thenumberone : The point is that other people could be more concerned about short term and thus not want to found a country.

So if the UK changed its name it would lose all its debt because it's no longer the UK? Pretty sure it doesn't work like that. Scotland is not the UK's partner in this scenario. It is a part of the UK. Not a separate entity. Thus the UK's name being on it is the same as Scotland's name being on it as Scotland is understood to be a member of the union. So I think Scotland not paying the debt could be considered a default though the UK probably would have payed it regardless.

Yeah, I don't see all that going down. The UK might not have the same weight as the US or Russia to swing around and largely ignore Europeans opinions but I don't see other countries picking a fight with them. What would further escalation mean? Scotland going to the UN and asking for aid like the Ukraine? It's not like they'd be able to do anything there with the US and UK being on the SC.

Could Scotland even keep the pound and join the EU? I've read quotes from diplomats of other EU countries saying no.

That it would take years is a quote from Gianni Pitella(Italian political). Inigo Mendez de Vigo(the Spanish European Affairs Minister)said that the new European
Commission president said it would take five years.

thenumberone : Long term is the game for you and I never said Scotland wouldn't be fine eventually. Just that it might take a while to stabilize itself.

Tools can't be part of a nation's identity? I disagree with that.  I'm not saying you should or shouldn't. I'm saying that you intrinsically tying them together doesn't mean others will see or accept that. My analogy would be more in line with a couple's other debt. You had a joint account and you got divorced. Even then you would still be expected to pay some of the debt off even if you no longer have the same last name. If Scotland refuses to pay it's portion of the debt it could harm Scotland's credit.

You are negotiating from a position of weakness because the UK has all the real power. The only reason there was even a vote is because they allowed it. What's Scotland going to do if the UK takes uneven portions of the oil fields? Complain? They could largely ignore you if you tell them to move their nukes and you wouldn't do anything about it. That's why they're in the position of strength. Most of the power Scotland has to negotiate is dependent on Britain being accommodating.

I'm not saying you're skipping over my points. I was referring to you saying you wouldn't pay the debt but will keep some military assets because you helped make it.

It sounds like something of an overestimation of Scotland's power. I've been looking around and I've seen people saying that Scotland wouldn't just inherit the UK's op-outs, that it would take years for Scotland to join the EU, and that they would have to follow the usual process to join. Thinking otherwise seems like idealism. I wouldn't depend on hypothetical backlash to protect me unless another country outright came out and said they would do so.

thenumberone : And the uncertainty from declaring independence wouldn't harm the economy?

Seems to me like the pound isn't a financial asset so much as part of the UK's sovereign identity. Leaving the UK means leaving the pound. I don't really see why splitting the debt and not the pound is nonsensical. Scotland isn't really negotiating from a position of strength here. You're being allowed to leave.

Evidence of them lying about one thing isn't evidence of them lying about everything.

And you helped create the debt as well yet you're talking about skipping out on that above.

I didn't say any EU country said they would block your access. After all they'd look bad if they just came out and said they'd screw over Scotland to send a warning to their own people. Them not saying it beforehand doesn't mean they won't do it. It's not a lie so much as speculation. It would benefit them politically to make their own citizens realize that they wouldn't just be able to split apart and join the EU with no troubles.

dcpenguin : Why? What if they live in the wilderness like Alaska where knowing how to shoot a gun could be considered a basic survival skill and there's only one police officer per every few 500 or so miles? What if your family feeds itself by hunting? There's no real logical reason why 16 years old should be the cut off age. There are people in this country who use their guns for more than shooting things for fun.

dcpenguin : A law preventing what? Kids can't own guns. Teaching them to use guns safely isn't a bad idea. He should have been holding the gun with her. There's no point in having a gun for emergencies if no one knows how to use it.

I don't have a problem with guns in general or even kids using guns with supervision(I was allowed to fire a bolt action rifle and bow in the boy scouts). I would actually encourage it depending on where you live(like somewhere in Alaska). It sounds like the supervisor got complacent and didn't take safety seriously here.

Hmmmm. From what I heard as an American they probably wouldn't have been able to stabilize themselves all that quickly. They'd take on a portion of the UK's debt since they helped make it. They'd need to spend money to create a military and all the other crap an independent nation needs. The UK wasn't going to let them keep the Pound. They planned to join the EU but countries like France, Spain, and German may screw them over and block them from an accelerated membership to deter any independence movements in their own countries. In that case they'd probably have to mint their own currency which wouldn't do well because they're an experimental nation.

We remember wars that were fought thousands of years ago. I see no logical reason WW2 would be forgotten anytime soon.

thenumberone : How is it unfortunate that democracy allows different opinions? That's ridiculous.

As to the original question perhaps that lady thought that you meant Satanist when you said you were Atheist if sacrificing animals and killing kids came up. The general dislike to atheist tends to come from the condescending ones that would say things like the Bible is full of fairy tales or try to get rid of community events that have something to do with religion just because. Most religious people would find those offensive. Also when Christian people try to convert you they are trying to save you. Their goal is to literally save your soul. You trying to convert Christians to Atheism would then be looked at as the exact opposite. Why do you think they view it as not okay? It would be like you trying to lead them astray or burst their bubble.

I really can't take you seriously. You're the one talking propaganda. Unless you have proof that most of the things reported about WW2 were lies then don't bother saying it. You can't just rewrite history to your liking without evidence to support it. Look at the world today. Nobody can keep anything secret. Do you seriously think that sort of propaganda wouldn't have come out by now?

TetraDigm : I was going to respond to your post to ask what you were talking about but then I got to the end and it seemed like you were pro Hitler. I'm not sure if you really hate Jewish people or are just a huge troll. I'm leaning towards troll because can one seriously talk about forcing people to tolerate others and then get antisemitic so quickly afterwards?

In my mind World Peace doesn't refer to a world without violence as much as a world without violent conflict between nations, cultures, or political factions.

I think world peace is possible. The world is ever shrinking and with understanding people are less likely to go to war. Racism, Sexism, and Homophobia are being rooted out of the culture of a lot of advanced societies. There are also some interesting scenarios that might affect this process.

1. Aliens. If Humans ever meet aliens will we feel an increased need to unite together because we now know for a fact that something far more different than any of us is out there? Nothing brings people together faster than a common enemy. And I've heard that when forced to work together in war even the biggest racist have formed tight relationships with those they would otherwise despise.

2. Immortality. Some people say that immortality could be only a hundred years away. How would that affect things? Would it slow things down because all the terrible people never really die? Would the terrible people stop being terrible with maturity or get worse?

Depends. Maybe if they were someone I wanted to see or if they or their family wanted to pay me a enormous amount of money for it.

Well, my rules would be only eating other people if they die naturally and if there's no other food available.

I'd say the Republicans were responsible for it. They tried demanding things that they knew the Democrats wouldn't give them in exchange for funding the government. They also changed the rules the House operated by so that the other members couldn't stop the shutdown until the Republican leaders wanted to. I see it as taking the government hostage to get their political

mohammedroxx3 : You could die or be permanently maimed depending on the activity you're trying.

sloanstar1000 : I was referring specifically the the psalms thing. Also if you think about it the existence of Hell changes morality itself. Since people generally go to Hell for eternity then the moral thing becomes doing whatever gets the most people into Heaven. All worldly problems would be insignificant in comparison. Sort of like how when you divide 1 by a number the larger the number is the smaller your result will be. Eternity is infinite. Thus any suffering or pleasure one gains during their few decades on Earth would be completely negligible when compared to an eternal afterlife. That's why I don't really see the sense in people saying they'll take their chances in Hell if God was proven to exist. Is 70 or so years of defiance worth 10,000 years of pain? 20,000? 50,000? 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000?

sloanstar1000 : I don't think it's a mission at all. I think the guy who wrote the psalm is pissed that his city fell and is wishing ill on the people who just conquered it. I don't really see how God is involved there. I also don't think political correctness was a thing when the Bible was written. The psalm is a prayer to God, not something from him.

sloanstar1000 : Hmmm. Isn't psalms 137:9 referring to the victor in a war? In other words the guy who's bashing the kid's heads in is happy because his side just won not because he bashing in heads is suppose to be entertainment. The bashing kid's heads in was a part of how war was done back then. If your city fell prepare for a crapton of death, enslavement, and other unpleasant things directed at the people in the fallen city.