I don't understand your discussion about whether IS's actions are legitimate or not. IS is a threat, IS dies. It's that simple. Debating whether their actions are legitimate or not is a matter which we can leave to philosophers. Because if the minority group in a country can split apart and leave whenever they want, you can't expect a democracy to survive. Hence why I brought up the South and Sherman's quote. Will NI go next? Or Catalonia? Or the Bretons? Are we to see Europe devolve back into a bunch of squabbling countries - and of course they'll squabble if not fight each other. That is what happens when you have a bunch of small states next to each other with no major power to keep them in line. Unless you think that humanity is more evolved and has progressed more from our past? And how typical of Western liberalism. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters are the commercial agreements and your obsession with freedom.
Of course we have evolved and progressed from our past. Countries are far more tied economically to each other and they are run by governments more focused on the interests of their people. If Scotland splits from England, those two countries won't be enemies. Their economies will still be interwoven and highly dependent on each other. They won't have kings that use their peasants as pawns to go invade each other. Separating Yugoslavia and breaking up the Iron Curtain into a bunch of truly independent countries didn't lead all those countries into constant war with each other. Except for the ones being invaded by Russia all the time, they are all better off for it.
Exactly. European states do not have the federal/state relationship that the US has. The American system of government has a very specific and protected delegation of authority to states. It ensures a level of regional and local control over a variety of areas of government. Scotland just got a parliament in 1998 and they dont even get half of the governing functions that an American state government has. We clamor in this country all the time for local control but the reality is that what the average American state has is light years more in terms of governing authority than the Scots. The Scots barely have control over taxation and revenues. And its superseded constantly by Westminster when it comes to spending priorities. England holds the largest number of seats in the UK parliament and so English priorities have always been a focal point of legislation. It's understandable that the Scots feel disconnected from this process. For most of its history in the UK, the Scots had zero law making power outside of the delegation it sent to Westminster and that only mattered if the Labour Party happened to have control of government. If the Tories were governing, then your MPs basically serve little to no purpose. Americans have two things going for it that Europe doesn't have. 1) We had a huge civil war that scared the entire country into more or less agreeing that secession is insane and 2) We have a federal republican arrangement that gives states and local communities significant governing authority that European parliamentary systems simply dont provide.
And if I was Iranian, I would be fully on board with making sure my country got nukes to protect ourselves from those evil Americans. So what? I'm not Iranian, nor do I live in 1776. And even in the case of the American Revolution, the Americans could point to British abuses like the Intolerable Acts as justification for leaving while the Scots can point to.........
As a Scot I hope this vote for independence doesn't succeed. There is a deep rooted hatred for the English and David Cameron is a twat, but this will not be what's best for Scotland.
I'm amazed at how Salmond has managed to sweep away the foreign policy and economic concerns. Blind optimism doesn't counter ageing population, falling oil revenues and questionable currency options.
The south voted for independence. They did not invade anyone, simply defended their homes. The North invaded the South and Grant and Sherman burned crops and homes of innocent people. Generally speaking they committed war crimes. Also, slavery was an issue, but independence was the cause. Grant, a northern general, himself owned slaves. So how can you say he was fighting to end slavery? Lincoln was also a racist. And the North did not outlaw slavery until some time after the war, not before. The winners write the history books, and like to tell tall tales of moral justifications that really did not exist.
The growth of unchecked federal power even in the US is disconcerting. Blue states like NY and California have too much power/population/(wealth extracted from red colonies) dictating their values onto red states.
Shhh Americans want to believe everything they do is righteous and glorious and we are above such atrocities.
That's the way it was designed, but not the reality. There are very few areas of life the federal government does not have purview over (or couldn't if they get the inclination to). The intent was the federal government would be limited to specific enumerated powers. Today, they have power over anything that isn't strictly forbidden to them(speech, press, etc.). And the vast power it wields today is largely given to unelected regulatory agencies.
Are you really blaming New York and California for being too powerful because more people want to live there than Wyoming or Alabama?
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/umzRoqtWvrA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Also to answer Kojirou who has been wondering where Scottish independence movement has been is that it has been there for hundreds of years but has been mired in issues of class and religion. Also the UK government for obvious reasons hasn't been as accommodating as it has in recent decades to Scottish self-rule. Regarding oppression English landowners, along with wealthy Scots, have taken advantage of poor Scottish Highlanders for centuries and many were shipped off to debtors prisons in North America and Australia.
You have that backward. Independence was the issue but slavery was the cause. Given how quickly the 13th and 14th Amendments passed after the war it was pretty clear that the strong tide of feeling in the North was to end slavery so yes slavery didn't end till after the war but it ended pretty quickly. Without slavery as an issue it's unlikely the Civil War happens. Yes there were other conflicts regarding states rights in the 19th C. but none of those were to the level of slavery.
True there are a lot of issues that will need to be ironed out but Scottish independence isn't going to be Scotland withdrawing from the Europe or even the UK. An independent Scotland will still likely be heavily involved in the EU if not a full member, and will also still maintain many economic ties to the rest of Britain.
Debtors prison? What's next, are you going to talk about how Scottish children were forced to work in the coal mines or something?
Fine, it can have many economic ties with Britain, and what if it keeps the pound? We've already seen what happens when multiple countries try to have a currency union but not political union, and it was an absolutely mess. Scotland would be involved with the EU, but people seem to assume they can sail through the membership scheme easily when things like debt split hasn't even been resolved.
