to Scotland.

The current Union with England, which in many ways is akin to the power of the federal government in the US, does not benefit Scotland while further devolution and the creation of a Scots parliament has benefited us significantly to the point were we, thanks to SNP policies, have a higher rate of taxable employment than England, which do not come back in full to the services needed by the people who generate those taxes. We can continue to improve our country and maintain a good relationship with England and the international community but not as a client state of the UK, only as an independent nation. Scotland is a politically, culturally, and economically different nation from England and the interests of our people are not being represented as adequately in a UK government as the could in a national government.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "Coorelation doesn't equal causation". I didn't insofar as say that "People shouldn't mix", no I went further: They naturally can't.(I mean, come now look at the widespread of crime, "hate speech", etc. In an attempt to hold this delusion of a world together, people have tried to regulate it. But you can't regulate human emotions or human relationships.)

There are several social groups who in fact, can merge together and have been better for it. But the vast majority of them can't mix with others. This is a simple, physical reality that we've denied under the "moral" idea of equality, which simply isn't true.

And Public school as a whole sucks miserably. If it were up to me, I'd like to privatize education as a whole. Elite education for our children is only right for the future.

In addition to Humanism, I'm also a realist, and that means I look at the world as it is and how it could possibly be, but all possibilities are within the realm of reality.

To quote Schneizel:

"Hopes and Dreams are merely names for endless fiction"

If the dream of Univeralism is to become a reality, I'm now convinced it will come from an Individual perspective. And with the merging of social classes that can actually benevolently coexist with one another.

In other words, in such a world there wouldn't be a need to "regulate" their coexistence. The world we currently live in is a sham, an utter farce and it actually violates humanity's self determination more than anything.

Hate speech exists because some people don't want to mix. Because some people still hold segregation as a necessity for life. People can hate all they want, but the difference between war and peace is whether you act on it. The key to peace is not pulling the trigger.

You claim that people can't naturally mix, yet my family seems to have done it quite easily. My aunt is black, my uncle is white, my mothers cousins are asian. How did this happen? Because they discouvered that you treat humanity as a whole, and value the individual.

That is percisely why you shall remain a racist. You take an example of wide spread crime and link it to a racial factor, when you can't even begin to understand the factors as to why those people have become the way they have. Inequality, inopportunity, segregation. Those are the reasons for crime.

I've stated this a billion times before, a child does not hate, an adult hates. A child is curious about the world until an adult indoctrinates.

Your logic is the reason why we have hate. You force cultures apart, you force the ability to learn and to tolerate apart, that is why you will not succeed.

You quoted something about hopes and dreams being endless fiction, but the single and only reason that humanity progresses is because we dream. We turn fiction into reality by following our hopes and dreams.

Does hatred itself, exist? If people hate, it's precisely because they are forced to adhere to something that they don't believe in. Hatred is a defensive mechanism, and little more than that.

I do not "force cultures apart", Cultures are naturally apart. You can't possibly tell me that in your family experience, you don't experience several distinct differences that of course you naturally disagree with.

As you say, you don't act on them. This is called "tolerance" and for a time, it works. But in the end, tolerance means to "put up", there's only so long a person can possibly put up with something he/she doesn't like.

You can cite as many "reasons" as you want for crime, but the overlying factor is that criminal individual, for reasons unique to that person had been unable to "fit in" with society.

Society, as it stands now is not inclusive but rather exclusive. Not of a "race" or of a "Social Group" standing above one another, but because of the failed assimilation of all Social Groups to eventually leave nothing.

One of those "dreams" is that individuals do not make up their Social Group. This is true and not true, it's true in the essence that this individual has their own name, their own personality and a reason for doing things.

It's wrong, in that this person was significantly influenced by their family, their peers, their co-workers and above all their social group.

What people may not realize is that I was born in 1992. In other words, the theory of inclusiveness had been born into me. But I've refined the theory. Only by recognizing individual value, individual choice and individual preference is it possible for true unification.

This illusion we have, is only going to tear everyone apart and any attempt at unification in the future will fail miserably.

I've even come to recognize superiority(and inferiority) as not necessarily negative but a reality of life which in fact spurs the continuation of life. Everyone strives to get better, to compete. If we want everyone to be "equal", we shouldn't level the playing field.

We should inspire and aspire mankind to be superior, to all living things and to all previous beings who've lived. People cannot be "equal" in the sense that everyone has the same things, or same possessions. And while people should have the same "rights", there's no logical way to enforce that.

So let's beat past the bush, and get to the heart and thick of it: Prosperity. Mankind should aim to be prosperous, when everyone is prosperous(in their own way), everyone is happy and when everyone is happy then they are equal.

This is probably the closest we can come to the dream known as "equality".

No, not whatsoever. There is no distinct differences that I disagree with because I celebrate difference in my life. Cultures are only apart because of distance and because of racism. The more interconnected the world becomes, the more interaction we have with culture and the more we can share and learn to love. That is why we gain tolerance, tolerance is the ability to to endure. That is something you fail to see.



And why do these people not fit into our society, it isn't their fault we prevent them from getting better jobs. It isn't their fault that white people want to force them out, deport them, restrict them, deny them higher positions. The person to blame for segregated crime is you. People like you who believe that we have crime because of them and not because of us. If we didn't deny these people better education and better jobs, they would be productive citizens, instead we treat them like second class citizens in their own homes, and leave them to fight with tribal mentality. They are fighting to survive while you sit there telling them that their fights to survive are criminal.



As I've stated before, that is not thier fault, that is the fault of white people who think they're smarter than everyone else, like you. You are the ones who don't want these people in our social groups, and that is the reason they resort to what they do.



There is no difference intellectually between any single human, nor is there anything physically for those that work at it. You're telling me that claiming to be smarter than a black man is not a negative thing, that there is no level playing field there. The only reason there is no level playing field is because we haven't given them one.



Prosperity, you mean wealth. Wealth being something only a white person can obtain. You clearly stated it before, if we aren't all equal and others are superior, nobody can be prosperous except for those who can capitalize on being the best. You can't have winners without losers.

But you can make it so that blacks, whites and asians all have a chance to become prosperous. That would mean leveling the playing field, giving everyone the best quality of education possible and not judging based on skin colour. That would mean there is no segregation.

Just accept it, you try to hide behind your flawed logic. Trying to disguise it with as much fancy talk as you like but at the very bottom of it all, you're just a racist.

You're a fascist, fascism can't exist without superiority, superiority by definition means being better than what you compare it to, which for fascism, it's people. When you believe that one person is superior to another, that is the definition of racism.

You're speaking to a man who stated in a previous argument that anyone from an Arab country who is Muslim should have several of their rights suspended (specifically their first and fourth amendment rights) simply based upon their race and religion. The man has little appreciation for concepts that are inconvenient to him.



1). according to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development the U.S spends more per student. than any other country on public education in 2009, the last year for which information was available. For all levels of public education, the U.S. spent $15,812 per student in 2009. That’s the highest in the world. Switzerland was second at $14,716. Mexico spent $2,895 per student.

2). Our various measurements of academic achievement show an actual decline of overall scores since the creation of the Department of Education which is when the schools be(assuming you account for the political fudging of numbers by changing criteria so the politicians look good)

3. Children who are home schooled have been shown to have higher academic scores than government educated children.

Money isn't the problem, it's the system. Unfortunately, we only have a 1 party system with two major factions that have installed various roadblocks that prevent 3rd party candidates from running

They are required to get enough signatures to even get on the ballot. If they don't, then citizens in some states wouldn't even get to vote for the minor candidates. So while the other candidates are campaigning, minor party candidates have to go and collect signatures.

Then there's also the public financing. The Republican and Democratic candidates get thousands of money from the Government to finance their campaigns. 3rd party candidates usually can't get any money and if they do get some it's not nearly as much.

Oh I'll give you a third. The commission of Presidential debates doesn't usually allow 3rd party candidates to debate (except in 1992). Only the Dem. and GOP candidates have the opportunity to discuss the issues on such a wide scale.

Anyways, I agree that the country has devolved into an oligarchy where there are two classes; the political class and the working class. Though, I'm sure we would have our disagreements as to WHY the country has become such a nightmare.

**sigh** I addressed the meaning of the word tolerance, which ironically you left out in your "rebuke" of my statements. The word "endure" is the same as "putting up" and if you really think this is a long term state of affairs the world should have, it is precisely the reason people are fighting now.

Let's take it away from your personal experience, with which I'm severely happy for you but the reality is that we're debating life on planet earth today. You proclaim that people shouldn't look at differences, acknowledging themselves as "Human Beings" and assimilating nice and neatly.

Before Human Beings, we're individuals. And it's that individuality that makes up the Human Being. The multicultural world fails at the very onset because it negates individuality, thereby it negates Humanism at its most basic level.

People don't have to necessarily "hate"(or in other words racism) to experience differences and to be turned off by those differences. Because they are individuals. Whether the naive like it or not, assimilation via eliminating humanity's core tenants is not only impossible but damaging to the ideal.

The attempt to regulate that world, has only compounded on this miserable intellectual mistake from the start. No one likes having their opinions silenced or forced to live a state of affairs that otherwise they wouldn't want to live for the sake of others.





From here on out, I'm going to leave my own quotes as well as your response just to show you how silly your proposition is. First of all, do you know what Affirmative Action is? It's the government regulating who can hire who(particularly minority workers) in an effect to "spur" hiring of minorities and to "make up" for the crimes that were committed.

Americans moronically believed in the proposition, but when faced with the reality that it's little more than reverse discrimination, opinion swings heavily to opposition

In truth, Americans should have always viewed it as reverse discrimination, whether it was for the "noble cause" of increasing minority employment or not.
In of itself, the law legislates against businesses from hiring the best person and every so often, they'll hire an unqualified minority worker just to meet the quota.

And no, far from discriminating, Caucasian-Americans have opened the door with their warm and loving hearts, leading to such a dramatic demographic change

And this is the result

I'm not delusional, the divide is there; it's significant and it is a culture problem. Mostly because these violent cultures of gangs, drugs, etc aren't English in nature. Take a look at England, they never would've thought there's a cultural divide until they saw it for themselves.

You can blame majorities if you'd like, but for a minority to be as active in crime life as they are you can't say majorities led them to live these lives. You also can't say that in the face of affirmative action that they've disallowed opportunities for "growth".







So tell me, what, if anything is "their" fault then? As long as you're incapable of grasping the fact that these Social Groups are inherently different, you won't be able to recognize that what we're doing is akin to putting a cat and dog in the same room and expecting them to get along.

If "Tolerance" is the best case scenario, then our idea has failed before it even took place. You'll never be able to see your dream of a "Common Humanity" because it's not common, it's forced. It's a belief people have forced down their throat.

I'm not opposed to all minorities, but I am opposed to the violent denigrates that have unfortunately become the vast majority. Those who think they can have a free ride, etc. Living in an impoverished neighborhood like I have, has given me
as a White American the kind of viewpoint that's necessary to solve this problem.

A minority should stay a minority, the reason being is that most minorities haven't cultivated the country. They don't know the moral values of "X Country" and thereby they themselves can't even assimilate. They can't even cultivate themselves and you yourself are the ultimate proof, blaming others for their own shortcomings.

Even Gordan Brown, the former British PM was forced to wake up to reality that this idea doesn't work. Humanity is far too individualistic to give up their own individual ideals, opinions and dreams.

Multiculturalism is the subjugation of Humanity, a flawed engine to accomplish what has been Humanity's greatest dream. Univeralism. As long as Multiculturalism exists, Universalism shall never be a reality.








I've referred much earlier to Affirmative Action, so I've already debunked your notion that we haven't given minorities an even playing field. It is because we've given them a "even playing field" that they've given up on playing altogether.

Why play the game of life when victory is already handed to them? Furthermore, you're mistaken in that there's no difference intellectually between a single human. Those who occupy the highest positions in social networking or in various other companies, corporations or factions of Human Life. They most certainly are capable to a level with which most Humans in our country are not.

Can they get better? Yes. Can they find satisfaction with themselves? Yes Can they produce at a very high level? Yes. Can they become that person's equal? It's possible but not probable.

In dictionary terms, probability has a higher standing than possibility. Probability refers to reality, whereas possibility refers to potential reality.

We mustn't get caught up in the false notion of equality, in the terms that everyone's the same. Human Potential gets derailed by denoting everyone to have the same capacity.

Only by setting the highest plateaus to be reached, can Humanity truly evolve. A "Level playing field" only discourages this natural evolution of Human Beings.





That chance already exists, laws against discrimination have only allowed discrimination in various other ways(as I point out earlier). It's also incredibly laughable for you to say that in a country where "Whites" are
increasingly becoming a minority that only "Whites" can acclaim wealth.

Tell me, where does this inferiority complex of yours come from? A Level Playing Field merely gives advantages to those who don't necessarily deserve it. How many manufacturing jobs has America lost? How much has our trade deficit grown? For what? Mere material goods made out of China?

This ideal is collapsing on it's face, and especially here in America where as minorities gain more political clout and power, the reality of it is that America has lost a political voice, identity and even yes a future.

Not just in America, but in all of Europe including Canada. And there's a logical reason for it: These Social Groups are made of Individuals, you yourself would like to believe this. Well, those individuals only know their social groups, they only know their country.

So even if you assimilate them, they'll only look to continue doing things that they would've liked to do in their home country in the country with which they immigrated to.

I'm sorry to say, but America is not Africa or Mexico or any of these other 2nd/3rd world countries with which these immigrants have come from. It was supposed to be a European-English continent. In a nation where we can't even proclaim our native tounge to BE the native tounge is the greatest insult.

The superiority or inferiority of people is determined by their own actions and their own accord and their own status in life. Everything is up for grabs, nothing is predetermined and certainly there is no equality.

Equality is established by establishing everyone's own unique, individual self worth. Only through the Individual, can Universalism be a reality.





Isn't it your "logic" that's flawed? It's not even logic, it's emotionalism! At no point did I for example, point to a specific minority. Believing in Superiority doesn't by itself define racism, rather I believe it defines Humanism to its truest extent.

I would be lying to myself if I didn't say that there were those better than me. Of course, there's many people who are better. By acknowledging their superiority, I can try to bridge the gap. Fascism acknowledges the true tenants of Man's nature and thereby, univeralism can exist.

Man can only be brought together by man's greatest values. His unique, individual contribution to the Human Cause. The idea that there's a significant portion of Humans that quite frankly cannot uphold to this standard, is only natural.

I'll give you this: Perhaps, potentially they can live up to this standard in an environment where it's demanded of them. Imagine for example if there were to be no minority assistance(and of course, no "discrimination" for you to hide behind)

Then finally, these groups which have failed to assimilate will either have to assimilate or build their own native countries! Imagine, what a prosperous Africa or Mexico would do for the world.

But I acknowledge that we can't cultivate Africa or Mexico, hell we lack the political backbone to cultivate this European-English continent! Only the Africans(and African-Americans) and Mexicans can cultivate their respective countries.

Interestingly enough, as seen through Liberia even with the opportunity given to them they couldn't cultivate the region. So tell me, in the face of this utter failure what are we to do? How can we cultivate that which can't be cultivated? While at the same time, this manifestation is slowly but surely eating away at not only our culture, but every culture on earth.