Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

Now, cos I dont have so much time for every your biased story :-D, sorry maybe my fault that I lost your important information.

You rather believe your own made up fairy tale lies, based on 'not mainstream media' home made nonsense
If we all have proves about how media and government lies to us, I am not going trust them, you do it, your choice.

You have time, but you prefer to spend it on watching 3 minute Youtube 'news' and read Twitter 'news'. How smart of you :/

And no, you don't trust them. You rather trust home made nonsense for dumb people and pro-Russian propaganda shit .....

I agree with you that independence without separate currency is nonsense... (for a... let's say developing economy, "or a restart of economy") I also never wrote that a "stronger currency is better than a weaker one.." Poland is a great example of that, again its a question of hard calculation and timing. What I wrote on both ocasions is that the pound is a stable currency, and widely used all over the world, and its riches are based in the almost autonomous 'city of london' not England so much, which in this case is good for both, the UK as a whole with London as the magnet, good for the separate nations states within UK.. I also mentioned that leaving the pound, is a very unprobable eventuality at the moment, as the Independence itself is not guaranteed, its 50-50 at best, with the inclination that it actually won't go through.. yet, at least... one thing at the time...
(instead far-fetched speculation...)
(edited)

"but western nations are warloving countries, so I think that there can not be peacefull way." - wrong again... and proof of how upside down Your worldview is.

You missed that link, also... peace in the world.

...also, the Scotland referendum, and the quite peaceful Catalan protests prove... as oppose to Abhazia, Ossetia, DPR, Novorossyia.. or simply (in normal language): Georgia and Ukrainie, attacked by the russian "ghost" armies.
(edited)

georgia and ukraine are only two bad examples. the people in these countries don't give a daim on "western values". up there are envolved only a bunch of local leaders(wouldn't dare to call them traitors) who had that choice for their own benefit. allaboutismoney... yaaaa !!!! :)

"people in these countries don't give a daim on "western values" :-o ... wrong, so wrong its almost unbelievable.

...they do... that is what this whole mess is about... :-]

Euromaidan was one of the biggest protests in the recent history, with numbers into the hundred thousands...!! that were average citizens (including the opposition parties, and many radicals) upset with Yanukovic's turn towards pro-russian politics, while taking away freedom's, for example the freedom to protest...



-Orange_Revolution (2004-2005)
-Timeline of the Euromaidan
-2014_Ukrainian_revolution

...the "local leaders" with "special selfish interests" (in resources), you mention... are russians in the easter regions, with Moscow's interests in mind, they don't even deny that... and beg for Moscow's help on any ocasion. Even people in the Donieck and Lugansk region were not interested in a anti-revolution to the one in Kiev... it was literally few hundered men with russian guns, untill russia realized their potential (not losses) but lack of gains.. so they joined in... the conflict, making it a international conflict since 1 of March, this year... when the "ghost army" from feburary... proved themselves to be unwanted and forced russian army - russian invaders, breaching borders... and with territorial theft by force from a sovereign nation. :-] ...it is basic...
(edited)

Just to complete your infos, a reminder...


(edited)

But you probably know nothing of Polish history and the partitions, or the extent of russian aggression and violence. That's simple ignorance... I don't blame you for it.

I do know a bit about it, hardly as mush as a Pole himself. Stil, after all that, it was still possible to "just stay together", which you were claiming to be generally better. My point is: no country existed forever, they come and go, are created and disbanded, and several groups over mankind's history have decided they should form an independent country. Just like Poland, or anyone.
Now, it would be too easy to simply reply that "you probably know nothing of Scottish history. That's simple ignorance, but I don't blame you", but that'd be a really poor argument...

...of what? a stupid misleading title...? ...since 1991... to economic growth... so yes "admits subverting Ukrainie" sure..., free trade allows that, so did the successive governments of Ukraine, even to pro-russian ones... more poor propaganda nonsense...
(edited)

Specific case
I simply made a specific point to this situation... and my opinion of the possible outcome of the referendum which I do not negate in any way, go for it Scotland! (I just think it would be a emotional/moral decision, as oppose to a hard calculation for the benefit of Scotland's economy (but maybe with the interconennect free trade and relative peace in can work I don't know...), its my opinion, you can have a opposite one and I respect it,)

No force or violence
...yet, you made a very poor comparison of two completely different situations. Firstly there is no war, ethnic cleansing or violence between Scotland or England - force is not being used there which is the most important thing in these situations, and the only way the referendum can happen in the first place. (unlike the crimean, nonsense)

My comment on the unity vs separation is only relevant to more rational and peaceful situations, maybe I should have made that more clear... My bad. When there is no clear cut conflict which can turn ugly any second, separation "for the sake of it"... (like it seems with the Scotish referendum) is in my opinion: not such a great idea after all, as it can lead to more conflict between two separate entities, as oppose to a internal conflict, which is usually easier to resolve, and often much less violent. (see Ukraine for example, before russia joined in...)

Nationalism
"several groups over mankind's history have decided they should form an independent country. Just like Poland, or anyone."

Yes, but not exactly... and definatly not "anyone", nationalism is quite a modern concept anyway... but... We can differentiate... starting with a definition of a nation.
A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory

"Special interests", resources, territory stealing by force and nonsense...
There are nationalistic claims which are not always justified, hove no grounds for it... as oppose to the Scotish o Polish situations, we have to differentiate... this is not the case in these two situations.
It is for example in east Ukraine... where russian citizens (or migrants from the stalinst's era, blinded by sovier propaganda = fact of history), speaking russian, using russian weapons from russian are trying to make up "new states" for themselvess, to join russia, by force from the start... disregarding life, soverign borders, and the international community. (with the exception of themselves: russia)

Unfortunately this strategy still works.. and we have a few examples of nations based on no real grounds, that are making up their "past history".
(edited)

Independence is not for nations, but countries. "Country" didn't a.ways exist as a (modern) concept, but that only emphasizes that all modern countries are more or less conscious decision, independent of history. My claim was about independence, hence applied to countries.

"Nation", on the other hand, is a much more diffuse, manipulated concept that many people re-define to their convenience. But at any rate "Nation=country" doesn't apply: countries are political units, regardless of whether you can see several countries as sharing "a nation", or one country containing "multiple nations", or even so-called "state-less nations". As opposed to countries and independence, I don't give a penny for nations.
And nationalism (which yes, it is a modern concept) is a mental disease. I'd say nationalism is like a brain tumor, but then again brain tumors are only harmful for the one who suffers it, not others.

Your last comment about Scotland/Poland vs Ukraine it's just a pure example of arbitrariness: why someone is an inhabitant while someone else is a "migrant from Stalinist era" is purely arbitrary. Who in Europe isn't "a migrant from the Huns era" then?
That's the problem with using "history" as an argument: it always relied on arbitrary line-drawing.

...yet, you made a very poor comparison of two completely different situations. Firstly there is no war, ethnic cleansing or violence between Scotland or England

Where have I made such a statement????
You are the one talking about violence, ethnics, whatever. I never mention any of it as a reason for independence. I only talked about wills and political organization. I said Poles wanted to have a state and they organized one. I said Scotland was the same. I never said "history" or violence gave Poland a particular right making their will better than others' will, I never argued any of it made their intentions "more justified". Hence, I don't need to argue in any sense that Scottish intentions are "equally well justified", much less need I argue it is for the same reasons.

So no, I haven't said that nor I will. You're the only one talking along those lines here.

not such a great idea after all, as it can lead to more conflict between two separate entities, as oppose to a internal conflict, which is usually easier to resolve, and often much less violent. (see Ukraine for example, before russia joined in...)

Are you saying it would have been easier to resolve if both Ukraine and Russia were still part of a unique Soviet Union?

Yes and No, :-) language evolves... Nation states is what we are talking about, I am not writing state every time... nationalism is the essence of independece, and countires, anyway...
nation-state Not revevant, really...

Holodomor
Again missing the point... yes, everything is relative.. I know.. :-] but we know some historical facts, and it's a fact that Stalin was murdering Ukrainians in Ukraine, and that Russians were settling in eastern Ukrainie which was the Crimean Khanate for most of history, just like it is a fact that after WW II Polish were resettled in (east) Prussia/Germany.
(edited)

My point was, that this was the case in Poland. "war, ethnic cleansing or violence" Thats why I found the comparison unjust, to the current Scotish possible independence.
For the fifth time, I am not negating the will/or right for the referendum or independence (which I write in every post), I state my opinion on a possible outcome, that is all.

And... in a sense, it probably would.. with Stalin's ways... also most probably there wouldn't be such a case like that at all, as the Ukrainians would have been already murdered by Stalin, to a extent that their culture/language would nearly disappear... or be "unified" with the russian (also Soviet) history, which is a bit what happened to/with Belarus...
(edited)

I think I'll leave it, because you keep missing my point. You omit "state" from "nation-state", but you mean "nation state", OK. I don't. I say state (or country, OK :P) and I mean state, I'm not omitting anything. F*** nations. Maybe like this? :P

About history: again, no, no centuries-old Khanate has any relevance, much less any prevalence over, let's say, the Czech-Slovak referendum. We are not hostages to whatever King Fapencio was doing with Prince Derp in Scumbagburg in the XV century. We are alive now, they aren't, and we get to decide how to live our lives. Your "historical facts" can be as accurate as you like: I don't say they are false, I say they're irrelevant. They don't make anyone's claim more reasonable nor less reasonable. Because, whatever happen, we are not discussing the past, we are discussing what we want for the present and the future. "Stalin murdered people" is not a reason for independence, nor a reason for union, for neither would undo the murder. How you want to live now is all that matters, and everyone has equal (not history-dependent) right to choose that.
(edited)

This is a very idealistic statement you made, I would love to agree with you... but I can't, what you write has no basis in reality... which unfortunately is material (territory, resources) and based on historical events.
Your "historical facts" can be as accurate as you like: I don't say they are false, I say they're irrelevant. They don't make anyone's claim more reasonable nor less reasonable.
I totally disagree with that, they are extremely relevant... is about as accurate as saying that: we would all be equally happy in europe speaking german, and living under Hitler's rule - if he won the war, (and I am not saying this statement is false :-]), only that history fortunately (form Polish perspective) or unfortunately (from a Nazi one) goes one way or the other, and that creates our reality "today", and despite many efforts of propaganda (which boomed in the 30's), and/or hiding the truth, "the truth will prevail" :-) come out in the end... and that has a huge impact on societies, I agree with you that every one has their right to choose... unless, someone uses force for their own benefit, at the expense of others... (just like with freedom, the essence of freedom) and like what is happening in east ukraine, now... were few russian rebels are trying to steal territory of Ukraine, and a resourceful territory... which the Ukrainian economy (and people) is/are dependent on, to unjustly add it to russia, just like they did with Crimea. Referendum (right to choose) yes, but a real one... not a staged one, with "ghost" soldiers at the doors of the, while many people fled.. due to the real threat.
(edited)