Scotland Votes No on Independence

[MS256]

I was going to ask the same thing. And why stop there? Maybe he can be independent as a town, too. And heck, maybe his household should secede and form their own country?

:P

Reminds me of the stories of Callaway County Missouri and The Kingdom of Callaway.

“I am from the Kingdom of Callaway–6 feet, 4 1/2 inches tall, and all South, by God!”

(John Sampson)

[jamo]

I find the future implications even more interesting than the Scottish vote itself. If Scotland can hold such a successful referendum, so could Spain, Belgium, (gulp) Canada. [quote name="Gunther" url="/t/77257/scotland-votes-no-on-independence/0_30#post_1056981"] When a higher governmental power tells you that your autonomy will be increased, well, call me a skeptic but you know... Yes, they are free, as are we. However, they are subject to the whims of whomever is in power over them creating mandates, rules, laws, regs for which they/we are compelled to comply. I live free in my compound with my many wiv, er, friends and that's how I like it.[/quote] There are plenty benefits of consolidated power. Militarily, certainty, though it seemed like Scotland would have been perfectly fine to sacrifice that. Scotland would have certainly taken a hit in global politics. The UK, for instance, holds a spot on the UN Security Council, which Scotland would no longer be a part of. Then there's the money situation. They'd have to either negotiate with the UK about the pound-sterling, join the Eurozone, or create their own currency. All doable, but messy and uncertain. You say you'd rather strike out on your own than stay under a caretaker. That's easy to say, much much much harder to vote for.

[Gunther]

I find the future implications even more interesting than the Scottish vote itself. If Scotland can hold such a successful referendum, so could Spain, Belgium, (gulp) Canada. There are plenty benefits of consolidated power. Militarily, certainty, though it seemed like Scotland would have been perfectly fine to sacrifice that. Scotland would have certainly taken a hit in global politics. The UK, for instance, holds a spot on the UN Security Council, which Scotland would no longer be a part of. Then there's the money situation. They'd have to either negotiate with the UK about the pound-sterling, join the Eurozone, or create their own currency. All doable, but messy and uncertain. You say you'd rather strike out on your own than stay under a caretaker. That's easy to say, much much much harder to vote for.

Harder to vote for if you want to take the easy road and be dependent. Not my way.

[David in FL]

Surprised there hasn't been a thread on this. I'd be curious to hear folks' take on it. I have no idea how to start a poll from my phone, been searching to no avail but would welcome one if any of the mods are interested. Myself, I'm a little disappointed by the result. I guess being a conservative American, independence and self-reliance are hallmarks of my value system. Can't imagine giving up the opportunity to be in control of my destiny for dependence on a larger governmental body. Just doesn't compute with me. Scotland is and will remain one of my favorite places in the world and I don't believe this will affect me in any way, just made me a little sad.

What surprised me was an interview I heard with one of the leading proponents for independence. He said that in his mind, "the rich don't need to get richer, the poor don't need to get poorer, and that independence would allow for a more robust welfare system for those that "need" it. That statement gave me great pause......

[Gunther]

What surprised me was an interview I heard with one of the leading proponents for independence. He said that in his mind, "the rich don't need to get richer, the poor don't need to get poorer, and that independence would allow for a more robust welfare system for those that "need" it. That statement gave me great pause......

Wow, yes, that is curious. Doesn't seem to make sense. His thought is the ample social programs that already exist in the UK aren't enough so independence would allow for Scotland to become even more socialist? Don't think that would be economically viable. This mindset continues to baffle me.

[Hardballs]

It's not about a revolution, it's about having an opportunity to strike out on your own and control your own destiny or staying within the sheltered cocoon of a caretaker. I would always choose the former.

Sure! As an individual! I stand alone, I'm self employed, I make my own money and provide for my own family, I choose not to vote because nobody has yet given me confidence to vote for them, I pay taxes because I have to, not because I want to! But as a country they would be a small fish in a big sea, the world is taking sides, decisions have to be made for the good of a whole country, the natives of Scotland were fortunate enough to be given the opportunity to decide it's future, it was close, but I believe the correct decision was made for the good of the country, not for the grudge holding patriots who are blinded by bitterness to see the long term consequences.

[nick1998bunker]

I think its good they didn't. Allthough it wouldn't have affected me much.

[boogielicious]

@Gunther ,

Go read the wall of the those who died defending the Alamo.  You will find very few "Texans" on the wall.

http://www.thealamo.org/history/the-1836-battle/the-defenders/index.html

Texas talks of independence. But the reality is they owe so much to the rest of the Union and they are far stronger being part of the United States.

We are far stronger as a union than we are as independent states.  Scotland is far stronger being part of 35 Million than they ever would be as part of 5 million.  Scotland has a soul. Scotland has an identity.  No one can take that from them.  But being part of the UK makes them much stronger.

[Gunther]

@Gunther , Go read the wall of the those who died defending the Alamo.  You will find very few "Texans" on the wall.   [URL=http://www.thealamo.org/history/the-1836-battle/the-defenders/index.html]http://www.thealamo.org/history/the-1836-battle/the-defenders/index.html[/URL] Texas talks of independence. But the reality is they owe so much to the rest of the Union and they are far stronger being part of the United States. We are far stronger as a union than we are as independent states.  Scotland is far stronger being part of 35 Million than they ever would be as part of 5 million.  Scotland has a soul. Scotland has an identity.  No one can take that from them.  But being part of the UK makes them much stronger.

Been to the Alamo, know lots about. I would NEVER advocate seceding from the union, it's a dumb plan. But we're a state which is part of the greatest country the world has ever known (apologies to others but it's true). Scotland is a nation that I believe would do well on it's own (see Luxembourg or even little Liechtenstein). I would have voted for independence there. Never for TX in the US. Apples and oranges.

[iacas]

I would have voted for independence there. Never for TX in the US. Apples and oranges.

You could have chosen your words more carefully.

Myself, I'm a little disappointed by the result. I guess being a conservative American, independence and self-reliance are hallmarks of my value system. Can't imagine giving up the opportunity to be in control of my destiny for dependence on a larger governmental body. Just doesn't compute with me.

Certainly the U.S. government has a larger "body" than the UK's.

[k-troop]

@Gunther , Go read the wall of the those who died defending the Alamo.  You will find very few "Texans" on the wall.   [URL=http://www.thealamo.org/history/the-1836-battle/the-defenders/index.html]http://www.thealamo.org/history/the-1836-battle/the-defenders/index.html[/URL] Texas talks of independence. But the reality is they owe so much to the rest of the Union and they are far stronger being part of the United States.

Not really relevant, but the Texans who fought for Texas were just as "Texan" as the Continental Army was "American". Texas sought admission into the Union immediately upon Independence (and would have gotten it sooner but for the slavery question), but they fought alone.

[Mr. Desmond]

I would have voted for independence there. Never for TX in the US. Apples and oranges.

@Gunther

The photo opportunistic Ranger Rick Perry is very disappointed ... but still wants your vote in 2016. Apparently, Sean Hannity is a fan, too, of photo opps.

Here they are, guarding the Tex-Mex border from 10 year old Guatemala children....

[Gunther]

@Gunther The photo opportunistic Ranger Rick Perry is very disappointed ... but still wants your vote in 2016. Apparently, Sean Hannity is a fan, too, of photo opps.:-$ Here they are, guarding the Tex-Mex border from 10 year old Guatemala children....:whistle: [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/106275/] [/URL]

Seriously? You're in TX so should know better. Sure hope you're kidding. Aside from the hundreds of gbangers comin over, ISIL has told us they are there as well. But that's another topic.

[Gunther]

You could have chosen your words more carefully. Certainly the U.S. government has a larger "body" than the UK's.

I was drunk last night so wasn't phrasing well. On your 2nd point, not sure what you're getting at. The US is already independent, happened 240 years ago or so.

[Mr. Desmond]

Seriously? You're in TX so should know better. Sure hope you're kidding.

Aside from the hundreds of gbangers comin over, ISIL has told us they are there as well. But that's another topic.

Well, I do not take Ranger Rick seriously. He is a fraud, imho, who uses religion and politics to his power and economic advantage ... in my experience, unless they are in the religion business (that's what I've heard preachers call it ... lol), people who talk about Jesus frequently in public, usually have less than pure motives or have serious  emotional issues that are better resolved with a psychologist. "Now, Rick, how was that childhood? Why did you want to become a male cheerleader at an all male school? Hmmmm"

But the pic was taken at the time of the children coming over the border.

As to the other stuff, it belongs somewhere else. But there is a better way to handle the situation. If Ranger Rick was really interested in solving the problem and not in photo ops, he would talk seriously with Washington instead of tooting his horn constantly...

[iacas]

Texas is not the topic here guys.

[RandallT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunther


Wow, yes, that is curious. Doesn't seem to make sense. His thought is the ample social programs that already exist in the UK aren't enough so independence would allow for Scotland to become even more socialist? Don't think that would be economically viable. This mindset continues to baffle me.

I found this analysis below interesting, as my assumption was that Scotland was pulling a "Braveheart" thing- fierce independence, self-reliance, etc.  Apparently, quite a bit of the motivation was that England was too right-wing. Wow. PowerLine is a reliable conservative site that always has an interesting and well-informed take on current events.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/09/scottish-independence-from-britain-and-british-independence-from-scotland.php

Quote from above link:

So what grievance is driving the Scottish independence movement. In essence, according to Freedland, it’s the fact that England isn’t sufficiently left-wing:

For the Nationalists, Scotland has become a land of social democratic consensus, one that believes it has more in common with the high-tax, high-spend northern neighbors of Scandinavia than it does with the turbo-capitalism of the City of London.

“There is a strong sense that the UK is evolving towards the US model, where you can never give enough to the top one percent,” Blair Jenkins, formerly of the BBC and now chief executive of the Yes campaign, told me when we met at the Yes headquarters in Glasgow. “A more collective sense of society, of looking out for one another, is a strong part of Scottish life.”

This explanation, though not necessarily the value judgment it entails, rings true. Scotland has veered sharply to the left of England. The Conservative Party has ceased to exist as political force north of the border, having never recovered from the “stain” of Thatcherism. Even the selection of a 35 year-old lesbian as head of the Party hasn’t helped.

Virulent anti-Israel sentiment also separates Scotland from England, though there is no reason to believe that this sentiment is a factor in the independence movement. As Haaretz reported:

There is a proud radical left-wing tradition in Scottish politics and public life, and Glasgow is often referred to as the most leftist city in Britain. Beyond a belief in trade unionism and the welfare state, this has also been translated into support of foreign causes favored by the left.

This previously included the anti-apartheid struggle and, in more recent years, the Palestinian issue. . . . t seems that feeling among locals regarding Israel is much more negative than south of the border in England.

The BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) movement calling for a ban on anything Israel-related is particularly prevalent in Glasgow. In Edinburgh, pro-Palestinian campaigners have lobbied the city council not to hire French utility company Veolia, due to its work on the Jerusalem light rail system. And while similar boycott efforts also occur in England, there is a consensus that “it’s worse in Scotland.”

How should American conservatives feel about the prospect of Scottish secession? Frankly, I’d be fine with it. If it turns out that the Scots enjoy life more in a high-tax, high-spend workers’ paradise, good for them. If they come to regret being unmoored from English style capitalism, then a valuable lesson will have been learned — and not, one hopes, by the Scots alone.

[jbishop15]

I'm of two minds on this topic.

On the one hand, I'm very much a liberal and very proudly a leftist, so I agree with the idea of a more socialistic type of country. Their support of far-left causes would make me happy in that regard.

On the other, this would weaken the UK and put the Scots in a very difficult position. They would lose out militarily and economically to a degree that I think would really put the country in a bind.

So, it's difficult for me to parse. Gun to my head, I'd say its probably better for Scotland to stay with the UK, as long as Cameron doesn't go back on his word about granting them more autonomy.