I Support Scotland!

[CrossCuT]

:bananarap:

[Lilllabettt]

U.K. all the way baby

[KnightofChrist]

Does it even matter if they just turn right around and give up their independence to the EU?

[EmilyAnn]

While I personally support the union I only hope that the Scottish voters take this decision seriously, whichever way the vote goes tomorrow. I suspect it will be a yes.

 

Does it even matter if they just turn right around and give up their independence to the EU?

 

You assume that in the event of independence they'd be accepted into the EU and there have been indications it might be tricker than Mr. Salmond and his ilk would like to think. Also, while Westminster has indicated a pull away from the more unfavourable aspects of the EU (and has refused to accept EU court rulings over British law) I am not sure that Holyrood would do the same.

[marigold]

I understand the convictions behind independence, but I'm not sure that Scotland will make it on its own just off the bat.

[puellapaschalis]

Scotland (and Wales and NI) have more representation and self-determination than England do. I'm in favour of the Union. If Scotland vote Yes the chance is large that it'll only be her own face she spites. Whether she'll actually vote Yes I don't know.

[superblue]

good luck to Scottland, God knows if any State in the USA tried that, the Feds would be swarming in with everything, and morons in our own Military would blindly follow orders to stop what ever it is we want to call it.

 

The  white house website that does the polls even responded to a 30,000 request on addressing states requesting to seceede ( turns out the white house thinks a state needs permission to seceede, and or a good reason to. )

 

You can bet Texas can Seceede and survive any day of the week,  Same for any other state, it would be the same, a struggle at first but in eventually individual states would figure it out here in the USA as well,,,, then we would have to change the name to just America.

 

Anyhow Scottland is really setting presidence for America and others on the topic of seceeding.   An we shall see if " voting to seceede " really works.

[Lilllabettt]

good luck to Scottland, God knows if any State in the USA tried that, the Feds would be swarming in with everything, and morons in our own Military would blindly follow orders to stop what ever it is we want to call it.

 

The  white house website that does the polls even responded to a 30,000 request on addressing states requesting to seceede ( turns out the white house thinks a state needs permission to seceede, and or a good reason to. )

 

You can bet Texas can Seceede and survive any day of the week,  Same for any other state, it would be the same, a struggle at first but in eventually individual states would figure it out here in the USA as well,,,, then we would have to change the name to just America.

 

Anyhow Scottland is really setting presidence for America and others on the topic of seceeding.   An we shall see if " voting to seceede " really works.

 

Secession from the United States is illegal. The chances of the law being overturned are close to zero.  

[Nihil Obstat]

Secession from the United States is illegal.  

Is it immoral though?

[Cherie]

Can someone give me like a two paragraph explanation of pros/cons, reasons why this is going on, stuff like that?

I've not been at all involved with the news on this stuff, except for a stupid piece I stumbled upon that showed a cloud shaped like the UK but without Scotland. So yeah. Help a sister out? Por favor?

[John Ryan]

Is it immoral though?

 

Texas has a stronger case, since it has always had a tradition of autonomy and otherness from the rest of the union. 

[puellapaschalis]

Can someone give me like a two paragraph explanation of pros/cons, reasons why this is going on, stuff like that?

I've not been at all involved with the news on this stuff, except for a stupid piece I stumbled upon that showed a cloud shaped like the UK but without Scotland. So yeah. Help a sister out? Por favor?

 

Full disclosure: I'm a quarter Scottish, if my late grandmother and general family folklore is to be believed. I was brought up in England.

 

As I understand the Yes camp:

 

1) National identity: England and Scotland have historically (and I'm generalising massively) either been in political union, or at war. Don't refer to a Scot as an Englishman/woman, still less a Brit. Scotland has its own history and culture (music, dance, language, &c) which Scots are very proud of.

 

2) Economy/Politics: Scotland feels hard done by by politicians in Westminster (but let's be honest - who doesn't?). Poverty is a very real problem. There's a whole lot of North Sea Oil wells that generate income which doesn't seem to benefit Scotland itself at all. Scots want to have independence beyond the devolution they gained a few years back.

 

As I understand the No camp:

 

1) UK sovereignty. Like it or not, the union has been a fact since the crowns joined in 1603 and Parliaments did the same in 1707.

 

2) There may be some economic things, but I'm not certain enough to fit them in this summary for you.

 

There is confusion/debate about what an independent Scotland would do in terms of practicalities:

 

1) Currency? Westminster will not let Scotland use GBP; the Yes camp is threatening not to take on Scotland's share of the national debt if they're not allowed to use GBP.

 

2) EU/NATO/&c? Automatic membership of the EU (and any probably use of the Euro as currency) is not guaranteed (Spain won't hear of it - they've got separatists to deal with as well).

 

3) Defense? There is a decent proportion of the Armed Forces stationed in Scotland, including a massive naval base. If Westminster decides to pull those facilities south of the border, where might Scotland get the manpower from to man that...very very long coastline?

 

4) Industry? There's a list of banks (including, funnily, the Royal Bank of Scotland) who have said that they have a contingency plan to move their legal registration to London in case of a Yes vote. Mortgage providers have said they cannot guarantee they will offer the same products to people north of the border as they do/will for the rest of the UK.

 

5) There are probably lots more, but this is my limited understanding. I won't be paying much attention tomorrow as I've got a job interview which is taking up more energy right now :)

 

 

[Lilllabettt]

Is it immoral though?

 

 

Secession has no objective moral value. Its morality is determined by context.

In the American context I think any such venture would be so completely doomed as to be immoral.

Presumably if the Scottish vote to secede tomorrow they will not trigger an apocalyptic internecine war.

Whereas little American children grow up with the idea that the Union is a mystical bond, the Civil War was a Crusade, and Abraham Lincoln died for their sins. And they visit his temple on school field trips. So like I said: apocalyptic internecine war.

[puellapaschalis]

There's a part of me that wonders if a situation similar (though there are plenty of differences between the two contexts) to the Troubles will arise. Because dear sweet Lord, we do not need that again.

[CatherineM]

Texas reserved the right to succeed when they joined the Union.

97% of adults in Scotland have registered to vote so they are definitely going to probably have a good turn out.

If it turns out Yes, UK will end up with a new Prime Minister.

[superblue]

Secession from the United States is illegal. The chances of the law being overturned are close to zero.  

 

 

 You are absolutely insane if you think a State in the USA  to claim Secession is Illegal , this debate itself has been time an again questioned, there is absolutely nothing anywhere in the Consitution or the Bill of Rights nor will there ever be, anything that remotely comes close to forbidding a State in America from Seceeding, as to the chances of a state actually doing it, be the one with the only chance to do it is Texas, it will never happen, nor the other 49. for plenty of reasons. none of them good.

[superblue]

Which if you want to believe Seceeding in America is illegal, that is rather a very sad thought, because in that case it leaves the American people nothing in terms of rectifying an injust situation,  all there would be is to put a bucket over ones head and pretend that one can simply vote away ones problems.

 

The only reason Scottland has a chance is because they are united, and we are in a modern civilization where Scottland is not critical to the world, when states in China, Russia, and the USA, N.Korea, start talking secession or a revolt, then everyone gets on pins an needles.

 

 

But in the end who cares, because it all only matters if peaceful and honest people abide by the rules set in place, when you put dishonest and corrupt people into a system with checks an balances then that system is no longer trust worthy, and then when that system controls the weapons , money, and can now create new laws to protect themselves, the people then become slaves because all they can do is say well, that is the law we voted for, and it is illegal to revolt or seceed so oh well.

[puellapaschalis]

All I know about Texas I learnt from Dallas and CGP Grey.

 

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S92fTz_-kQE[/youtube]

[Lilllabettt]

 You are absolutely insane if you think a State in the USA  to claim Secession is Illegal , this debate itself has been time an again questioned, there is absolutely nothing anywhere in the Consitution or the Bill of Rights nor will there ever be, anything that remotely comes close to forbidding a State in America from Seceeding, as to the chances of a state actually doing it, be the one with the only chance to do it is Texas, it will never happen, nor the other 49. for plenty of reasons. none of them good.

 

 

The question of the legality of secession was settled by this enormous precedent setting earthquake in American history known as the Civil War, a.k.a. War Between the States a.k.a. War of Northern Aggression:

 

"To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede." --Justice Antonin Scalia

 

 

Now I think Justice Scalia is a little "out there." But absolutely insane, not quite.

 

 Very occasionally the Supreme Court overturns established precedent. When you think you've found a cause big enough to overcome the precedent set by the Civil War let me know. Keep in mind that these words: "In this temple as in the hearts of the people for whom he saved the Union the memory of Abraham Lincoln is enshrined forever" are chiseled into the stone above a 20ft statue of 16th President of the United States, who got shot on Good Friday, shortly after giving a famous speech about forgiveness. Basically American history has assigned him the Jesus role, ok. Of course the United States has its own personal Jesus figure. Naturally. The point is if you think the people who decide what the Constitution means are going to change their minds about whether the Union is a mystical forever bond, do not hold your breath, cuz you'll die. 

 

I'm not talking about natural law, or moral law, or anything like that. No philosophy mumbo jumbo, just facts on the ground. Fact on the ground is that secession in America is illegal. 

 

Texas reserved the right to succeed when they joined the Union.

 

Thats nice. And a very Texan thing to do.

Personally I have no doubt that Americans loyal to the Union would burn Texas to the ground before allowing her to secede. See Field Order No. 120.

 

My understanding though is that for Englishmen the United Kingdom is not a religious experience. It follows that secession would not be a sacrilegious act. And therefore it would not produce a burning desire to open veins in Scotland. But I wonder about families on either side. Now we need a passport to visit Grandma? That would be a strange turn of things.

[puellapaschalis]

My understanding though is that for Englishmen the United Kingdom is not a religious experience. It follows that secession would not be a sacrilegious act. And therefore it would not produce a burning desire to open veins in Scotland. But I wonder about families on either side. Now we need a passport to visit Grandma? That would be a strange turn of things.

 

 

I can only describe it as hilarious. This country (NL) has me carrying my passport around with me anyway and I'm used to it now, but it's anathema to a British mind. That you'd need a passport when you're not even leaving the island...ha!

 

Also eloping to Gretna Green would become somewhat trickier.

 

In all seriousness though, despite what other separations there are, I don't see there being active border controls put into place.

Edited September 18, 2014 by puellapaschalis