# Scottish Independence



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

I'm surprised there's no thread on this already.

Personally, I'm against. From a narrow US perspective, two weak allies < one strong one. Moreover, I don't see why an appropriate arrangement can be made. Federalism and all that.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

I cant work up any concern .


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Given the recent apparent resurrection of the "Cold War" mentality on the part of the Russian Federation's leadership, I am inclined to agree with toqueville's logic. What's the future hold for Great Britian's nuclear boomers (submarine fleet) should the Scott's vote for independence? These are the times when allies should be pulling ever more closely together!


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

The nuclear subs are done for if this goes through, although I'm not sure how important those are. I'm more worried about the effect on the rump-British military's budget, which is now already in dire straights, not to mention the general decline in power, influence, means, etc. that independence will mean. England will be weaker than it's been since, I guess, Elizabethan times?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

tocqueville said:


> I'm surprised there's no thread on this already.
> 
> Personally, I'm against. From a narrow US perspective, two weak allies < one strong one. Moreover, I don't see why an appropriate arrangement can be made. Federalism and all that.


There was a thread, here.

It looks likely to be a narrow win for the unionists, although no one is certain; any US preference on the matter will be neither here nor there.

Scotland will be out on a limb in various ways if the nationalists win, it will be very interesting.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

eagle2250 said:


> Given the recent apparent resurrection of the "Cold War" mentality on the part of the Russian Federation's leadership, I am inclined to agree with toqueville's logic. What's the future hold for Great Britian's nuclear boomers (submarine fleet) should the Scott's vote for independence? These are the times when allies should be pulling ever more closely together!


As Langham says, there has been a thread running for a while, but the _resurrection of the "Cold War" mentality _is totally on the part of an expansionist NATO, combined with assorted unsavoury oligarchs using the Ukrainian people as puppets. Victoria Nuland let the cat out of the bag on that front a long time ago.

As fo Scotland, I'm surprised it has been let get so far. I think, as ever, Tony Bliar shoulders a lot of the blame, trying to be all things to all people, on the surface at least.
Cameron, like a deer in the headlights, is just in panic mode now.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Odradek said:


> ... Tony Bliar shoulders a lot of the blame, trying to be all things to all people, on the surface at least.
> Cameron, like a deer in the headlights, is just in panic mode now.


Cameron has completely gone to pieces. It was a very big mistake to resort to bribery - why do it?

Even now, Blair's devious chicanery is still bowling googlies everywhere.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> Given the recent apparent resurrection of the "Cold War" mentality on the part of the Russian Federation's leadership, I am inclined to agree with toqueville's logic. What's the future hold for Great Britian's nuclear boomers (submarine fleet) should the Scott's vote for independence? These are the times when allies should be pulling ever more closely together!


"The Scott's" ? I think their voting patterns will have little impact.

" Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair" as one one of them famously stated.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

The whole issue means Scotland is enjoying attention it has never received before. All sorts of goodies are being offered.

"Yes" vote offers the Scots the opportunity of a government they voted for, for the first time in decades. A chance to implement policies they want and a chance to defy the banksters and globalists and London-centric types.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Kingstonian said:


> ..
> "Yes" vote offers the Scots the opportunity of a government they voted for...


It may also ensure the English always get the government _they_ voted for.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> "Yes" vote offers the Scots the opportunity of a government they voted for, for the first time in decades. A chance to implement policies they want and a chance to defy the banksters and globalists and London-centric types.


I'm not impressed with their record;



> It took 13 years and £100 million to jail the Lockerbie bomber, but the SNP justified freeing him - after eight years of a 27-year sentence - in a 20-minute speech.
> When Megrahi walked unaided from his plane to a tumultuous welcome from a Tripoli crowd waving Saltires alongside Libyan flags, it provoked widespread outrage. The SNP, it was said, had released one mass killer into the care of another - Col Muammar Gaddafi.
> David Cameron, then the Conservative Party leader, said freeing the only man jailed for the atrocity was "the product of completely nonsensical thinking".
> 
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...tional-backlash-which-refuses-to-go-away.html


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Langham said:


> It may also ensure the English always get the government _they_ voted for.


That unfair situation has not escaped many.

For our American viewers, in simple terms it is this: there is no English political entity i.e. no English Assembly in Parliament, this means that Scottish, Welsh and NI politicians can vote in Wesmtinster on matters that only affect things in England e.g a Shetland politican could vote on a matter in Cornwall BUT English politicans may not vote on matters that only affect things in S, W & NI.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> That unfair situation has not escaped many.
> 
> For our American viewers, in simple terms it is this: there is no English political entity i.e. no English Assembly in Parliament, this means that Scottish, Welsh and NI politicians can vote in Wesmtinster on matters that only affect things in England e.g a Shetland politican could vote on a matter in Cornwall BUT English politicans may not vote on matters that only affect things in S, W & NI.


That's helpful. I hadn't realized that was the case. It sounds like at the very least, some constitutional tinkering might be in order.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ Tony Blair thought that. In some ways, he is the architect of the present mess.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

https://www.theonion.com/articles/d...lMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Is any of this going to have an impact on Scottish cashmere? 

That's all I want to know.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

OMG.

What about the whiskey??


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> OMG.
> 
> What about the whiskey??


Aint no such thing as whiskey in Scotland lad.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> OMG.
> 
> What about the whiskey??


NPR news had interviews with some Scottish *whisky *distillers, and they were not particularly in favor of independence, for some tax/administrative reasons that I wasn't interested enough to closely follow. Apparently, the trade HQ is now and has been based in England. The interviewees cited dual levels of bureaucracy, and questions about what currency would be used.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Interesting, isn't it, and telling, that so many American members have taken the time to make posts to suggest that this event, so important, even momentous to Britain, is of no significant interest to them. It tells us Europeans so much about the view of Americans of the rest of the world. Not so much their indifference, but their desire to tell us of their indifference.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

I do find the threats of punishment & isolation a bit strange. Even if the yes vote goes though, it will still be to GBs (& the E.U) advantage to maintain friendly relations with the Scots. Let's be honest, the only thing that really needs to change are a few words on paper. The Scotts being on their own doesn't have to equal the end of days. It's the reaction of their so called friends and allies that seems to promise that damage will be done.

But then again. I suppose all divorces are messy. It's hard to stick to rational thought when your busy nursing your hurt feelings.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Interesting, isn't it, and telling, that so many American members have taken the time to make posts to suggest that this event, so important, even momentous to Britain, is of no significant interest to them. It tells us Europeans so much about the view of Americans of the rest of the world. Not so much their indifference, but their desire to tell us of their indifference.


What makes the situation even funnier is that there are only 4.5 million scots in Scotland while there are 6 million scots in the U.S.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

justonemore said:


> What makes the situation even funnier is that there are only 4.5 million scots in Scotland while there are 6 million scots in the U.S.


NO, there are 6 million US citizens in the US who claim Scottish heritage, they aren't Scots.
There are also apparently about 40 million US citizens in the US who call themselves Irish, but they aren't, they are Americans.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> NO, there a 6 million US citizens in the US who claim Scottish heritage they aren't Scots.


Thank you Earl. While I understand your point perfectly, perhaps if you read between the lines a bit you could find the humour attached to the fact nonetheless? Especially in relation to Chouan's post?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

justonemore said:


> I do find the threats of punishment & isolation a bit strange. Even if the yes vote goes though, it will still be to GBs (& the E.U) advantage to maintain friendly relations with the Scots. Let's be honest, the only thing that really needs to change are a few words on paper. The Scotts being on their own doesn't have to equal the end of days. It's the reaction of their so called friends and allies that seems to promise that damage will be done.
> 
> But then again. I suppose all divorces are messy. It's hard to stick to rational thought when your busy nursing your hurt feelings.


I'm not sure why the EU is sticking its oar in, but the Spanish, for instance, are very worried that Catalonia and other regions will demand votes for independence now. Perhaps the Bavarians will also demand a vote?

The threats about currency, EU membership etc are just bluster.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

justonemore said:


> Thank you Earl. While I understand your point perfectly, perhaps if you read between the lines a bit you could find the humour attached to the fact nonetheless? Especially in relation to Chouan's post?


I don't really care what other Europeans or Americans think, there IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING REMOTELY FUNNY about this referendum. I don't think for a second that anyone outside the UK even has the slightest iota of an idea how serious this is and how wideranging are the ramifications if Scotland does vote "yes" to the split. I also find the amusement & occasional jingoism amongst some here as rather misplaced.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Langham said:


> I'm not sure why the EU is sticking its oar in, but the Spanish, for instance, are very worried that Catalonia and other regions will demand votes for independence now. Perhaps the Bavarians will also demand a vote?
> 
> The threats about currency, EU membership etc are just bluster.


If the EU (or individual EU countries) are making noise about it it's all down to what Chomsky called "the threat of good example".
One reason the US fought in Vietnam. Scotland going it's own way would no doubt add impetus to the other regional mavericks in Europe, most notably Catalonia. Maybe even northern Italy.

As an Irishman, I've been keeping my nose out of the whole thing, but would probably come down in favour of the current union, if just for traditional and historical reasons. 
Most Irish social media seems to be heavily in favour of a yes vote, but that comes more from old time anglo-phobia than anything else. And a desire to leave the NI Unionists in a less secure union.

A few on Twitter that I know have quite left wing views are hoping for a yes just to stick it to the Tories.
Much like Anthony Charleton noted on the other thread....


Anthony Charton said:


> _A few days ago a Glaswegian friend of mine, a polished young man who has recently incepted with a degree in History and Politics, was stopped on his way to his job -for which he wears a conservative suit- and thrown a few pennies. "Here ya go", he was amenably told, "for when we go independent and ya Tory job cannae do nothin' for ya"._


Notably, the more right-wing posters over at Zero Hedge, are all coming out strongly in favour of a yes, just to stick it to the international banksters, and the assorted globalist string-pullers.

Meanwhile, as ever, the people are just pawns in the game.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> I'm not sure why the EU is sticking its oar in, but the Spanish, for instance, are very worried that Catalonia and other regions will demand votes for independence now. Perhaps the Bavarians will also demand a vote?
> 
> The threats about currency, EU membership etc are just bluster.


I'm not sure that they are. 
A newly independent Scotland could only retain the £ if the rump of Britain says so. All of the political Parties who have a chance of power have said that Scotland will not be able to use the £. 
Scotland will only be able to join the EU if the other EU members agree. Spain won't agree, for the reason that you've indicated. If Catalunya gains independence, and the population at the last poll was about 80% in favour of independence, it will have a knock on effect in the rest of Europe as well. If Catalunya becomes independent, Euskadi will demand independence. Both "countries" have territory and supporters in France, so France may be unhappy about granting membership to Scotland for the same reason as Spain. France also has an issue with Breizh and Vlaandern, which may also demand independence. Bavaria already has it's own autonomous government, as part of the Federal Republic of Germany, so has no real need for independence.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> I'm not sure that they are.
> A newly independent Scotland could only retain the £ if the rump of Britain says so. All of the political Parties who have a chance of power have said that Scotland will not be able to use the £.
> Scotland will only be able to join the EU if the other EU members agree. Spain won't agree, for the reason that you've indicated. If Catalunya gains independence, and the population at the last poll was about 80% in favour of independence. If Catalunya becomes independent, Euskadi will demand independence. Both "countries" have territory and supporters in France, so France may be unhappy about granting membership to Scotland. France also has an issue with Breizh and Vlaandern may demand independence. Bavaria already has it's own autonomous government, as part of the Federal Republic of Germany, so has no real need for independence.


There have been some oblique comments from men in the EU Commission with Spanish-sounding names, but possibly these can be interpreted as confusion regarding what the EU might do.

The currency issue could be a problem for an independent Scotland but realpolitik suggests a solution would be worked out soon enough.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Interesting, isn't it, and telling, that so many American members have taken the time to make posts to suggest that this event, so important, even momentous to Britain, is of no significant interest to them. It tells us Europeans so much about the view of Americans of the rest of the world. Not so much their indifference, but their desire to tell us of their indifference.


Sure.

Whatever.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> NO, there are 6 million US citizens in the US who claim Scottish heritage, they aren't Scots.
> There are also apparently about 40 million US citizens in the US who call themselves Irish, but they aren't, they are Americans.


However, there is no doubt that once the Scots-Irish hit North America they become prolific breeders!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> However, there is no doubt that once the Scots-Irish hit North America they become prolific breeders!!


Scots-Irish is a specific culture in Northern Ireland, It can't beused to mean both the Scottish and Irish cultures.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Interesting, isn't it, and telling, that so many American members have taken the time to make posts to suggest that this event, so important, even momentous to Britain, is of no significant interest to them. It tells us Europeans so much about the view of Americans of the rest of the world. Not so much their indifference, but their desire to tell us of their indifference.


Actually, it tells you nothing.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

American indifference is easy to understand. Most have positive associations with all Britons and thus would be disinclined to take a position on what appears to be a family squabble. The ramifications of Scottish independence, moreover, are abstract for us and at most indirect. I'm against, but it's hardly keeping me up at night. A friend of Scottish heritage is very for and put a Scottish flag in his window. But it's not keeping him up at night either. It's just a pride thing.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> Actually, it tells you nothing.


On the contrary, it speaks volumes. You yourself have posted some reasonable views; others have, as will be obvious to you by looking at their posts, have simply used the referendum as a vehicle for their wit, or to express their view that they aren't interested. It's not the indifference that you mention in your next post that's telling, it's their need to tell the rest of the membership that they're indifferent, or to joke about a very serious subject.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Chouan said:


> On the contrary, it speaks volumes. You yourself have posted some reasonable views; others have, as will be obvious to you by looking at their posts, have simply used the referendum as a vehicle for their wit, or to express their view that they aren't interested. It's not the indifference that you mention in your next post that's telling, it's their need to tell the rest of the membership that they're indifferent, or to joke about a very serious subject.


If it tells you anything, it tells you something about the motives of people who post here, whatever their nationality.

Now here's a serious American take on Scottish independence


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> If it tells you anything, it tells you something about the motives of people who post here, whatever their nationality.
> 
> Now here's a serious American take on Scottish independence


Yes, indeed it does. 
And an interesting view.....


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

All the usual teeth-gnashers about American imperialism show up, most seemingly complaining about the Scots wanting freedom from the crown.

Queue the hypocrisy.

Americans figured out this was for the best almost a quarter of a millennium ago.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Pentheos said:


> All the usual teeth-gnashers about American imperialism show up, most seemingly complaining about the Scots wanting freedom from the crown.
> 
> Queue the hypocrisy.
> 
> Americans figured out this was for the best almost a quarter of a millennium ago.


This would be back when 'Americans' were mostly just English folk who had taken a trip on a boat? :devil:


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Pentheos said:


> All the usual teeth-gnashers about American imperialism show up, most seemingly complaining about the Scots wanting freedom from the crown.
> 
> Queue the hypocrisy.
> 
> Americans figured out this was for the best almost a quarter of a millennium ago.


As I understand it, the Queen would still be monarch of an independent Scotland. Same as she is of Canada. What they are voting on is freedom from Westminster.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> All the usual teeth-gnashers about American imperialism show up, most seemingly complaining about the Scots wanting freedom from the crown.
> 
> Queue the hypocrisy.
> 
> Americans figured out this was for the best almost a quarter of a millennium ago.


Where? Can you show us one post that complains about the Scots wanting "freedom from the crown". (I'm ignoring your factual inaccuracies about the referendum. I'll put that down to simple ignorance.)


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> All the usual teeth-gnashers about American imperialism show up, most seemingly complaining about the Scots wanting freedom from the crown.
> 
> Queue the hypocrisy.
> 
> Americans figured out this was for the best almost a quarter of a millennium ago.


Oh, and can you point out the hypocrisy as well please, I seem to have missed it.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Interesting, isn't it, and telling, that so many American members have taken the time to make posts to suggest that this event, so important, even momentous to Britain, is of no significant interest to them. It tells us Europeans so much about the view of Americans of the rest of the world. Not so much their indifference, but their desire to tell us of their indifference.


I don't like the pissing matches so many posts now degenerate into, but let me point out that the "so many American members" commenting are: Tocqueville, who did not imply that this is of no interest; Eagle 2250, who agreed with one of his points; me, who only commented on a small aspect that someone else brought up (and, BTW, I was uninterested in the technicalities of the admin elements, not Scottish independence); Hitch, okay one "ho hum" there, and; Woulda Shoulda, who makes short,snide comments about *everything.

*And if there were a large American outcry, yea or nay, we'd be accused of butting in where we don't belong..."as usual, but what can you expect from those bloody Yanks, etc.,etc."


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Langham said:


> As I understand it, the Queen would still be monarch of an independent Scotland. Same as she is of Canada. What they are voting on is freedom from Westminster.





Chouan said:


> Where? Can you show us one post that complains about the Scots wanting "freedom from the crown". (I'm ignoring your factual inaccuracies about the referendum. I'll put that down to simple ignorance.)


Now now boys, don't let facts get in the way of an interesting debate with a lunatic. Just don't expect any backing statements versus one liners.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Langham said:


> As I understand it, the Queen would still be monarch of an independent Scotland. Same as she is of Canada. What they are voting on is freedom from Westminster.


Interesting. I had not realized that. Makes the whole thing seem even more insignificant.

Hypocrisy? Most of you gents with skin in the game haven't stated their opinions, but one can read between the lines.

Yes or no, Chouan?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Pentheos said:


> Interesting. I had not realized that. Makes the whole thing seem even more insignificant.
> 
> ...


If you say that, I'm not sure you fully understand the issues. However, there is no particular reason why an American should.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Scots-Irish is a specific culture in Northern Ireland, It can't beused to mean both the Scottish and Irish cultures.


I don't care what they call themselves.

When they get a taste of our water or something, they breed like little McRabbits and O'Bunnies!!


----------



## Flairball (Dec 9, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Interesting, isn't it, and telling, that so many American members have taken the time to make posts to suggest that this event, so important, even momentous to Britain, is of no significant interest to them. It tells us Europeans so much about the view of Americans of the rest of the world. Not so much their indifference, but their desire to tell us of their indifference.


That's a pretty broad brush you paint with.

But really, have you taken a look at US politics lately? You really want us getting involved, giving out opinions? I don't think you really want that, and as one post in the other thread already spewed off about "plastic paddys", it seems our opinions are not welcomed anyway. As well they should not be. Not to mention, we have enough of our own problems here. We really don't need to meddle into your minor domestic issues.

I will admit, I don't know, and don't really care what you all decide. Why? It's not my country, nor fight. My first thoughts were what impact the split will have on me, and being across an ocean I betting the only difference will be the price of a bottle of scotch (of which I drink a lot, thus helping your economy. You welcome.).


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> Interesting. I had not realized that. Makes the whole thing seem even more insignificant.
> 
> Hypocrisy? Most of you gents with skin in the game haven't stated their opinions, but one can read between the lines.
> 
> Yes or no, Chouan?


An argument with a view that hasn't been expressed, interesting. So your "reading between the lines" has convinced you of what exactly. Really, I'm interested.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Flairball said:


> ...being across an ocean I betting the only difference will be the price of a bottle of scotch (of which I drink a lot, thus helping your economy. You welcome.).


I don't see the price of scotch changing because of the vote. The distillers have always charged just as much as they think the market will take, taking into account excise duty etc.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Good coverage to be found on the site of the Anglo-American blogger, Andrew Sullivan:
https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/?s=Scotland


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> Good coverage to be found on the site of the Anglo-American blogger, Andrew Sullivan:
> https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/?s=Scotland


An interesting read, thanks for posting it.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> All the usual teeth-gnashers about American imperialism show up, most seemingly complaining about the Scots wanting freedom from the crown.
> 
> Queue the hypocrisy.
> 
> Americans figured out this was for the best almost a quarter of a millennium ago.


Just out of interest, what kind of freedom from the crown did you think Scotland is seeking?


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Chouan said:


> Just out of interest, what kind of freedom from the crown did you think Scotland is seeking?


I guess they'd like to keep the oil money in their own pockets?


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Langham said:


> As I understand it, the Queen would still be monarch of an independent Scotland. Same as she is of Canada. What they are voting on is freedom from Westminster.


"Dennis Canavan said a national referendum should be held on who should be head of state, if Scotland votes for independence in next year's referendum."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-23485054

Apparently not so straightforward...


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> "Dennis Canavan said a national referendum should be held on who should be head of state, if Scotland votes for independence in next year's referendum."
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-23485054
> 
> Apparently not so straightforward...


An ex-politician with no mandate from any body. His personal view is worth what exactly?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> I guess they'd like to keep the oil money in their own pockets?


You're equating keeping oil revenue with freedom? That's a strange definition of freedom! 
In any case that doesn't explain what you mean by "freedom from the crown". The statement seems to imply that being subject to a crown means a lack of freedom. In what way?


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Chouan said:


> You're equating keeping oil revenue with freedom? That's a strange definition of freedom!
> In any case that doesn't explain what you mean by "freedom from the crown". The statement seems to imply that being subject to a crown means a lack of freedom. In what way?


Economic self-determination is freedom.

I have to ask. Do you see the monarchy as a quaint relic? Or do you believe that you are inferior to them? If you find them historically interesting, fine. But if you admit that you are inferior to another human, you can never truly be free.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Langham said:


> If you say that, I'm not sure you fully understand the issues. However, there is no particular reason why an American should.


Never fear. 
CNN is there with the answers.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

CNN 110% accurate.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

New hope for the State of Jefferson.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> Economic self-determination is freedom.


And in what way do you imagine that Scotland, as part of the UK lacks self-determination? Does any US state lack self-determination within the Union? To me a desire for freedom from something implies that that something must be somehow controlling, repressing, oppressing, or dominating that which desires freedom. In what way does the UK, or the crown do any of those things to Scotland?



Pentheos said:


> I have to ask. Do you see the monarchy as a quaint relic? Or do you believe that you are inferior to them? If you find them historically interesting, fine. But if you admit that you are inferior to another human, you can never truly be free.


You're asking questions that are non sequiturs. Perhaps in your view there are only simple alternatives, either a) The monarchy as a quaint relic or b) You believe that you are inferior to them. It isn't as simple as that; one can respect the monarchy, and the monarch, without being or feeling inferior to them.
Would an American necessarily feel themself to be inferior to one of the oligarchs that runs the US?

Finally, a question on a related issue. What happened when a region of the US exercised its freedom and voted for independence from the Union. Did the US respect the democratic voice of the people of that region in what they saw as a legitimate demand for freedom from what they saw as oppression?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Pentheos said:


> "Dennis Canavan said a national referendum should be held on who should be head of state, if Scotland votes for independence in next year's referendum."
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-23485054
> 
> Apparently not so straightforward...


This matter is now of barely even academic interest. No doubt there are Scottish republicans, just as there are eccentric individuals everywhere, but the independence vote was never about the position of the monarch as head of state, whether of the United Kingdom or a putative independent Scotland.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I don't care what they call themselves.
> 
> When they get a taste of our water or something, they breed like little McRabbits and O'Bunnies!!


he he he 

But it has nothing to do with your water, they taste American whiskey & think, "Jesus, Mary & Joseph, we can't drink this ditchwater, lets fck instead! "


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Speaking as just one of those "pain in the a**" Colonials, I was pleased to read this AM that the Union was preserved, for the better good of all. Now here's to hoping that proper thought and consideration will be given to addressing and resolving the aggravations that served to foment such separatist discontent in the first place!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Speaking as just one of those "pain in the a**" Colonials, I was pleased to read this AM that the Union was preserved, for the better good of all. Now here's to hoping that proper thought and consideration will be given to addressing and resolving the aggravations that served to foment such separatist discontent in the first place!


You mean pay them off even more than they have already been paid??

Millions for defense, not on cent for tribute!!


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

To add to the torrent of commentary from us across the pond, I was pleased to read this morning that the Union had been preserved.

Rule Britannia!


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Perhaps it's time for Britons to read the US Constitution and think about what federalism might look like. Or the German constitution, for that matter, although I know little about how the Germans worked out state versus federal authorities. It would require a radical break from an ancient way of doing business, but not so radical in that it would be inconsistent with British values or democracy. Hamilton and Madison, after all, were children of the British Enlightenment.

Any way, broaching the subject of independence and settling the matter peaceably and democratically is a remarkable thing, and a credit to Britons.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Federalism might seem the obvious arrangement, since the Scots, Welsh and N Irish already have their own parliaments. One problem however is the population asymmetry - the English are c. 80% of the entire population, so would naturally expect to have a bigger say in the federal chamber - effectively the others would have no voice. Devolution will not deal with all issues such as defence.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> Perhaps it's time for Britons to read the US Constitution and think about what federalism might look like.


WOW!!

You really want to tee them off, don't you??

:thumbs-up:


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Langham said:


> Federalism might seem the obvious arrangement, since the Scots, Welsh and N Irish already have their own parliaments. One problem however is the population asymmetry - the English are c. 80% of the entire population, so would naturally expect to have a bigger say in the federal chamber - effectively the others would have no voice. Devolution will not deal with all issues such as defence.


Our Constitution manages such things, with the bigger states having more votes in the House, but everyone having an equal say in the Senate. Thus England would get more votes...It can be infuriating at times: why the hell should South Dakota have a say in anything? There are more people living in the District of Columbia. But it works. Part of the key is figuring out how to divide up authorities/responsibilities between the states and the federal government. Defense for sure goes to the federal government. I offer no solutions and certainly would never argue that any system (ours, Germany's, etc) could simply be cut and pasted onto Briton, but I think federalism works and can work, however the details are sorted out. Regardless, I look forward to following what promises to be a fascinating debate.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Speaking as just one of those "pain in the a**" Colonials


No need to do yourself down Eagle, others will do that for you!



eagle2250 said:


> I was pleased to read this AM that the Union was preserved, for the better good of all. Now here's to hoping that proper thought and consideration will be given to addressing and resolving the aggravations that served to foment such separatist discontent in the first place!


The problem, if it is a problem, is that there are no real aggravations to resolve. Essentially the separatist discontent is an emotional one, played upon by the Nationalist politicians who see their own advancement in separatism. There is an emotional appeal in self-rule, even if the rule at the moment is inclusive and democratic. The only real problem is one that was highlighted on the other Scottish Independence thread. that is that Scotland has historically almost always voted Labour in general elections, with Scotland being traditionally, over the last century, being politically to the left, certainly in urban centres. Parts of Glasgow returned Communist MPs in the 1920's, for example. Hence there is only one Tory MP in all of Scotland, the rest being SNP, Lib Dem or Labour. This is almost invariably the case in general elections. Consequently a view has built up in Scotland that however Scottish constituencies vote, or however Scots vote, the government in Whitehall is decided by how England votes. It's not that Scots don't have a say, or aren't represented in Parliament, but the perception is that the Scots votes don't make a difference. A parallel with the US might be that a State that always votes Republican might feel that its voice isn't heard if Congress and the president are both Democrat.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Chouan said:


> The problem, if it is a problem, is that there are no real aggravations to resolve. Essentially the separatist discontent is an emotional one, played upon by the Nationalist politicians who see their own advancement in separatism. There is an emotional appeal in self-rule, even if the rule at the moment is inclusive and democratic. The only real problem is one that was highlighted on the other Scottish Independence thread. that is that Scotland has historically almost always voted Labour in general elections, with Scotland being traditionally, over the last century, being politically to the left, certainly in urban centres. Parts of Glasgow returned Communist MPs in the 1920's, for example. Hence there is only one Tory MP in all of Scotland, the rest being SNP, Lib Dem or Labour. This is almost invariably the case in general elections. Consequently a view has built up in Scotland that however Scottish constituencies vote, or however Scots vote, the government in Whitehall is decided by how England votes. It's not that Scots don't have a say, or aren't represented in Parliament, but the perception is that the Scots votes don't make a difference. A parallel with the US might be that a State that always votes Republican might feel that its voice isn't heard if Congress and the president are both Democrat.


Useful analysis. Thank you.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Chouan said:


> Essentially the separatist discontent is an emotional one, played upon by the Nationalist politicians who see their own advancement in separatism.


That's it in a nutshell, and was certainly the case with Ireland's bloodier bid for independence 98 years ago.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> Useful analysis. Thank you.


It's as if Scotland is just like Takoma Park isn't it??

More thoughtful analysis;

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...votes-no-the-debate-in-Mean-Girls-quotes.html


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Chouan said:


> No need to do yourself down Eagle, others will do that for you!
> 
> The problem, if it is a problem, is that there are no real aggravations to resolve. Essentially the separatist discontent is an emotional one, played upon by the Nationalist politicians who see their own advancement in separatism. There is an emotional appeal in self-rule, even if the rule at the moment is inclusive and democratic. The only real problem is one that was highlighted on the other Scottish Independence thread. that is that Scotland has historically almost always voted Labour in general elections, with Scotland being traditionally, over the last century, being politically to the left, certainly in urban centres. Parts of Glasgow returned Communist MPs in the 1920's, for example. Hence there is only one Tory MP in all of Scotland, the rest being SNP, Lib Dem or Labour. This is almost invariably the case in general elections. Consequently a view has built up in Scotland that however Scottish constituencies vote, or however Scots vote, the government in Whitehall is decided by how England votes. It's not that Scots don't have a say, or aren't represented in Parliament, but the perception is that the Scots votes don't make a difference. A parallel with the US might be that a State that always votes Republican might feel that its voice isn't heard if Congress and the president are both Democrat.


Regarding your opening observation, LOL, I always knew I could count on you. 

Regarding your analysis of the issue, your inner teacher is showing...and I mean that as a compliment! Thank you for a thoroughly understandable summary of a very complex challenge.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> It's as if Scotland is just like Takoma Park isn't it??


I don't follow.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> I don't follow.


Scotland;


> Scotland has historically almost always voted Labour in general elections, with Scotland being traditionally, over the last century, being politically to the left, certainly in urban centres. Parts of Glasgow returned Communist MPs in the 1920's, for example.


Takoma Park, MD USA


> Takoma Park's electorate and its elected officials are known for their liberal and left-of-liberal values, which have led to the enactment of several municipal laws. For instance, Takoma Park allows non-U.S.-citizen residents to vote in its own municipal elections, and has lowered their voting age to 16.[SUP][41][/SUP] The city was also forbidden, by statute, from doing business with any entity having commercial ties with the government of Burma (Myanmar),[SUP][42][/SUP] though after a United States Supreme Court decision struck down a similar Massachusetts provision, enforcement of the provision was suspended in the year 2000. As of 2007, the Free Burma Committee is inactive.[SUP][43][/SUP] In 2008, the city unanimously approved a resolution to oppose foie gras.[SUP][44][/SUP]
> Takoma Park is noted for being a "Nuclear Free Zone" along with cities including Berkeley, California; Cleveland Heights, Ohio; Madison, Wisconsin; and Homer, Alaska. It has an active Nuclear Free Zone Committee that advocates for nuclear disarmament and is entrusted with making purchasing recommendations to the city


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Regarding your opening observation, LOL, I always knew I could count on you.
> 
> Regarding your analysis of the issue, your inner teacher is showing...and I mean that as a compliment! Thank you for a thoroughly understandable summary of a very complex challenge.


Thank you for saying so.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> Useful analysis. Thank you.


Thank you for saying so.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Odradek said:


> That's it in a nutshell, and was certainly the case with Ireland's bloodier bid for independence 98 years ago.


Thank you for saying so. My feelings exactly, despite having a Grandfather-in-law who was an "irregular".


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Chouan said:


> Thank you for saying so. My feelings exactly, despite having a Grandfather-in-law who was an "irregular".


I have family who were on both sides, and carried the argument right down to recent years.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Langham said:


> I'm not sure why the EU is sticking its oar in, but the Spanish, for instance, are very worried that Catalonia and other regions will demand votes for independence now. Perhaps the Bavarians will also demand a vote?
> 
> The threats about currency, EU membership etc are just bluster.


Speak of the devil....
*Catalan parliament approves independence vote*



> _*Catalonia's parliament has voted overwhelmingly in favour of giving its regional president the power to call an independence "consultation".
> *__Spain's government opposes the Catalan "consultation" vote and is taking the dispute to the Constitutional Court._
> _The move comes a day after Scotland voted against independence from the United Kingdom._
> _Catalan President Artur Mas said Scotland's referendum had "shown the way" for Catalonian independence._
> _He is preparing Catalonia for a similar vote on 9 November, with large-scale support for independence from Spain._


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> Economic self-determination is freedom.
> 
> I have to ask. Do you see the monarchy as a quaint relic? Or do you believe that you are inferior to them? If you find them historically interesting, fine. But if you admit that you are inferior to another human, you can never truly be free.


Did you read my response? I did ask you some pertinent questions about your views, as stated here, which you haven't responded to. The lack of response might suggest that you can't answer them, or that you don't want to answer them. I am genuinely interested, however, in your response, so I urge you to do so.


----------

