[European News] Scottish Independence

Say what you want about America, I'm glad as **** we stamped out that sort of idiotic nationalism in 1865.

 

What would you say about independence for non-nationalistic reasons?

 

Is it happening for real?

 

Vote aye

 

What a ridiculous comment. A vote for independence is vastly different from a violent secession based off a right to keep slaves. Not to mention that Scotland has a far greater claim to being an actual nation than the American south ever did. It's not exactly like England has been Scotland's fairest partner, not to mention that an Irish precedent had already been set in the early 20th century.

I suppose 1776 was "that sort of idiotic nationalism" too, huh? Or maybe you are too dull to see the irony of your own post.

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/-YkLPxQp_y0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

This seems like one of those things that's going to be popular on the surface, but when people actually get into the voting booth, I don't think they go through with it. I think it fails, and I don't think the vote will be particularly close.

If it does happen, it will be fascinating to see how the separation plays out, and if it provides a model for other separatists (Quebec, Catalonia, the Basque region, etc).

 

Yeah I think it'll play out like the Quebec secession vote. I want to say that the day before the Quebec referendum, the Yes vote was polling 7 or 8 points ahead of no and yet a majority voted against independence. The same will happen in Scotland.

I dont anyone else is seceding either. Spain is militantly opposed to any secession and even threatened to veto Scotland's EU membership just to send a message that secession was wrong. And in Quebec, the Liberals just booted the Parti Quebecois out of the provincial assembly (and the NDP almost completely booted the Bloc Quebecois out of the federal delegation in 2011). Secession has died as an issue there right now.

 

While the Scottish vote is based off of...what, again? I mean, you claim that England hasn't been Scotland's fairest partner, but what has England done to Scotland over the last hundred years, if not two hundred, that was so evil and dastardly that it is clear poor Scotland has no choice but to break away? Where was this nationalism in 1900, or 1950? Sure, there are some political grievances - but are you seriously comparing what England did to Ireland to what England did to the Scots? Perhaps the Scots are still angry about Edward II or something?

If I lived in 1776, I probably would have fought for the British. But I don't live in 1776, so what difference does that make? Are you now going to claim that the Revolution was illegitimate because it "was a violent secession based off keeping a bunch of rich smugglers rich?"
Not to mention I sure as hell don't get how the English and the Scots can live side by side under one government for over 300 years, and yet still feel more English and Scottish than British.

I've argued it here before, and it's one thing I strongly believe - I don't like self-determination. Period. I view it as a chaotic, worthless ideal which causes more harm than good in the international sector. It was the obsession with self-determination which broke apart the great empires of Eastern Europe into little pieces which were unable to resist Hitler and thus paved the way for war. You hear all the time how if only the mean old Europeans hadn't divided Africa up geographically instead of by the tribes, everything would be fine - and that's a load of horsedung.

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Xc2wppzgTVM?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

They can't go independent if they're pegged to the pound.

Long term madness...

 

The majority of the intelligent Scottish have no interest in independence. They enjoy the ability to run south to get decent jobs and then go back home and retire. The Scottish economy is simply too small to support the impoverish. THere is no real benefit outside of pride for them to separate.

 

Scotland is a welfare state, it needs a sugar daddy.

If not Britain, it will be the EU.

 

Scots have a bit of oil, and a nice little economy. They are not stupid, they know it's obviously easier to stick with England. Incidentally I've never met a population so anti-independence as Americans, and that's typically concentrated in the right wing.

The question that's being asked here is: why? But the real questions are: why not and what do you care what happens? The default idea is independence and freedom. Every deviation from this idea should beg the question: why? and every return to this idea should beg the question: why not? Burden of proof is on the hishgest authorities, always.

This is a country seeking to leave a complex legal structure. This is not secession from a country. GB/Britain is not a country. England is a country. Scotland is a country. This is really a vote to disassociate at a peaceful time, and a particularly war-loving time for the English government. It will hurt the Scots in the short run, but in the long run there is absolutely no alternative to independence and sovereignty. Simply speaking, every human population from 4 people in a band to entire nations seek greater and greater independence in the long term. This can happen either by slow dissolution of authority into an administrative body, or by leaving these agreements.

They are agreements made in history and typically under duress. Morally, no one should give a rat's ass if people don't honor these agreements. England has for decades shat on agreements with other people all over the world, and has coerced its British partners into the same mess. If Scots want independence, I hope they have it. Unfortunately, I'm pessimistic about the outcome of this vote.

Also, it's pretty obvious that one side is begging for no changes, and you can pretty clearly assume from it that England is benefiting from this relationship more than Scotland. Or did you think the English government are acting like this out of a sentimental and nostalgic love for Scotland? lol

 

All these secession efforts in Europe are somewhat concerning. But they are a reaction to a feeling of being detached from centralist bureaucrats.

 

"But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. The United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling. This feeling assumes various shapes, but always comes back to that of Union. "

A country or a democracy which will allows its people to go willy-nilly is a rope made of sand. You cannot create a stable, working society if countries just go every which way, and the highest theoretical ideal is not one where every yahoo and their six cousins form the independent Republic of Meistan in the name of "freedom."

 

It's none of our business.

You are not giving a reason for why it's bad or why it wouldn't be just as stable if given the same benefit of doubt and time as any other state. You are just describing this as a child would: "allow people to go willy-nilly!!" lol Come on, we're grown ass people. Neither you or I or the people in charge of this believe that the problem is that it's disorganized. This is obviously a matter of assets and leveraging off them which you and the state believe is a right acquired through victorious murderous warfare because power wins. I don't believe that. A lot of people don't believe that. It's not really a basis for discussion either because it's just made up of random illogical thoughts. Can't agree with it can't argue with it. The big issue with it is that this is exactly the basis on which ISIS and Al Qaeda operate, so I can't understand how you can say with a straight face that they are wrong about anything. If that's how the world works, the way you describe it, then ISIS is doing exactly the right thing: is that your view of this?

Hey, I don't think 6 billion countries is the way to go but I just mind my own ****ing business unless I'm the only one that doesn't get a country.

 

I don't believe in good or evil in international affairs. I don't oppose IS because it is wrong for them to conquer others or because they are evil. I oppose IS because it is clear that IS is a threat to the United States. It's no different from the fact that America didn't fight Hitler because of what he did to the Jews and Poles. Hitler could have been the next Frederick the Great, and it wouldn't have changed the fact that a Nazi-dominated Europe would have been a serious strategic threat to America.

Heck, as I've observed: if it was possible to somehow get IS to focus everything on fighting the Shias/Iran and leave the West alone, I wouldn't care about them at all.

And I could understand Scottish self-determination if it was clear that England was oppressing Scotland and/or if the Scots had wanted to be independent in the past. I don't see either. Where was this Scottish nationalism in 1870 or 1920, when nationalism/self-determination became all the rage? Where was it in 1970? And where is this great English oppression? There's been some political infighting, but if a country is going to split every single damn time it gets sort of bad, then we are going to end up with a billion countries.

 

So if ISIS is a strategic threat to the US, then there must be goals and hence a game. What is the goal of this game? If the goal is what I think it is, then I can assume that you consider ISIS' war to be entirely legitimate? If ISIS is a strategic threat to you, then you are a strategic threat to ISIS and therefore they are legitimately executing innocent civilians from countries that have deemed it a threat to their strategy. Correct? If all that matters is the goal, then the lives of innocent civilians on the opposing side are meaningless really i.e. you don't care about their civilians, and they don't care about yours as long as the goal is achieved, no matter how detached that goal from the interests of the citizenry?

As for Scotland, I don't know why those things matter to you. Even if England has been amazing to them and they have never made a claim for independence, why would that matter to now seeking independence? Historically it hasn't mattered because if they had made a claim, they'd be demonized for it, and if they were in a terrible relationship with England, they would be blamed for it. This is a partnership of two different sets of people. As with all lopsided agreements, when the partnership was agreed, it was clear that this partnership would last as long as the interests were being met, rather than how long a piece of paper says it will last. It seems many Scots have decided that their interests are no longer being served adequately. NOW. They have been good boys, not caused any problems, no trash talking. They just want a clean break up. It's not even all Scots, it might not even be MOST Scots. But if that's what they decide, why does anything matter other than commercial agreements which can be maintained anyway post independence?

Doesn't matter to me. It doesn't matter to you either, it won't change anything in your life at all for as long as you live. But for you, it seems this is a game you like to see others playing so you have an interest in it ending up a certain way, the way that would indirectly be the best PR for a colony-hungry state. This is the crux of the way you view things, as you've described to me. The tiny tiny issue of "how will this appear to the subjects of my game" is a far more important issue to you than "will Scots get what they want?". Although we don't believe in good/evil, you are coming dangerously close to that territory if we were to define evil by relative terms, rather than absolute ones.