The fundamental flaw of the Scotch independence referendum

[RH]

The fundamental flaw in the the proposed Scottish independence
referendum is the failure to establish the terms of Independence
before the referendum is held. This is vital because all parts of the
UK are potentially seriously affected, especially if Cameron is mad
enough to agree to an independent Scotland using the pound with the
Bank of England as lender of the last resort.

The terms of the Independence should be agreed between Westminster and
Holyrood and put to a referendum of all parts of the UK apart from
Scotland before the Scottish referendum is held. If it is rejected the
Scottish referendum should be delayed until further negotiations on
terms have been agreed and put to a further referendum. If that
fails,m the question of Scottish incidence should be shelved for ten
years to give time for reflection.

For the full detail of the disaster for Scotchland see

http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/the-complete-wages-of-scottish-independence/

[MCP]

On 16/10/2012 16:23, Malcolm wrote:
>
> In article
> <7c10c70f-d374-46b5...@y1g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, RH
> <anywh...@gmail.com> writes

> Oh look, Robert's first sentence mentions "Scottish" independence not
> "Scotch". It looks as if we have at least educated him as to the correct
> usage of the two words.
>
> However, he then rabbits on about some country called "Scotchland" which
> is as imaginery as his "doctor" and "nurse". One wonders if they
> approved of him writing, yet again, about a subject on which he is so
> clearly ignorant.
>
>
I really think Rabbie is very involved in drinking "the water of life"
that he calls "scotch" going by his ramblings on this newsgroup.

MCP

[kelly]

> http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/the-complete-wages-of-...

Your changing your tune a chunk. You lot have nothing to say about
"conditions". There will soon be no more "Great Britain". It's down
the pan already so suck it up.

[DVH]

In your dreams.

1. This would be the first time a fully modern state becomes independent
in history. The massive complexity of secession outweighs all the
grievances you think you might have.

2. The polls indicate that Scots are going to vote no to independence.

[DVH]

On 17/10/2012 09:07, Malcolm wrote:
>
> In article <yYsfs.430832$pO4....@fx17.am4>, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> writes

>> On 17/10/2012 08:08, kelly wrote:
>>> On Oct 16, 5:15 pm, RH <anywhere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The fundamental flaw in the the proposed Scottish independence
>>>> referendum is the failure to establish the terms of Independence
>>>> before the referendum is held. This is vital because all parts of the
>>>> UK are potentially seriously affected, especially if Cameron is mad
>>>> enough to agree to an independent Scotland using the pound with the
>>>> Bank of England as lender of the last resort.
>>>>
>>>> The terms of the Independence should be agreed between Westminster and
>>>> Holyrood and put to a referendum of all parts of the UK apart from
>>>> Scotland before the Scottish referendum is held. If it is rejected the
>>>> Scottish referendum should be delayed until further negotiations on
>>>> terms have been agreed and put to a further referendum. If that
>>>> fails,m the question of Scottish incidence should be shelved for ten
>>>> years to give time for reflection.
>>>>
>>>> For the full detail of the disaster for Scotchland see
>>>>
>>>> http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/the-complete-wages-of-...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your changing your tune a chunk. You lot have nothing to say about
>>> "conditions". There will soon be no more "Great Britain". It's down
>>> the pan already so suck it up.
>>>
>>
>> In your dreams.
>>
>> 1. This would be the first time a fully modern state becomes
>> independent in history.
>

> What utter balderdash. How ignorant can you be?
>
> The dissolution of the USSR created 15 independent countries. The one
> country of Yugoslavia is now 7 independent countries. The Czech Republic
> and Slovakia were created in 1993.
>

They weren't fully modern states, dipshit.

[RH]

On Oct 17, 9:40 am, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
> On 17/10/2012 09:07, Malcolm wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > In article <yYsfs.430832$pO4.3...@fx17.am4>, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> writes

Neither is Scotchland, it being an English dependency ... RH

[DVH]

On 17/10/2012 09:51, Malcolm wrote:
>
> In article <oaufs.277943$hg4.1...@fx04.am4>, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com>

> Your definition of "fully modern state" is obviously flawed, that is if
> you even know what you mean by that phrase.
>

Of course they weren't fully modern. They'd just started recovering from
communism. They didn't have markets as we'd recognise them today, civil
society had been castrated, their governments ran most of the economy
and some of them couldn't stop having wars.

Having the state own everything isn't modern, you know.

[DVH]

On 17/10/2012 10:15, soupdragon wrote:
> DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote in news:yYsfs.430832$pO4....@fx17.am4:

>
>> On 17/10/2012 08:08, kelly wrote:
>>> On Oct 16, 5:15 pm, RH <anywhere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The fundamental flaw in the the proposed Scottish independence
>>>> referendum is the failure to establish the terms of Independence
>>>> before the referendum is held. This is vital because all parts of
>>>> the UK are potentially seriously affected, especially if Cameron is
>>>> mad enough to agree to an independent Scotland using the pound with
>>>> the Bank of England as lender of the last resort.
>>>>
>>>> The terms of the Independence should be agreed between Westminster
>>>> and Holyrood and put to a referendum of all parts of the UK apart
>>>> from Scotland before the Scottish referendum is held. If it is
>>>> rejected the Scottish referendum should be delayed until further
>>>> negotiations on terms have been agreed and put to a further
>>>> referendum. If that fails,m the question of Scottish incidence
>>>> should be shelved for ten years to give time for reflection.
>>>>
>>>> For the full detail of the disaster for Scotchland see
>>>>
>>>> http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/the-complete-wages-of-
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> Your changing your tune a chunk. You lot have nothing to say about
>>> "conditions". There will soon be no more "Great Britain". It's down
>>> the pan already so suck it up.
>>>
>>
>> In your dreams.
>>
>> 1. This would be the first time a fully modern state becomes
>> independent in history.
>

> Nope. Czech Republic and Slovakia from Czechoslovakia;

Not fully modern.

umpteen
> Baltic states and most of eastern Europe. Slovenia, Croatia
> Bosnia, etc. All these states set the precedent, some through war,
> some through political change and collapsing regimes and some reasonably
> amicably.

It was relatively simple for them to split, because they weren't as
complex as fully modern states.

>
>> The massive complexity of secession outweighs
>> all the grievances you think you might have.
>

> It's nothing to do with grievances, everything to do with benefits.

Well you would say that, wouldn't you.

> The
> question is whether the costs outweigh those benefits. The biggest
> cost will, undoubtedly, be the loss of economy of scale.

>
>> 2. The polls indicate that Scots are going to vote no to independence.
>

> Probably true.
>

[DVH]

On 17/10/2012 19:37, soupdragon wrote:
> DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote in news:URBfs.356071$Hb3.2...@fx21.am4:

>
>> On 17/10/2012 10:15, soupdragon wrote:
>>> DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote in news:yYsfs.430832$pO4....@fx17.am4:
>>>
>>>> On 17/10/2012 08:08, kelly wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 16, 5:15 pm, RH <anywhere...@gmail.com> wrote:

> [..]

>
>>>>>> http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/the-complete-wages-of-
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Your changing your tune a chunk. You lot have nothing to say about
>>>>> "conditions". There will soon be no more "Great Britain". It's down
>>>>> the pan already so suck it up.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In your dreams.
>>>>
>>>> 1. This would be the first time a fully modern state becomes
>>>> independent in history.
>>>
>>> Nope. Czech Republic and Slovakia from Czechoslovakia;
>>
>> Not fully modern.
>

> Define 'fully modern'

See my reply to Malcolm for an opener.

> - not that it's anything other than an
> irrelevant 'get-out' qualification for your initial statement.

So you ask me to define it, then go all passive-aggressive and say
you're not interested.

>
>> umpteen
>>> Baltic states and most of eastern Europe. Slovenia, Croatia
>>> Bosnia, etc. All these states set the precedent, some through war,
>>> some through political change and collapsing regimes and some reasonably
>>> amicably.
>>
>> It was relatively simple for them to split, because they weren't as
>> complex as fully modern states.
>

> Why not?

As stated: broken markets, state ownership of production, broken civil
society. I should add poverty, corruption and faulty rule of law.

It all adds up to not fully modern. The alienation was modern in the
northern states, though.

You know how they divided the Slovak/Czech money? They got any bugger in
to the banks on the day before the split, gave them a roll of labels and
told them to stick a bunch on a wad of banknotes. The rest of the split
was equallly casual.

> These states had other, equally complex, issues to address as
> was clear with the 10 years it took Yugoslavia to fall apart and, even now,
> it's still not settled with Kosovo and Macedonia questions still to be
> addressed a further 10 years on.

>
>>>
>>>> The massive complexity of secession outweighs
>>>> all the grievances you think you might have.
>>>
>>> It's nothing to do with grievances, everything to do with benefits.
>>
>> Well you would say that, wouldn't you.
>

> Why would I say otherwise when that is the simple truth of the matter,

Well you would say that, wouldn't you.

> however unionist desperately try to paint it as a 'chip-on-the-shoulder'
> exercise? That's the bottom line as far as most Scots are concerned -
> what will they get out of independance and what will it cost them.
>

I notice the reality of giving a lot of free stuff away is beginning to
bite.

[conway caine]

"RH" wrote in message
news:7c10c70f-d374-46b5...@y1g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

The fundamental flaw in the the proposed Scottish independence
referendum is the failure to establish the terms of Independence
before the referendum is held.

<Snip>

So, HRH, have you your paper work in order for your Scottish citizenship
application?????

[DVH]

On 17/10/2012 20:59, soupdragon wrote:
> DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote in news:T4Dfs.269228$It6.2...@fx11.am4:

>
>> On 17/10/2012 19:37, soupdragon wrote:
>>> DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote in
>>> news:URBfs.356071$Hb3.2...@fx21.am4:
>>>
>>>> On 17/10/2012 10:15, soupdragon wrote:
>>>>> DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:yYsfs.430832$pO4....@fx17.am4:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17/10/2012 08:08, kelly wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 16, 5:15 pm, RH <anywhere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> [..]
>>>
>>>>>>>> http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/the-complete-wages
>>>>>>>> -of- ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your changing your tune a chunk. You lot have nothing to say
>>>>>>> about "conditions". There will soon be no more "Great Britain".
>>>>>>> It's down the pan already so suck it up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In your dreams.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. This would be the first time a fully modern state becomes
>>>>>> independent in history.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. Czech Republic and Slovakia from Czechoslovakia;
>>>>
>>>> Not fully modern.
>>>
>>> Define 'fully modern'
>>
>> See my reply to Malcolm for an opener.
>

> Ok.

>
>>> - not that it's anything other than an
>>> irrelevant 'get-out' qualification for your initial statement.
>>
>> So you ask me to define it, then go all passive-aggressive and say
>> you're not interested.
>

> Did I? And there was me thinking I was suggesting you were hedging
> your bets with the statement by including a qualifier as there
> were plenty other equally valid complexities.

I can't stop you being wrong!

>
>>>> umpteen
>>>>> Baltic states and most of eastern Europe. Slovenia, Croatia
>>>>> Bosnia, etc. All these states set the precedent, some through war,
>>>>> some through political change and collapsing regimes and some
>>>>> reasonably amicably.
>>>>
>>>> It was relatively simple for them to split, because they weren't as
>>>> complex as fully modern states.
>>>
>>> Why not?
>>
>> As stated: broken markets, state ownership of production, broken civil
>> society. I should add poverty, corruption and faulty rule of law.
>>
>> It all adds up to not fully modern. The alienation was modern in the
>> northern states, though.
>> You know how they divided the Slovak/Czech money? They got any bugger
>> in to the banks on the day before the split, gave them a roll of
>> labels and told them to stick a bunch on a wad of banknotes. The rest
>> of the split was equallly casual.
>

> So what? Your contention is that it would be far too complex to
> disentangle because of issues like markets and economy. As I point out
> below, they had equally complex issues to deal with,

You don't "point out" in any meaningful sense. You assert.

They didn't. They turned them into highly complex issues by being
politically and literally immature, but the issue of breaking up was
much simpler than Scotland floating off.

To take Czechoslovakia, because it was the most sophisticated state of
the examples you give... it was done relatively painlessly by being
casual. It was hard to complexify by, for example, going to court and
complaining beforehand because such and such rolling stock ought to
belong to Slovak railways, or whatever. They just got on and did it.

In the UK v Scotland life doesn't work like that. Society is much more
complex. Every concern needs *far* more attention. The rule of law
approximately applies.

> so there is
> no reason it should be any more complex for Scotland to leave
> the UK than, say, the UK to leave the EU as a lot of people seem
> to want to do. I don't hear anyone saying "Oh! It would be far too
> complex to disentangle from the EU. Let's just stay in." amongst
> the Daily Mail readers.

>
>>> These states had other, equally complex, issues to address as
>>> was clear with the 10 years it took Yugoslavia to fall apart and,
>>> even now, it's still not settled with Kosovo and Macedonia questions
>>> still to be addressed a further 10 years on.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The massive complexity of secession outweighs
>>>>>> all the grievances you think you might have.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's nothing to do with grievances, everything to do with benefits.
>>>>
>>>> Well you would say that, wouldn't you.
>>>
>>> Why would I say otherwise when that is the simple truth of the
>>> matter,
>>
>> Well you would say that, wouldn't you.
>

> I'm just stating the obvious.

Well you would say that, wouldn't you.

>
>>> however unionist desperately try to paint it as a
>>> 'chip-on-the-shoulder' exercise? That's the bottom line as far as
>>> most Scots are concerned - what will they get out of independance and
>>> what will it cost them.
>>>
>>
>> I notice the reality of giving a lot of free stuff away is beginning
>> to bite.
>

> By which you mean what..?
>

[DVH]

On 17/10/2012 21:28, Malcolm wrote:
>
> In article <_PBfs.356070$Hb3.2...@fx21.am4>, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com>

> As I said, your definition of "fully modern state" is flawed. You're
> making it up as you go along in order to try (and fail) to maintain your
> ridiculous claim that "This would be the first time a fully modern state
> becomes independent in history."
>
> Right, let's test your knowledge a little further,

Yes! Let's you tell me what you've learned from books, and me tell you
what I've learned from living in one of the countries mentioned at the
moment of its dissolution and watching negotiations on how some of it
should happen.

> or rather encourage
> you to wriggle some more.

On the contrary, I've given a very good outline of ways in which states
can fail to be modern.

In response I see *nothing* of depth from you: I see no attempt to
address my substantive points, and no attempt to present a positive and
contradictory argument.

As a general rule, that's the mark of somebody who's on the run. But I'm
being patient with you, in the hope that you'll become less shallow.

Becoming less shallow might, for example, involve revealing your own
definition of "fully modern state". I mean you must have one, right?
You're not blustering, are you?

> Please explain in what way Iceland, when it
> became independent in 1944, was not then a "fully modern state"?
>
> Or
> Norway in 1905? Or Canada in 1867?
>

[DVH]

On 17/10/2012 23:39, soupdragon wrote:
> DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote in news:RoEfs.365461$Kc7.3...@fx20.am4:

> Perhaps that's because I'm not, and you know it?

>
>>>>>> umpteen
>>>>>>> Baltic states and most of eastern Europe. Slovenia, Croatia
>>>>>>> Bosnia, etc. All these states set the precedent, some through war,
>>>>>>> some through political change and collapsing regimes and some
>>>>>>> reasonably amicably.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was relatively simple for them to split, because they weren't as
>>>>>> complex as fully modern states.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not?
>>>>
>>>> As stated: broken markets, state ownership of production, broken
> civil
>>>> society. I should add poverty, corruption and faulty rule of law.
>>>>
>>>> It all adds up to not fully modern. The alienation was modern in the
>>>> northern states, though.
>>>> You know how they divided the Slovak/Czech money? They got any bugger
>>>> in to the banks on the day before the split, gave them a roll of
>>>> labels and told them to stick a bunch on a wad of banknotes. The rest
>>>> of the split was equallly casual.
>>>
>>> So what? Your contention is that it would be far too complex to
>>> disentangle because of issues like markets and economy. As I point out
>>> below, they had equally complex issues to deal with,
>>
>> You don't "point out" in any meaningful sense. You assert.
>

> Isn't that what you've been doing from the off?

No, I've made a point and backed it up with substance generally (by
describing what I mean by not fully modern) and with the odd practical
detail.

> Pot, kettle, etc..

>
>
>> They didn't. They turned them into highly complex issues by being
>> politically and literally immature, but the issue of breaking up was
>> much simpler than Scotland floating off.
>

> .. you assert..
>
>> To take Czechoslovakia,
>
> No, lets take Yugoslavia,

OK, fire away...

> as I've allowed you to run with Czechoslovakia
> for a while now. There were plenty other examples listed..

>
>> because it was the most sophisticated state of
>> the examples you give... it was done relatively painlessly by being
>> casual. It was hard to complexify by, for example, going to court and
>> complaining beforehand because such and such rolling stock ought to
>> belong to Slovak railways, or whatever. They just got on and did it.
>

> So no reason why they couldn't do the same here.

>
>> In the UK v Scotland life doesn't work like that. Society is much more
>> complex. Every concern needs *far* more attention. The rule of law
>> approximately applies.
>

> ..you assert..again.

Indeed. I'm aware of how the world works.

>
>>> so there is
>>> no reason it should be any more complex for Scotland to leave
>>> the UK than, say, the UK to leave the EU as a lot of people seem
>>> to want to do. I don't hear anyone saying "Oh! It would be far too
>>> complex to disentangle from the EU. Let's just stay in." amongst
>>> the Daily Mail readers.
>

> No comment?

On the face of it, dissolution of a country seems different to leaving
the EU. The analogy doesn't seem useful to me, but I'm open to persuasion.

>
>>>>> These states had other, equally complex, issues to address as
>>>>> was clear with the 10 years it took Yugoslavia to fall apart and,
>>>>> even now, it's still not settled with Kosovo and Macedonia questions
>>>>> still to be addressed a further 10 years on.
>

> ,,and you seem to have been studiously avoiding this one too..

Political and literal immaturity. Scotland/UK are far more sophisticated
and adult.

>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The massive complexity of secession outweighs
>>>>>>>> all the grievances you think you might have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's nothing to do with grievances, everything to do with
> benefits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well you would say that, wouldn't you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would I say otherwise when that is the simple truth of the
>>>>> matter,
>>>>
>>>> Well you would say that, wouldn't you.
>>>
>>> I'm just stating the obvious.
>>
>> Well you would say that, wouldn't you.
>

> I seem to have reduced you to parroting Henderson-style. Pity,
> I thought you might have something useful to add to the debate.
> Oh well..

>
>>>
>>>>> however unionist desperately try to paint it as a
>>>>> 'chip-on-the-shoulder' exercise? That's the bottom line as far as
>>>>> most Scots are concerned - what will they get out of independance
> and
>>>>> what will it cost them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I notice the reality of giving a lot of free stuff away is beginning
>>>> to bite.
>>>
>>> By which you mean what..?
>

> No answer?
>

Your politicians are starting to point out that it's been fun, but can't
last forever.

[DVH]

On 18/10/2012 08:20, Malcolm wrote:
>
> In article <n6Nfs.52035$Rn6....@fx07.am4>, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> writes

> So what? Except that that experience has probably contributed to your
> flawed definition.

>
>>> or rather encourage
>>> you to wriggle some more.
>>
>> On the contrary, I've given a very good outline of ways in which
>> states can fail to be modern.
>>

> You have given your own opinions, not valid arguments.

>
>> In response I see *nothing* of depth from you: I see no attempt to
>> address my substantive points, and no attempt to present a positive
>> and contradictory argument.
>>

> You have yet to make a "substantive point". You have made an assertion
> but without being able to back it up with testable criteria.

Now you're flapping around like a beached fish.

It's a sad sight to see you making assertions then running away when
you're asked to back them up.

But we can still make progress! You could explain in what way my
definition of a fully modern state is flawed, as you've claimed above.

>
>> As a general rule, that's the mark of somebody who's on the run. But
>> I'm being patient with you, in the hope that you'll become less shallow.
>>

> A meaningless comment, something in which you excel.

>
>> Becoming less shallow might, for example, involve revealing your own
>> definition of "fully modern state". I mean you must have one, right?
>> You're not blustering, are you?
>>

> I don't need to define it. You do.

I have done.

What is your definition?

Please don't bluster - you're transparent and not very good at it.

>
>>> Please explain in what way Iceland, when it
>>> became independent in 1944, was not then a "fully modern state"?
>>>
>>> Or
>>> Norway in 1905? Or Canada in 1867?
>>>
>>

> I note you are unable to answer my questions about these countries,

They're not questions, they're demonstrations of your ignorance. Nobody
serious would claim the rural societies of Norway and Canada were modern
states.

As for Iceland, it wasn't even a state in 1944. It had a population less
than Newcastle. You can't seriously be suggesting independence was
somehow complex...

> thus
> demonstrating that you did not think before you made your claim.
>

[DVH]

On 18/10/2012 10:38, Malcolm wrote:
>
> In article <vGOfs.93751$jY.4...@fx25.am4>, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> writes

> I and others here love the way you indulge in projection.

How do you know what others love?

I suspect this is another of your lies.

>
>> But we can still make progress! You could explain in what way my
>> definition of a fully modern state is flawed, as you've claimed above.
>>

> I've already told you. You have added various criteria in order to
> reject my suggestion that there have been over 20 countries becoming
> independent as a result of the break-up of the USSR and Yugoslavia. They
> are flawed.

>
>>>
>>>> As a general rule, that's the mark of somebody who's on the run. But
>>>> I'm being patient with you, in the hope that you'll become less
>>>> shallow.
>>>>
>>> A meaningless comment, something in which you excel.
>>>
>>>> Becoming less shallow might, for example, involve revealing your own
>>>> definition of "fully modern state". I mean you must have one, right?
>>>> You're not blustering, are you?
>>>>
>>> I don't need to define it. You do.
>>
>> I have done.
>>
>> What is your definition?
>>
>> Please don't bluster - you're transparent and not very good at it.
>>

> I've already told you yours is flawed which would inform a normally
> intelligent person.

I told you not to bluster.

Now answer the question.

What's your definition of fully modern state?

>
>>>
>>>>> Please explain in what way Iceland, when it
>>>>> became independent in 1944, was not then a "fully modern state"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or
>>>>> Norway in 1905? Or Canada in 1867?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> I note you are unable to answer my questions about these countries,
>>
>> They're not questions, they're demonstrations of your ignorance.
>> Nobody serious would claim the rural societies of Norway and Canada
>> were modern states.
>>

> Of course they were.

Evidence?

> This is yet another example of the flaws in your
> claim.

>
>> As for Iceland, it wasn't even a state in 1944. It had a population
>> less than Newcastle.
>

> So what? You appear to have just invented a new criterion for "modern
> state",

No, I've suggested a new criterion for state.

> by introducing population size so that, if above it, the state
> is modern ,and if below it isn't? How about Monaco which has about a
> tenth the population of Iceland?

A princedom ruled by one man and France. Definitely not fully modern.

> Or Lichtenstein?

A princedom with a population of ~33,000. Not fully modern.

> By your new criterion
> they aren't "modern" states.

>
>> You can't seriously be suggesting independence was somehow complex...
>

> Oh look, now you've introduced the word "complex".

You poor old dimbulb. I introduced "complexity" in my first post to this
thread.

Is it getting too complex for you to keep up?

> Why? Is this yet
> another new criterion introduced in order to try and help you climb out
> of the hole you've dug for yourself?
>

[DVH]

On 19/10/2012 10:39, Malcolm wrote:
>
> In article <%HVfs.59208$Rn6....@fx07.am4>, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> writes

> I read their responses to your posts. Don't you?

So you claim to be a mind reader, too.

Will there be an end to your delusions in my lifetime?

>
>> I suspect this is another of your lies.
>>

> You can "suspect" what you like. No-one cares.

>
>>>
>>>> But we can still make progress! You could explain in what way my
>>>> definition of a fully modern state is flawed, as you've claimed above.
>>>>
>>> I've already told you. You have added various criteria in order to
>>> reject my suggestion that there have been over 20 countries becoming
>>> independent as a result of the break-up of the USSR and Yugoslavia. They
>>> are flawed.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> As a general rule, that's the mark of somebody who's on the run. But
>>>>>> I'm being patient with you, in the hope that you'll become less
>>>>>> shallow.
>>>>>>
>>>>> A meaningless comment, something in which you excel.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Becoming less shallow might, for example, involve revealing your own
>>>>>> definition of "fully modern state". I mean you must have one, right?
>>>>>> You're not blustering, are you?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't need to define it. You do.
>>>>
>>>> I have done.
>>>>
>>>> What is your definition?
>>>>
>>>> Please don't bluster - you're transparent and not very good at it.
>>>>
>>> I've already told you yours is flawed which would inform a normally
>>> intelligent person.
>>
>> I told you not to bluster.
>>

> So what? It's only your opinion that I am doing any such thing and your
> opinion, as has been demonstrated here so many times, is not something
> worth taking any notice of.

Why are you taking notice of it, you poor lamb?

>
>> Now answer the question.
>>
> Telling me again, are you?

Continued evasion noted. You can back pedal as hard as you like, but you
have been spotted.

> Perhaps you should try something else.

Does baby want me to stop asking questions it can't answer?

Will baby stamp and weep if it doesn't get its way?

>
>> What's your definition of fully modern state?
>>

> I've already told you yours is flawed which would inform a normally
> intelligent person.

Your logic is terribly flawed, but that's not your fault.

> Clearly you haven't been informed. You can work out
> for yourself why that is.

Because you're expressing a lot of nonsense just to pass the time?

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please explain in what way Iceland, when it
>>>>>>> became independent in 1944, was not then a "fully modern state"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or
>>>>>>> Norway in 1905? Or Canada in 1867?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I note you are unable to answer my questions about these countries,
>>>>
>>>> They're not questions, they're demonstrations of your ignorance.
>>>> Nobody serious would claim the rural societies of Norway and Canada
>>>> were modern states.
>>>>
>>> Of course they were.
>>
>> Evidence?
>>

> Yes, lots, including familiarity with both countries and their history.
> That also applies to Iceland.

That's not evidence. It's just another dubious and unquantified claim on
your part.

i.e. I'm familiar with Iceland, because I've seen it on a map.
Sigisdottir is also familiar with Iceland, because he's lived there all
his seventy years.

Where are you on this scale?

>
>>> This is yet another example of the flaws in your
>>> claim.
>>>
>>>> As for Iceland, it wasn't even a state in 1944. It had a population
>>>> less than Newcastle.
>>>
>>> So what? You appear to have just invented a new criterion for "modern
>>> state",
>>
>> No, I've suggested a new criterion for state.
>>

> No, you've merely realised that your initial claim was flawed and are
> now wriggling.

No, I'm suggesting your silly cases weren't even worth bothering with.

>
>>> by introducing population size so that, if above it, the state
>>> is modern ,and if below it isn't? How about Monaco which has about a
>>> tenth the population of Iceland?
>>
>> A princedom ruled by one man and France. Definitely not fully modern.
>>

> Your opinion, only.

No, those are facts.

Aren't you familiar with Monaco? Haven't you seen it on a map?

> See above.

>
>>> Or Lichtenstein?
>>
>> A princedom with a population of ~33,000. Not fully modern.
>>

> Your opinion, only. See above.

So you haven't seen Liechtenstein on a map either?

>
>>> By your new criterion
>>> they aren't "modern" states.
>>>
>>>> You can't seriously be suggesting independence was somehow complex...
>>>
>>> Oh look, now you've introduced the word "complex".
>>
>> You poor old dimbulb. I introduced "complexity" in my first post to
>> this thread.
>>

> So you did, though "complexity" rather than "complex", and I snipped it
> in my response because the phrase "the massive complexity of secession"
> was even sillier than your claim that "This would be the first time a
> fully modern state becomes independent in history", and I didn't want to
> embarrass you even more by pointing out you had made not just one but
> two silly claims.

And yet you seem unable to explain your assertion. You stamp your feet
and continue repeating it as if that will persuade somebody.

When you finally have to enter the world of adults, you'll find you get
no credibility for making assertions without substance. Simply repeating
your claims over and over will get you laughed at.

>
>> Is it getting too complex for you to keep up?
>>

> No.

Well you would say that, wouldn't you.

>

>>> Why? Is this yet
>>> another new criterion introduced in order to try and help you climb out
>>> of the hole you've dug for yourself?
>>>
>>

> Another of my questions you can't answer.
>

[DVH]

On 19/10/2012 19:50, Malcolm wrote:
>
> In article <D2fgs.10692$Tf3....@fx12.am4>, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com>
> writes
>
> tedious repeition, childish language and nothing new.

ROTFL.

Well that's one way to avoid having to answer questions. It's not the
most subtle, though!

>
> Let me know when you've something sensible to say.
>
> By the way, a word of advice to an obviously immature little man like
> yourself, if you can't hack it, don't start it.
>

Says the evasive and cowardly little creep who snips posts because he
can't take it any more.

Thanks to the wonders of copy and paste, here it is restored to its full
glory:

[DVH]

On 19/10/2012 21:05, Malcolm wrote:
>
> In article <%xhgs.500$UJ4...@fx22.am4>, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com>
> writes

>> On 19/10/2012 19:50, Malcolm wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <D2fgs.10692$Tf3....@fx12.am4>, DVH
>>> <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> writes
>>>
>>> tedious repeition, childish language and nothing new.
>>
>> ROTFL.
>>
>> Well that's one way to avoid having to answer questions. It's not
>> the most subtle, though!
>>

> Your

Back for more? You're a glutton for punishment...

> puerile little questions are merely being asked because you are
> trying, with increasing desperation to wriggle out of your fatuous
> claim about Scotland's independence that "This would be the first

> time a fully modern state becomes independent in history.

Yes, on reflection I think I was correct.

Thanks for ceasing your whininess, even though you're still attempting
to slime out of the questions you were asked but were too fearful to answer.

So you disagree that this would be the first time a fully modern state
becomes independent in history.

I know you hate having to justify yourself, but on what grounds do you
disagree?

>
> By the way, you have snipped these two comments of mine:

>
> "Let me know when you've something sensible to say.
>
> By the way, a word of advice to an obviously immature little man like
> yourself, if you can't hack it, don't start it."
>

> It seems I shouldn't have addressed you as "little man". Clearly
> from this response of yours, little boy or little schoolboy would
> have been more appropriate.

I see you've snipped it all again, like the snivelling little coward you
are.

But here it all is again, because I like poking cowards:

[DVH]

On 19/10/2012 21:31, Malcolm wrote:
>
> In article <pIigs.6947$x91....@fx05.am4>, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com>
> writes
>
> nothing of any interest, just more schoolboy rubbish.
>
> It must be half-term.
>

See how fast the wretched cowardly Malcolm runs.

See how he snips snips snips like a dishonest schoolboy, as if that's
going to make anything go away.

See how he dodges and ducks and dives when he's asked for substance.

Poor Malcolm. He can't magic away the awkward facts, no matter how
terrifying they seem.

Here they are again, thanks to me:

[Malcolm]

In article <QXigs.7365$pg2....@fx18.am4>, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> writes

>On 19/10/2012 21:31, Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> In article <pIigs.6947$x91....@fx05.am4>, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com>
>> writes
>>
>> nothing of any interest, just more schoolboy rubbish.
>>
>> It must be half-term.
>>
>

And then he repeats his rubbish as if this will somehow persuade people
he is more grown up than he actually is instead of merely confirming my
original opinion of him.

--
Malcolm

[RH]

On Oct 20, 7:12 am, Malcolm <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <QXigs.7365$pg2.2...@fx18.am4>, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> writes>On 19/10/2012 21:31, Malcolm wrote:
>
> >> In article <pIigs.6947$x91.6...@fx05.am4>, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com>

> >> writes
>
> >> nothing of any interest, just more schoolboy rubbish.
>
> >> It must be half-term.
>
> And then he repeats his rubbish as if this will somehow persuade people
> he is more grown up than he actually is instead of merely confirming my
> original opinion of him.
>
> --
> Malcolm

"Patient M1 is getting ever more agitated as he discovered he cannot
keep his end up in a debate, doctor..." RH

[Malcolm]

In article
<994a98a1-fab1-474b...@c20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, RH
<anywh...@gmail.com> writes

>On Oct 20, 7:12 am, Malcolm <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <QXigs.7365$pg2.2...@fx18.am4>, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com>
>>writes>On 19/10/2012 21:31, Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> >> In article <pIigs.6947$x91.6...@fx05.am4>, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com>
>> >> writes
>>
>> >> nothing of any interest, just more schoolboy rubbish.
>>
>> >> It must be half-term.
>>
>> And then he repeats his rubbish as if this will somehow persuade people
>> he is more grown up than he actually is instead of merely confirming my
>> original opinion of him.
>

>"Patient M1 is getting ever more agitated as he discovered he cannot
>keep his end up in a debate, doctor..." RH

Robert comes to the rescue of yet another of his acolytes.

--
Malcolm

[DVH]

So I see you *still* can't provide a definition of "fully modern state",
and you're *still* snipping uncomfortable questions.

You snip snip away, and like magic it grows back. It's like some
sinister German folk tale, isn't it?

You are such a cowardly fellow. But it's character-building to fce your
fears, so here it is grown back again, with all the questions you ran
away from restored:

On 19/10/2012 10:39, Malcolm wrote:
>

> In article <%HVfs.59208$Rn6....@fx07.am4>, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com>
> writes

>> On 18/10/2012 10:38, Malcolm wrote:
>>>

>>> In article <vGOfs.93751$jY.4...@fx25.am4>, DVH
>>> <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> writes

>>>> On 18/10/2012 08:20, Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>> In article <n6Nfs.52035$Rn6....@fx07.am4>, DVH
>>>>> <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> writes

>>>>>> On 17/10/2012 21:28, Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> In article <_PBfs.356070$Hb3.2...@fx21.am4>, DVH
>>>>>>> <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> writes

>>>>>>>> On 17/10/2012 09:51, Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> In article <oaufs.277943$hg4.1...@fx04.am4>, DVH
>>>>>>>>> <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> writes

>>>>>>>>>> On 17/10/2012 09:07, Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> In article <yYsfs.430832$pO4....@fx17.am4>, DVH
>>>>>>>>>>> <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> writes

[DVH]

Snipping questions you don't want to answer = running away.

With all that running you do, you must be very fit. I feel like I'm
doing you a favour, keeping your cholestrol down.

Here it is again. Keep running away, Malcolm!

On 19/10/2012 10:39, Malcolm wrote:
>

> In article <%HVfs.59208$Rn6....@fx07.am4>, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com>
> writes

>> On 18/10/2012 10:38, Malcolm wrote:
>>>

>>> In article <vGOfs.93751$jY.4...@fx25.am4>, DVH
>>> <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> writes

>>>> On 18/10/2012 08:20, Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>> In article <n6Nfs.52035$Rn6....@fx07.am4>, DVH
>>>>> <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> writes

>>>>>> On 17/10/2012 21:28, Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> In article <_PBfs.356070$Hb3.2...@fx21.am4>, DVH
>>>>>>> <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> writes

>>>>>>>> On 17/10/2012 09:51, Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> In article <oaufs.277943$hg4.1...@fx04.am4>, DVH
>>>>>>>>> <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> writes

>>>>>>>>>> On 17/10/2012 09:07, Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> In article <yYsfs.430832$pO4....@fx17.am4>, DVH
>>>>>>>>>>> <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> writes

[DVH]

On 20/10/2012 15:39, Malcolm wrote:
>
> In article <aGxgs.711$UJ4...@fx22.am4>, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com>

> writes
>> On 20/10/2012 09:07, Malcolm wrote:
>>>
>>> In article
>>> <994a98a1-fab1-474b...@c20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>>> RH <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
>>>> On Oct 20, 7:12 am, Malcolm <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> In article <QXigs.7365$pg2.2...@fx18.am4>, DVH
>>>>> <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> writes>On 19/10/2012 21:31, Malcolm
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <pIigs.6947$x91.6...@fx05.am4>, DVH
>>>>>>> <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>>> nothing of any interest, just more schoolboy rubbish.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It must be half-term.
>>>>>
>>>>> And then he repeats his rubbish as if this will somehow
>>>>> persuade people he is more grown up than he actually is
>>>>> instead of merely confirming my original opinion of him.
>>>>
>>>> "Patient M1 is getting ever more agitated as he discovered he
>>>> cannot keep his end up in a debate, doctor..." RH
>>>
>>> Robert comes to the rescue of yet another of his acolytes.
>>>
>>

> Nothing of interest, but then one wouldn't expect it from someone so
> mature.
>
> Does it give you a warm feeling to have your lord and master, Robert,
> attempting to rescue you from the hole you've dug for yourself. Does
> he use his firm hand on you?

[DVH]

On 20/10/2012 15:40, Malcolm wrote:
>
> In article <vExgs.710$UJ4...@fx22.am4>, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com>

> writes
>> On 20/10/2012 07:07, Malcolm wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <QXigs.7365$pg2....@fx18.am4>, DVH
>>> <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> writes
>>>> On 19/10/2012 21:31, Malcolm wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In article <pIigs.6947$x91....@fx05.am4>, DVH
>>>>> <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> writes
>>>>>
>>>>> nothing of any interest, just more schoolboy rubbish.
>>>>>
>>>>> It must be half-term.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> And then he repeats his rubbish as if this will somehow persuade
>>> people he is more grown up than he actually is instead of merely
>>> confirming my original opinion of him.
>>>
>>

> The immature little DVH continues to demonstrate his immaturity.

>

Snipping questions you don't want to answer = running away.

With all that running you do, you must be very fit. I feel like I'm
doing you a favour, keeping your cholestrol down.

Here it is again. Keep running away, Malcolm!

[DVH]

On 20/10/2012 16:09, Malcolm wrote:
>
> In article <r3zgs.24328$Xv....@fx07.am4>, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com>
> writes
>
> nothing of interest, but is ever so keen to demonstrate that he's
> just learnt how to copy and paste, and, , just like a small boy,
> wants to show us over and over again.
>
> What a clever little boy he is. Robert is doubtless proud of his
> acolyte's new skill.

[DVH]

On 20/10/2012 16:10, Malcolm wrote:
>
> In article <A3zgs.24329$Xv.1...@fx07.am4>, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com>
> writes
>

> nothing of interest, but is ever so keen to demonstrate that he's
> just learnt how to copy and paste, and, , just like a small boy,
> wants to show us over and over again.
>
> What a clever little boy he is. Robert is doubtless proud of his
> acolyte's new skill.
>

[DVH]

On 20/10/2012 17:42, Malcolm wrote:
>
> In article <GXzgs.1130$UJ4...@fx22.am4>, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com>
> writes
>
> Robert, the master of copy and paste, has obviously instructed his
> little juvenile acolyte, DVH, how to do it.

[DVH]

On 20/10/2012 17:44, Malcolm wrote:
>
> In article <PXzgs.1132$UJ4...@fx22.am4>, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com>
> writes
>
> nothing of any interest. This little acolyte does indeed slavishly
> follow his master, Robert, in doing this.

[RH]

On Oct 20, 5:49 pm, Malcolm <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <PXzgs.1132$UJ4....@fx22.am4>, DVH <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> writes

>
> nothing of any interest. This little acolyte does indeed slavishly
> follow his master, Robert, in doing this.
>

> --
> Malcolm

"Patient M1 is ever more frantically seeking attention, doctor.." RH