Walsingham

Fan or stalker, you decide.

I have to agree. I think there has to be more than a nation than some sort of free trade and non-interference agreement. Or at least, I would like there to be. And I think history does not look favourably on nations that don't have something deeper. Provided that something is a thing which CAN be selectively chosen, rather than something you have no control over, then what is the problem? Would you guys say that the idea of a nation is inimicable to free movement? I really don't see what the issue would be and experience shows that the risk of any sort of cultural diluton is minimal at worst. I don't really see that the concept of cultural integration is really necessary beyond obeying the laws of the land. Again, experience shows that generations born into a foreign land will be culturally absorbed eventually. Too much scaremongering imo You've not been around for a while, so I don't want to give the wrong impression. I am very much in favour of free movement. If only because I would be a hypocrite if I weren't. But I would also be doing my country a poor service if I denied that it has been stronger since becoming a country, not just a collection of rock and grass. I don' tthink there has to be one Britain. I don't beleive there ever was. I don't believe that it could be written down and enforced. What I do say is that when a nation becomes some grey accumulation of red tape and roadworks then I want nothing to do with it. It is just a millstone around the neck. A cage.

Interesting case, Ros. But you assume that one has to have a full democracy or full dictatorship. I would argue, since we are debating, that China has a dictatorship with some trappings of democracy. It attempts to write off problems as corruption or indiscretion. So it tries to prevent revolution that way. I would also argue that one can have 'hollow' democracies. Although I can't currently envisage how.

I assume you have a pill box tray thing? You know the thing. It's like the World's saddest advent calendar. ~~ Amused to day when some wide boy from another business came into work and was treating us all like scum. Unlike every man I work with, this greasy f***er wouldn't know an honest day's work if it wrestled him to the floor and chewed his leg off. Made me realise how proud I am of my team, even if we are weirdos working on minimum wage!

I have to agree. I think there has to be more than a nation than some sort of free trade and non-interference agreement. Or at least, I would like there to be. And I think history does not look favourably on nations that don't have something deeper. Provided that something is a thing which CAN be selectively chosen, rather than something you have no control over, then what is the problem?

I think what Oby is saying is the U.S. has been fighting a war against a third world country and they still haven't won. Even after 13 years which is longer than WW1 and WW2 combined. They haven't been fighting a third world country. They've been trying to fight an insurgency WITHOUT fighting the country it's in.

I believe the point is that you are not counting - for example - gold dubloons. You are counting beans.

Russia is as strategically unconquerable as it is strategically irrelevant, and vice versa. The simple fact is that the Earth is governed on maritime lines, because they define the most mechanically efficient mechanism of trade and logistics. The railway - as Russian authorities themselves affirmed with the Trans-Siberian - made some difference. But railways are never as efficient as sea or river. The Russian navy will always be at a huge disadvantage to any genuinely maritime power. It lacks access, production, maintenance, training... the list goes on. The United States, on the other hand, is a large land mass which ALSO has plenty of maritime connections AND has adequate internal lines of communication. the former permits prosperity, while the latter gives mass. It need not depend on the sea for survival, but it does need it for prosperity. It is therefore obliged to maintain the capacity to power project to any point impacting its maritime trade. Hence all the bases and carrier battle groups. Or to put it another way, all those planes and ships aren't leeching money any more than home insurance leeches money.

Whodini!

On consideration I'd argue that this is China belatedly waking up to the fact that they need to be a naval power, not a land power. Virtually all their economic development, and a massive amount of their food production is based around ports and the riverine coast. Given their trading power it makes considerable sense to have a stronger navy. Unfortunately this kind of wang waving (thanks for saying it first, Zor) is precisely how they should NOT be going about it. It merely gives regional powers greater incentives to try to lock down China's maritime access corridors.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-25144465 China has declared a section of sea (long disputed) as subject to its air traffic control as some sort of 'emergency' safety measure. This seems to me a deliberate attempt to ramp up pressure on an outgoing US president before local self-defence initiatives between countries like Japan and Vietnam can prove resistant to China in their own right. The whole thing feels like something out of the 1970s. I've got a bad feeling about this. And not just because it reminds me of those terrifyingly itchy trousers.

I agree that the Union Jack would look weird without the blue. But that's what the Union would be: silly. We should be FORCED to do without. Apart from anything else, the BNP would have to reprint all it's stationery. C***s.

How is Youtube a parasite?

I don't think those are stupid. Except the one about only buying for now. That's modern poor. Back when my folks were poor we bought sh** that we knew would LAST.

I don't understand why, but suddenly I can't move for recruiters! There's bloody agencies offering me interviews all over the place! Life is weird.

It's not about nationality or ethnicity. It's about participation of NATO military advisors in training of Georgian military forces, and in training of this jihadis also. Nothing new actually, in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and many other places NATO do such things constantly. Mask slipping there. Wot no spelling mistakes?

I am beginning to suspect that he's on some sort of super anti-depressants. FFS he makes ME look dour!

I can't imagine a Scotsman being optimistic about anything. ROFLMAO

Yeah, it's definitely a possibility he's getting paid. But what could he possibly contribute in a talk if he does not share some of their views? He is a professional politician.

I wonder what store the forum members set by national identity? An independent Scotland might not have many benefits as an accountant sees it. but what of a renewal of ideas and initiative, set free of Brittania's mouldering past? The ineffable quality of Scottish people just thinking to themselves "Now anything is possible"

On the other hand I certainly feel that Westminster does a pretty crap job at governing at the moment. I can't totally understand someone wanting rid of it. On the other hand, independence as it stands won't deliver that.

Boring isn't what's in your blood. Boring is what you're blood's into.

Weird to feel like a new boy.

It would probably behoove us to actually compile a list of battles where we'd have had to fight shorthanded or not at all, if Scotland had not been present.

President. Not presidents. My apologies, as a non-native English speaker what I write occasionally does not come across as intended. The point however was that a person of such importance (hence the emphasis) could be such a looney. When I wrote "presidents" I think the point was to adress the general case and not point out anyone in particular, asking more something like "How did such a person become President?" rather than "How could George W. Bush become President?". Sorry Ros. Your first spelling was perfectly coherent, just not (as it turns out) what you actually meant.