View Full Version : Scotland's Independence. Sentiment spreading?
FlyingHunter
09-14-14, 09:20
From Wikipedia:
A national referendum is scheduled to be held in Scotland on 18 September 2014. Voters will be asked to answer either Yes or No to the question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" During the week prior to the election, polls showed a nominal difference between the two referendum sides, with heated debates underway about the consequences of a "yes" vote for Scotland's economy, its finances, its money, and its relations with the European Union.
From the NY Times:
From Catalonia to Kurdistan to Quebec to Texas, nationalist and separatist movements in Europe and beyond are watching the Scottish independence referendum closely — sometimes more so than Britons themselves, who seem to have only just woken up to the possibility that Scotland might vote next Thursday to bring to an end a 307-year union. A curious collection of left and right, rich and poor, marginal and mainstream, these movements are united in the hope that their shared ambition for more self-determination will get a lift from an independent Scotland.
From the Atlantic:
Some secessionist groups here in the United States are finding inspiration in the developments across the Atlantic and are following what's going on in Scotland particularly closely.
This week, National Journal talked to the leaders of secession movements in the U.S. about what the campaign for Scottish independence means for them. Vermonters may think they have little in common with Southerners, and Southerners even less with Pacific Northwesterners, but independence advocates in each of these parts of the U.S. are watching intently as Scotland heads to the polls next week.
My take:
It will be interesting to see if the efforts for independence by the Scots (win or lose) will have a momentum effect (or not) for those in the USA who have similar sentiments for our future.
With all due respect to the Scots and the UK, why should anyone here in the USA give a rat's patootie?
I am expecting independence to win out. Then I'm wondering if the Scots will diverge from the social welfare model of Britain and re-embrace capitalism. Or has their character been rotted beyond recovery?
The possible effect of revitalizing the French-Canadian separatist movement seems more likely than any US action. I think western Canada would make a great ally for us. Or even some new states?
Mauser KAR98K
09-14-14, 12:00
With all due respect to the Scots and the UK, why should anyone here in the USA give a rat's patootie?
Because sentiments like this spread and can spread fast and wide. After our nation won its Independence from Britain, France took many of our ideas that had the underdog win against the biggest, baddest nation on Earth at the time, and had their own revolution against their sovereign. Theirs, however, was much more bloody, and the French Revolution template has been followed more in history since.
This vote could cause more peaceful separations, if those so choose it. This could also give many states, possibly in the future, that option to follow if the federal Government stops "really" representing the states and puts its power of the states more and more.
Stop being an isolationist and broaden your global horizons in the information age.
I'd love it if Texas were to secede without a civil war.
Of course, we'd have to invade Austin to rid ourselves of the occupy wall street dirtbags, hippies and hipsters, but that wouldn't take more than a handful of well trained Texas, Girlscouts.
Averageman
09-14-14, 12:16
I'd love it if Texas were to secede without a civil war.
Of course, we'd have to invade Austin to rid ourselves of the occupy wall street dirtbags, hippies and hipsters, but that wouldn't take more than a handful of well trained Texas, Girlscouts.
Actually I think they would see the writing on the wall and self deport.
toasterlocker
09-14-14, 12:38
Relevant to the Texas comments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S92fTz_-kQE
MountainRaven
09-14-14, 13:33
With all due respect to the Scots and the UK, why should anyone here in the USA give a rat's patootie?
The United Kingdom is one of our most constant, loyal allies. And one of the very few whose survival does not rely wholly or even chiefly upon the goodwill of American foreign policy.
I'd love it if Texas were to secede without a civil war.
Of course, we'd have to invade Austin to rid ourselves of the occupy wall street dirtbags, hippies and hipsters, but that wouldn't take more than a handful of well trained Texas, Girlscouts.
Within a decade, the border between Texas and Mexico would be practically nonexistent and the newly remilitarized Texas Rangers would be running drugs and guns for the cartels.
Alpha Sierra
09-14-14, 13:46
Within a decade, the border between Texas and Mexico would be practically nonexistent and the newly remilitarized Texas Rangers would be running drugs and guns for the cartels.
You truly do not understand Texas and Texans......
Averageman
09-14-14, 14:06
You truly do not understand Texas and Texans......
I would have to agree with you on that.
Although I wasn't born here, I have enjoyed the last 20 years I've lived in Texas.
I do see the slow creep of a blue state influence heading this way. I can certainly see why some folks might believe leaving the U.S. to become our own Republic of Texas again.
The very few Rangers I have met were all upstanding Men.
MountainRaven
09-14-14, 16:15
You truly do not understand Texas and Texans......
I said what I did precisely because I know many Texans and what their opinions are of their state - and especially their state government.
Hey, maybe Texas won't become a rump state of the Mexican cartels. But that's going to take a Texan civil war - which would likely result in a failed state.
Alpha Sierra
09-14-14, 16:37
I said what I did precisely because I know many Texans and what their opinions are of their state - and especially their state government.
We'll see what Texans here have to say about that
FlyingHunter
09-14-14, 19:19
With all due respect to the Scots and the UK, why should anyone here in the USA give a rat's patootie?
Mauser KAR98K had an excellent response to your question. I agree with him.
Here's my direct answer to you:
For centuries now, many countries have broken free of the 'British' constraints - and none have looked backwards since.
For decades now, our country seems to have growing polarity across a broad spectrum of citizens. To over simplify things, you could consider the two groups: Government is the solution vs. Government is the problem. If a country is a land of defined and defended borders, within which resides a people of a common ancestry, history, language, faith, culture, and traditions, in what sense are we Americans one nation and one people today?
When James Russell Lowell, U.S. lawyer, editor and diplomat in the mid-1800s, was asked, “How long will the American Republic last?” he replied, “As long as the ideas of the men who founded it continue dominant”. His sentiments are worth considering today.
The Founders believed all decisions and rights not specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution belonged to the people and the states. We now have a federal government that creates new “rights” and cancels existing ones; that restructures society, the economy, and the law despite the will of the people. The list of violations could go on for pages. These are all breaches; abuses of the ideas of the men who wrote our founding charter.
We see our republic, with its guarantee of inalienable rights, dying before us. Why? Because we have abandoned the ideas of the inspired men who wrote our Constitution.
The Scotland example is well worth considering. No bombs, bullets, or riots but rather the peaceful transition of pen to paper at the ballot box for the people to pursue a more representative government.
Averageman
09-14-14, 19:42
Mauser KAR98K had an excellent response to your question. I agree with him.
Here's my direct answer to you:
For centuries now, many countries have broken free of the 'British' constraints - and none have looked backwards since.
For decades now, our country seems to have growing polarity across a broad spectrum of citizens. To over simplify things, you could consider the two groups: Government is the solution vs. Government is the problem. If a country is a land of defined and defended borders, within which resides a people of a common ancestry, history, language, faith, culture, and traditions, in what sense are we Americans one nation and one people today?
When James Russell Lowell, U.S. lawyer, editor and diplomat in the mid-1800s, was asked, “How long will the American Republic last?” he replied, “As long as the ideas of the men who founded it continue dominant”. His sentiments are worth considering today.
The Founders believed all decisions and rights not specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution belonged to the people and the states. We now have a federal government that creates new “rights” and cancels existing ones; that restructures society, the economy, and the law despite the will of the people. The list of violations could go on for pages. These are all breaches; abuses of the ideas of the men who wrote our founding charter.
We see our republic, with its guarantee of inalienable rights, dying before us. Why? Because we have abandoned the ideas of the inspired men who wrote our Constitution.
The Scotland example is well worth considering. No bombs, bullets, or riots but rather the peaceful transition of pen to paper at the ballot box for the people to pursue a more representative government.
That's an epic post, thanks.
Liberty in action is pretty awe inspiring thing is it not?
Go Scotland go.
wild_wild_wes
09-14-14, 22:18
With all due respect to the Scots and the UK, why should anyone here in the USA give a rat's patootie?
Because sentiments like this spread and can spread fast and wide.
I've already read an article that says if Scotland secedes, Spin will fracture next, as the Catalan region has wanted independence for quite some time.
I agree with these movements. When the Central Power no longer represents a people, they should be able to leave.
I wish California could separate into several new states, for the same reason.
The Scots are pretty far left; the Brits, more right. When the MPs for the left leaning Scots leave parliament, England will take a few big steps to the right.
Lots of oil in the North Sea that Scotland will take with it... they'll fund their social programs until the teat runs dry.
Averageman
09-15-14, 06:20
I trust this guy and his opinion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vDzf-wSbk
I trust this guy and his opinion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vDzf-wSbk
Now that was funny. I love Groundskeeper Willie, but unlike most real Scots I've met, I can actually understand him when he talks.
:)
brickboy240
09-15-14, 09:46
I would LOVE for Texas to secede!
The rest of you all want Obama or Hillary and socialism...you can have it. Any libs living in Texas have tons of choices of leftist states to move to as well. Bye!
You go your way...we go ours...see you around...hope you make it.
However this will probably never happen.
-brickboy240
MountainRaven
09-15-14, 12:32
I am expecting independence to win out. Then I'm wondering if the Scots will diverge from the social welfare model of Britain and re-embrace capitalism. Or has their character been rotted beyond recovery?
Part of the reason Scotland wants independence is because they are unhappy with the conservative governments they've been dealing with in London.
The Scots are pretty far left; the Brits, more right. When the MPs for the left leaning Scots leave parliament, England will take a few big steps to the right.
Lots of oil in the North Sea that Scotland will take with it... they'll fund their social programs until the teat runs dry.
This.
As much crap as people give the UK for their gun laws, Scotland has long wanted more restrictive laws than have already been passed by Parliament in London. One of their frustrations with Her Majesty's Government.
I think Scotland could have a successful run - for a while - with a Norwegian model. The only issue that they are going to run into is going to be that I don't think the Norwegian model works without both oil revenue and high taxes. Which means that Scotland's famous bankers will probably head south, strengthening the Bank of England.
William Wallace would weep.
Crow Hunter
09-15-14, 15:33
I think Scotland could have a successful run - for a while - with a Norwegian model. The only issue that they are going to run into is going to be that I don't think the Norwegian model works without both oil revenue and high taxes. Which means that Scotland's famous bankers will probably head south, strengthening the Bank of England.
I get the impression from my research that the Norwegian model only works when you have a homogeneous society that has the interest of the community at heart. They are all willing to contribute their fair share for the greater good. They are all willing to pay more taxes because everyone is rowing the longship. Some may be better at others that rowing but all are putting their backs into it so if I am more fortunate, I will share some with you and lift up the whole community. Having a layabout relative who lives off of government benefits without doing anything to help the community is shameful.
That is why it won't work in America. It is a badge of honor in America to stick it to "the man" in some cultures and I am not willing to give some of the extra that I have to help people that won't help themselves.
I have no idea about Scotland.
But even if it would work, unless they have extremely good immigration controls, it won't work there for long as the FSA will invade.
exkc135driver
09-15-14, 19:06
With all due respect to the Scots and the UK, why should anyone here in the USA give a rat's patootie?
The short answer is this: because Scotland is much more left-leaning than the rest of the UK. In fact, the Scots want to ban nuclear weapons in their country, much like New Zealand has done. The problem is that relocating the nuclear weapons currently in Scotland to elsewhere in the UK, or perhaps repatriating some of them back to the U.S., would be horribly expensive. Of far greater importance, to my mind at least, is the degradation of the West’s nuclear strike power while those weapons and the associated infrastructure (storage facilities, new submarine slips, etc.) are being moved or built. This will directly affect our security.
Alpha Sierra
09-15-14, 20:07
Of far greater importance, to my mind at least, is the degradation of the West’s nuclear strike power while those weapons and the associated infrastructure (storage facilities, new submarine slips, etc.) are being moved or built. This will directly affect our security.
However true that may be (and I do not believe your assertions are), it should mean **** all to the people of Scotland who have every god damned right to decide their own path without regard to what you, me, or the Queen of England think.
If their independence means that our nuclear deterrent is "degraded" for some time, so be it. It is the decision of a newly sovereign people to do away with such weapons and NOBODY has the right to tell them otherwise, much less some foreigners (like you).
Threads like these are pretty good at showing who are those who are true lovers of freedom and liberty and who are the tools who think they can interfere with the exercise of that freedom by others when it is convenient to do so.
So what if the Scots turn out to be raging libtard anti nuke pole smokers? So THE F WHAT? THEY decided they wanted to be that way and WE get no say in it.
This shit makes me sick.
MountainRaven
09-15-14, 22:09
While I fully agree that giving people freedom includes giving them to freedom to choose not to be free... we have many examples of what has happened to the neighbors of those who have chosen to forsake their freedom, for whatever reason. Germany invaded Poland and France, the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic occupied the former member states of the Russian Empire, plus much of Eastern and Central Europe, the People's Republic of China invaded Korea, Vietnam, India, and Tibet. &c., &c., &c. So trepidation is understandable - many, many folks are frightened by change in the first place, never mind this sort of change. Even if we're not talking about Scotland becoming the Scottish Soviet Socialist Republic or the People's Republic of Scotland or whatever.
Whiskey_Bravo
09-15-14, 22:37
However true that may be (and I do not believe your assertions are), it should mean **** all to the people of Scotland who have every god damned right to decide their own path without regard to what you, me, or the Queen of England think.
If their independence means that our nuclear deterrent is "degraded" for some time, so be it. It is the decision of a newly sovereign people to do away with such weapons and NOBODY has the right to tell them otherwise, much less some foreigners (like you).
Threads like these are pretty good at showing who are those who are true lovers of freedom and liberty and who are the tools who think they can interfere with the exercise of that freedom by others when it is convenient to do so.
So what if the Scots turn out to be raging libtard anti nuke pole smokers? So THE F WHAT? THEY decided they wanted to be that way and WE get no say in it.
This shit makes me sick.
Step away from the keyboard man, I think you might be taking this discussion a little to personal.
I think he's just a very passionate person
With all due respect to the Scots and the UK, why should anyone here in the USA give a rat's patootie?
An independent Scotland will have some currency devaluation issues (most likely) which at minimum means great deals on Scotch short term. There are other reasons, but that undoubtedly qualifies as a reason for people in the USA to care.
Averageman
09-16-14, 07:44
Yesterday I heard the major Scotch producers were moving HQ's to England to avoid the issues with currency problems.
I hope they vote for it and carry out their socialists agenda.
The Scots will learn a hard lesson regarding welfare, and other "Independence" movements will also from Scotland's success or failure.
Closing Sub Bases hurts the UK Nuke force more then our nuke force.
The Scots also have to renegotiate all agreements, and I suspect the UK and USA might be difficult to deal with if the bases are suddenly closed.
Both sides have to tread lightly in the aftermath of a Scotland win.
I also hope they gain independence...and hopefully learn how quickly a "welfare state" will ruin their small country, and get things turned around for the better. This would be great for an economics class to monitor from Day 1. I hope Scotlands citizens actually pay attention...
The optimistic hope is that whatever fraction of North Sea oil rights can let them function as a miniature Norway (enough oil revenue that welfare state can stay propped up and that comparably high unemployment is offset by the available high wages of working on offshore platforms). Whether that happens is another question entirely.
Moose-Knuckle
09-16-14, 17:39
Declaration of Arbroath
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Arbroath
The Scots are pretty far left; the Brits, more right. When the MPs for the left leaning Scots leave parliament, England will take a few big steps to the right.
And it's likely that Scottish independence would spur further growth of English nationalism, and of the party which most seems to embody it, the anti-EU UK Independence Party. The Welsh are pretty far left, as well. I expect their independence movement to gain support if Scotland goes.
With all due respect to the Scots and the UK, why should anyone here in the USA give a rat's patootie?
Because scotland is a socialist shithole like california.
For all you people comparing this to Texas seceding:
Scotland is a socialist shithole that can't support itself. This has nothing to do with freedom or a central government not representing them.
It is completely the opposite. The Labor (socialist) party wouldn't be in power if Scotland departs. Most of the Labor politicians in the UK are from Scotland.
People in England are tired of welfare dollars going to scotland.
I'm tired of my welfare dollars going to hood rats in california and new york.
Voodoochild
09-16-14, 21:30
How do you think they got to be welfare dregs? Will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
montanadave
09-17-14, 09:57
William Wallace and Braveheart and all notwithstanding, I've got my doubts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29-LRuuqFT0
I also hope they gain independence...and hopefully learn how quickly a "welfare state" will ruin their small country, and get things turned around for the better. This would be great for an economics class to monitor from Day 1. I hope Scotlands citizens actually pay attention...
I think the other "independence movements" would have to move quickly lest people see what actually can happen.
For all you people comparing this to Texas seceding:
Scotland is a socialist shithole that can't support itself. This has nothing to do with freedom or a central government not representing them.
It is completely the opposite. The Labor (socialist) party wouldn't be in power if Scotland departs. Most of the Labor politicians in the UK are from Scotland.
People in England are tired of welfare dollars going to scotland.
I'm tired of my welfare dollars going to hood rats in california and new york.
Scotland is the opposite of most independence movements. We usually see the industrialized/revenue generators trying to leave because they are tired of the welfare leaches.
Even Texas would have some initial pains as a lot of industry would be forced to leave the state, as would most of the Military Units currently stationed here.
FlyingHunter
09-17-14, 17:49
Well, the vote is tomorrow. It will be interesting to see the results win or lose and the ripple effects if any.
So glad our commander of sheep chimed in...and of course he's against any independence; business, environmental, health, insurance, personal, state, constitutional, income, taxes, your email, your own facial features, or Scotland...
per the news: "President Barack Obama reiterated his stance against Scottish independence with a tweet on Wednesday."
Did our President make his "tweet" of a diplomatic pronouncement from aboard GirlBike 1 or from the john in the Oval ESPN Surround Sound Theater?
MountainRaven
09-17-14, 21:54
Well, the vote is tomorrow. It will be interesting to see the results win or lose and the ripple effects if any.
So glad our commander of sheep chimed in...and of course he's against any independence; business, environmental, health, insurance, personal, state, constitutional, income, taxes, your email, your own facial features, or Scotland...
per the news: "President Barack Obama reiterated his stance against Scottish independence with a tweet on Wednesday."
Every time a foreign official tells the Scots that they ought to remain in the Union, the separatist movement grows.
In that way, at least, the Scots very much resemble Americans: The surest way to get them to do something is to tell them that they cannot and should not do it.
wildcard600
09-17-14, 23:02
Documentary about Scotland -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IkGDptX6YI
MountainRaven
09-19-14, 00:14
Looks like voter turnout of ~85%, which is impressive. Only one council left to hear from and things are sitting at 55.42% against independence, 44.58% for.
Well, can't say I'm thrilled with that outcome...
Offered the choice for independence, and they vote no.....
Great voter turnout, the people spoke. The decision has been made. End of story.
UK remains intact.
MountainRaven
09-19-14, 09:22
Well, can't say I'm thrilled with that outcome...
Offered the choice for independence, and they vote no.....
Why is that disappointing?
Averageman
09-19-14, 09:31
I was rather surprised that the Scots allowed 16 and 17 year olds to vote in this election.
If we did this we would have Jay Z in the White house,....Hmmm I guess we kinda do.
Whiskey_Bravo
09-19-14, 09:33
..Hmmm I guess we kinda do.
lol, I was going to ask you to look at who is in the White House before I read this last part.
brickboy240
09-19-14, 10:48
It seems as if the UK media put quite a scare campaign to the Scots on independence. Telling them that independence meant scarier economic times will happen and other tales of woe.
Well...yes...they probably WOULD experience some disruptions but the long term outlook would be much better for them in general. Look at Norway - they said no to the EU and have a vibrant oil business and are doing much better than any EU country. Why couldn't Scotland have a similar result?
I really think that played heavily into the final vote. Scotland is already in bad economic shape, compared to other UK countries and the people got scared and voted no.
Sad...really
wildcard600
09-19-14, 11:33
It seems as if the UK media put quite a scare campaign to the Scots on independence. Telling them that independence meant scarier economic times will happen and other tales of woe.
Well...yes...they probably WOULD experience some disruptions but the long term outlook would be much better for them in general. Look at Norway - they said no to the EU and have a vibrant oil business and are doing much better than any EU country. Why couldn't Scotland have a similar result?
I really think that played heavily into the final vote. Scotland is already in bad economic shape, compared to other UK countries and the people got scared and voted no.
Sad...really
Norway is doing better than most of the EU, but they have a number of problems on the horizon, namely to do with dwindling oil revenue and unsustainable welfare society.
I was rather surprised that the Scots allowed 16 and 17 year olds to vote in this election.
If we did this we would have Jay Z in the White house,....Hmmm I guess we kinda do.
They were counting on those kids to vote Independence without any thought to what it might mean. They know how kids like to be part of a "movement for change."
MountainRaven
09-19-14, 14:12
They were counting on those kids to vote Independence without any thought to what it might mean. They know how kids like to be part of a "movement for change."
NPR was predicting that older, more conservative voters would swing the vote against independence and that high voter turnout - younger voters, less likely to vote in the first place - would swing things toward independence. So if voter turn out had been lower, it would likely have pushed the vote even more into the Union camp.
Eurodriver
09-19-14, 14:23
I'm actually disappointed. I wanted to see UK's parliament take a major shift to the right.
Maybe Nigel Farage would have been Prime Minister...
I'm actually disappointed. I wanted to see UK's parliament take a major shift to the right.
Maybe Nigel Farage would have been Prime Minister...
Exactly. The real interesting outcome was a more conservative Britain. The Scots probably realized their long term socialist/welfare prospects were better in a union of other countries to lean on than the frightening thought of carrying their own weight.
FlyingHunter
09-19-14, 16:37
I've heard there are more sheep than people in Scotland
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.