Scottish Independence

[Chang]

i dont see why scotland would have to join the eu?

if texas seceded from the us , i dont think it would join up with mexico.

i do understand that those of you bums that are in the uk or europe have paid closer attention to this vote than me.

i am a humble anarchist who only looks at politicians and elections as spectacles of amusement(in a very sordid way)

scotland is no iceland thats for sure

 

Scotland would have had to join the E.U. as it would be incapable of standing alone, being a small country which is deeply divided along sectarian lines. Whilst the Scots hatred of England and the English is well documented they would soon have found themselves hating the Europeans even more. Such is the nature of these things.

[Apech]

i dont see why scotland would have to join the eu?

if texas seceded from the us , i dont think it would join up with mexico.

i do understand that those of you bums that are in the uk or europe have paid closer attention to this vote than me.

i am a humble anarchist who only looks at politicians and elections as spectacles of amusement(in a very sordid way)

scotland is no iceland thats for sure

 

 

Sorry but your analogy doesn't make any sense. mexico is just one country not a union of any kind as far as I know. If you were to ask would a seceded Texas want to remain part of NAFTA that would be closer to the mark. And I think the answer to that would almost certainly be yes.

 

There is already a Bank of Scotland which issues its own currency by the way - but it is traded as part of sterling.

[joeblast]

Scotland would have had to join the E.U. as it would be incapable of standing alone, being a small country which is deeply divided along sectarian lines. Whilst the Scots hatred of England and the English is well documented they would soon have found themselves hating the Europeans even more. Such is the nature of these things.

Yeahyeahyeah, they said the same of iceland. I dont see anything convin cing in this argument, but maybe that's because every time I see it, it has zero for substance to back up the assertion. Which was another reason I poked fun at the whole what will they do, they would have no central bank!

 

Fallacy that a central bank mustshould exist in the first place.

[Apech]

Yeahyeahyeah, they said the same of iceland. I dont see anything convin cing in this argument, but maybe that's because every time I see it, it has zero for substance to back up the assertion. Which was another reason I poked fun at the whole what will they do, they would have no central bank!

 

Fallacy that a central bank mustshould exist in the first place.

 

 

http://www.cb.is/the-bank/

[zerostao]

good point apech about nafta. i still dont see why scotland could not stand on their own.

i may be more ignorant about all of this than i realized, i thought the uk was part of the eu

but had chosen not to accept the euro as its currency. and i thought scotland does have the oil reserves to support itself.

actually i thought excepting sweeden, switzerland, and the balkans all of europe was eu.

 

if only scotland couldve merged with iceland!!!!!

(mexico is a union of drug cartels)

Edited September 19, 2014 by zerostao

[Apech]

good point apech about nafta. i still dont see why scotland could not stand on their own.

i may be more ignorant about all of this than i realized, i thought the uk was part of the eu

but had chosen not to accept the euro as its currency. and i thought scotland does have the oil reserves to support itself.

actually i thought excepting sweeden, switzerland, and the balkans all of europe was eu.

 

if only scotland couldve merged with iceland!!!!!

(mexico is a union of drug cartels)

 

 

They could indeed legally and constitutionally stand on their own - but no one would have voted for that. the model presented was that of small EU countries which did very well before 2008 credit crunch and banking collapse ... like Ireland. they are resurgent now as is Iceland probably because the problem they faced was not structural but part of the global meltdown. People are not stupid and while the romantic appeal of going it alone was a big draw ... in the end most scots know that they do not wear kilts and live in the highlands striding across the mountains in the Celtic mists. that's about as realistic as thinking all Appalachians are like the folk in Deliverance or that everyone in Mexico wears a sombrero and only eats pork and beans. National stereotypes. Scotland is a modern country and has historical ties to Europe particularly France. Scotland already has its own parliament and government, its own legal system, its own education system and so on - as well as cultural traditions and of course language (though not many speak it). Ironically to date scottish MPs to Westminster have so far been able to vote on policy in England while the English MPs cannot do the same for Scotland. They have been promised more self governing powers. Its called having your cake and eating it.

[GrandmasterP]

Scotland isn't 'deeply divided' at all anymore than England or Wales ( but not Northern Ireland) are deeply divided.

There are divisive pockets mainly in and around Glasgow and on the social housing estates ( projects) in a very few large towns.

As there are in similar areas, and in greater numbers, in England ( but not in Wales).

Poverty plus booze and worse fuels sporadic unrest in our least desirable areas but those areas are small and, in proportion to the general populace, insignificant.

The vast majority of people in all three nations share identical hopes, aspirations and very similar lifestyles.

We join the same armed services and serve together. There are as many English soldiers in Scottish ( or Welsh) regiments as there are Scots and far more Scottish ( and Welsh, Northern Irish and republic of Ireland )soldiers in English regiments and general Corps than in all the Scottish regiments combined.

Our Air Force and Navy are unitary.

We are a property owning, irregular-if-ever church-going, employed, reasonably educated and usually hard working middle to lower middle class peoples.

We enjoy peace, dogs, the countryside and coast ( aspirational retirement areas) and we are far more clubbable than the rest of Europe.

From the Women's Institute through a myriad of voluntary social-hobby type groups the Scots, Welsh and English are great 'joiners'.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds ( RSPB) has well over one million members ( Mrs GMP and self included) across the Union.

Beyond the 'Yes' hot heads no one anywhere in the Union was in favour of breaking up the Union.

It would be both a tragedy and a travesty were that ever to happen.

We are British, we don't 'do' secession.

 

Edited September 19, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Brian]

 

 

Sorry but your analogy doesn't make any sense. mexico is just one country not a union of any kind as far as I know. If you were to ask would a seceded Texas want to remain part of NAFTA that would be closer to the mark. And I think the answer to that would almost certainly be yes.

 

There is already a Bank of Scotland which issues its own currency by the way - but it is traded as part of sterling.

FWIW, Mexico is really the Union of Mexican States...

[Apech]

...

 

We enjoy peace, dogs, the countryside and coast ( aspirational retirement areas) and we are far more clubbable than the rest of Europe.

From the Women's Institute through a myriad of voluntary social-hobby type groups the Scots, Welsh and English are great 'joiners'.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds ( RSPB) has well over one million members ( Mrs GMP and self included) across the Union.

Beyond the 'Yes' hot heads no one anywhere in the Union was in favour of breaking up the Union.

It would be both a tragedy and a travesty were that ever to happen.

We are British, we don't 'do' secession.

 

 

 

Wot like baby seals?

[Apech]

FWIW, Mexico is really the Union of Mexican States...

 

 

Ok didn't know that, thanks.

[GrandmasterP]

That's Canada.

Commonwealth but NOT a part of the union.

You could not begin to imagine the furore that 'seal cull' caused over here when those photographs appeared in our newspapers some years ago.

Edited September 19, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[zerostao]

any rate an independent scotland is all just a faded pipe dream now.

it would be refreshing however if there were at least some romantic rather than all practical in this world.

at least there is iceland and ireland to admire

[silent thunder]

I can't think of a truly independent country any more...

banking, finance, corporate and oligarchical influences, alliances, religious influences, economic dependency on the world markets...

striking a functional balance is neat and all

 

in the end, serfs are serfs, rulers will do what they must to maintain power.

[TomBrad]

I think the Yes campaign lost the referendum partly due to the fact that they couldn't make a strong case that the economy would thrive. If there is ever another referendum, it will be after all the North Sea oil has gone - which will further undermine any economy-based case. Maybe when the post-scarcity future has arrived...

[Apech]

I think the Yes campaign lost the referendum partly due to the fact that they couldn't make a strong case that the economy would thrive. If there is ever another referendum, it will be after all the North Sea oil has gone - which will further undermine any economy-based case. Maybe when the post-scarcity future has arrived...

 

 

Uruguay?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/27/jose-mujica-uruguay-maverick-president

[Taomeow]

As an American I thought maybe you would understand the concept of strength in union. The tendency nowadays of everyone who disagrees with others or has a different cultural heritage being unable to stand their neighbours and thus break off into another country - witness the break up of the balkan states - is a weakness and not a strength. Working together is a strength and the secret of success, or so I believe.

 

The two most successful nations of the last 200 years ...United Kingdom and United States.

The Soviet Union?..

 

It's not that simple these days as "union is good, breaking up is bad" OR "independence is good, second-rateness within a union is bad." It's more the question of "good for whom, bad for whom?" -- and what is being done is seldom a grass roots movement toward, or away from, breaking up or staying together. It's geoengineering, political technologizing, it's all artificial. Breaking up countries by supporting nationalist and other extreme or fringe groups and breeding causes that lie far, far away from people's true interests and goals is being done routinely, and the term "balkanization" was in political circulation long before the most recent events unleashed on the Balkan states. Divide and conquer -- this kind of pretty traditional, but currently taken to a whole new level of sophistication, geoengineering of "independence" or "democracy" movements is often the underlying principle, and the announced goals may be freedom and democracy, but the real ones, of those launching and manipulating these movements, colored revolutions, etc. -- "destabilize, break up, colonize by new and less obvious methods, and loot away."

 

Each situation needs to be examined closely to be understood. Sometimes "unity" is another word for "destabilization through inner conflict" -- sometimes, on the other hand, it is a reaction to a break-up that occurred earlier which needs to be mended -- sometimes, a reaction to being unable to handle the purported "independence" that was declared without any realistic political, economical, social tools to act on it -- I could go on and on, with many current examples (of which I'm familiar in-depth with only one, and it makes my head spin just thinking how many hours of lectures in history it would require to begin to explain to politicians and lay folks alike what it is they so bravely and so quickly form an "opinion" about without the first idea of what it really IS.) But if I were to take a bird's view to come up with a generalization, I'd say the criterion should be, is it (whatever "it" under scrutiny is) a step toward, or away from, the NWO. And from this perspective, whatever it is, if it is a step toward the NWO, I don't like it. If it is an attempt to step away from it -- I would advise (if I were in the position to advise) stepping very very carefully... but not stopping, and not retreating, and not surrendering.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Taomeow

[TomBrad]

Uruguay?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/27/jose-mujica-uruguay-maverick-president

 

I don't know enough about Uruguay to comment. As a Cymru-Cymraeg (i.e. Welsh-speaking Welsh person), I can see why the Yes campaign got so emotive about independence. But geopolitical history isn't over yet, so for the time being I think it's better to be part of the UK rather than a small independent country.

[Apech]

@Taomeow

 

I accept I know too little about the USSR. But I suspect it could be classed a a huge powerblock rather than a coalition of mutual self interest.

 

As regards the NWO I think this in part entails the splitting down of national communities on a divide and conquer basis and replacing them with organisation based on continental and then global power.

[Taomeow]

@Taomeow

 

I accept I know too little about the USSR. But I suspect it could be classed a a huge powerblock rather than a coalition of mutual self interest.

 

As regards the NWO I think this in part entails the splitting down of national communities on a divide and conquer basis and replacing them with organisation based on continental and then global power.

And what's the Russian Empire, chopped liver? The Soviet Union mostly (with some exceptions) consisted of what was a union to the same (or greater) extent as the United Kingdom for centuries. The name was different, but an empire by any other name is an empire. Love it or leave it is an option never available to ALL of its constituents.

 

Yes, NWO starts by restructuring the power structures of yesteryear, but one has to look at who's doing what and what for none the less. There's a multitude of factors... timing is (as always) the crucial one. E.g. if California wanted to rejoin Mexico, that would be untimely, Mexico lost it too long ago. But there's places united or split within our current lifetimes -- current lifetimes of people living there -- and that's a different cup of blood altogether.

[Apech]

And what's the Russian Empire, chopped liver? The Soviet Union mostly (with some exceptions) consisted of what was a union to the same (or greater) extent as the United Kingdom for centuries. The name was different, but an empire by any other name is an empire. Love it or leave it is an option never available to ALL of its constituents.

 

Yes, NWO starts by restructuring the power structures of yesteryear, but one has to look at who's doing what and what for none the less. There's a multitude of factors... timing is (as always) the crucial one. E.g. if California wanted to rejoin Mexico, that would be untimely, Mexico lost it too long ago. But there's places united or split within our current lifetimes -- current lifetimes of people living there -- and that's a different cup of blood altogether.

 

I don't know what the Russian Empire is ... I already admitted my lack of knowledge of the history of Russia.

 

The point I have been trying to make all along is that the United Kingdom was formed through acts passed by the English and Scottish parliaments ... i.e. by constitutional legislation by both sides following a number of failed attempts and also following a period of about 100 years when the same monarch held both crowns. Despite hostility from some quarters it was a great success economically and so on and did not lead to the suppression of the Scottish national character or culture as can still be seen today. This I think indicates it's uniqueness when compared to other more forced unions and empires.

 

Many Scots like to hate the English (sometimes with justification sometimes not) but a lot of people like myself have English and Scottish blood and I would guess generally that most English like and admire the Scots (there are exceptions). However the final outcome is that the benefits both parties.

[Taomeow]

That's an incredibly negative view of history. These unions are not theory - that's the point - they are actually and functional. And they are based on enlightened self interest of the parties involved. Your way - we would ultimately devolve down to the smallest units, the tribe, the family or just a person all incapable of living in community with others - of facing the shared experience, compromise, wealth and stability that comes from community.

 

Anyway that's what I think. I like to be practical not romantic.

 

A negative view of history is, alas, the only one that does not edit out historic reality that actually took place.

 

Communities, tribes, etc., are not unable to live with each other -- it's just that if one wants an empire, communities must be united by force, and kept together by force -- and then, much later, they may eventually find their stability via loss of their human and cultural biodiversity. Generally, unions to the tune of "empires" have an easier time functioning only after they've muscled their way to prosperity over countless dead bodies of their opponents. I'm yet to see a union that prospered any other way.

 

And NWO is just the same tendency taken to its logical extreme. Break up artificially, unite artificially. Communities used to do neither. They united naturally (via intermarriage, common endeavors, etc.) or stayed separate but equal. They separated naturally too. At the time the white man arrived on this continent, there were more languages spoken by the local Native American tribes than there were in all of Europe combined -- by an order of magnitude. And the linguistic differences between some of them were more extreme than between English and Chinese. And yet this diversity didn't result in their inability to live with each other -- until the imperial man came... and after all was said and done, the remnants of hundreds of tribes were lumped together and shipped to their unity over the Trail of Tears. There's unity and there's concentration camps. For the United Kingdom to become a unity, how many concentration camps had to be erected along the way?.. So now it's nice and peaceful?..

 

Let's hope this lasts. But you never know...

[Blackfinger]

I think the real question now is why the rest of the UK cannot now vote on whether they *want* Scotland to be part of the union. ...

Why does the vote only work one way?

 

[Taomeow]

I think the real question now is why the rest of the UK cannot now vote on whether they *want* Scotland to be part of the union. ... Why does the vote only work one way?

 

It's like divorce... you can't refuse to grant a divorce to a husband just because the wife doesn't want it. And, on the other hand, you can't terminate a marriage just on the grounds of one of the spouses having thought about divorce.

[Taomeow]

By the way, this just in via Reuters:

 

one in four Americans want their state to secede from the United States.

 

http://blogs.reuters.com/jamesrgaines/2014/09/19/one-in-four-americans-want-their-state-to-secede-from-the-u-s-but-why/

[Brian]

By the way, this just in via Reuters:

 

one in four Americans want their state to secede from the United States.

 

http://blogs.reuters.com/jamesrgaines/2014/09/19/one-in-four-americans-want-their-state-to-secede-from-the-u-s-but-why/

Significantly higher than that in some states, I think.