I Support Scotland!

[CatherineM]

I wonder what the US would look like if 90% of the population voted.

[PhuturePriest]

I wonder what the US would look like if 90% of the population voted.

 

The politics would most certainly be worse.

[superblue]

IT is a shame that Scotland didn't obtain their independance through a peaceful vote,  just goes to show what politicians will do to keep control, it isn't as if this was just a few people in Scotland looking to stir the pot that woke up one morning and said hey this will be fun for a few snickers n giggles,  money rules the vote and freedom takes a second seat.  Just goes to show that no one can simply vote to seceede, it takes a lot of money and in the end people willing to fight for what they want.

 

 

and  another interesting article.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-angry-washington-1-4-americans-open-secession-114109388.html

 

Rather interesting to see anyone cheering the scotts failure, masking this as a big mistake avoided, Same thing i suppose took place with the young America wanting to split from the crown, same calls that America would fail, or not be able to protect or take care of themselves and such a horrible thing to split from ones own countrymen.  And more over this is probably the outcome early America would have faced if they simply tried to negotiate with the crown, via a petition or a " vote ".

 

Scotland would have been better off, compsoing their own decleration of independence  and simply sending it in and to hell with voting.  If Russia can walk into a part of the Ukraine, and take it, with barely a slap on the wrist from the rest of the world, Scotland would have been just as vindicated to leave peacefully through their own decleration. And I suspect there would have been less to absolutely no reprocussions for Scotland doing so.  And to think Scotland would have fallen into the sea, or the boogy man would have came and gobbled them up for doing so, is just a ridiculous to think.

 

This was no fluke, or a stunt on the part of Scotland, and the " vote " is merely a tactic to keep power, to say here look we will give you a chance, lets just vote, would have been similar to the past of the Nazi party who thus created laws, that were aimed at the jewish people, and then arresting some jewish people, and telling them well you are convicted on this said law, but hey we will give you a fair trial. An then woops sorry you were found guilty. But hey least we gave you a fair trial.

 

Granted there are vast differences in the comparison the lethality of the situation and the hate is not there, but the same concept is, create a law to favor those in power, and then pretend to give the other side a fair trial, and then those blind to the situation applaude the fairness of everything.  And then the answer is, well you must be a sore loser, try again next year with another vote. Or appeal the conviction.   But what ever you do, don't be violent, don't fight for what you believe in, because the rules that you wanted and voted for that we now control and ammended is very fair, and to go against it would be treason and wrong and illegal.

 

So i guess Scotland has to just sit an spin till things get so horribly bad that everyone must concede by a mob observation that they have no other choice but to split ties by force.

[superblue]

I wonder what the US would look like if 90% of the population voted.

 

 

I would say it wouldn't matter , but considering how both parties go out of their way to manipulate illegal immigrants into voting, it has to matter to some degree, though with obvious tampering of votes each and every time it makes me wonder what is the point, to bring in extra votes, to then go and turn around and tamper with the voting process to swing things to one parties favor.

 

I would switch the question to what would the US look like if both parties did not manipulate illegal immigrants into voting, and no illegal immigrant from where ever they come from be allowed to vote at all, and also, there was zero tampering with the voting process.  If that took place, and if the vote wasn't always centered on swing states, then i think things would be really interesting.

 

That and the option of a vote of no confidence towards a presidential candidate or incumbent president, which would thus lead to the senate and congress having to work things out instead of being lead by the nose by one party in power at the top, claiming the other side is hindering things.

 

But it is interesting how the Presidency is now just a ticket to do what ever you want , and how you want, everyone else be damned.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

The crown has always offered independence to it's countries in the commonwealth at some time or another. She offered australia her independende about 15 years ago but the majority of australians voted to stay on the mothers breast so to speak. :)

[superblue]

The crown has always offered independence to it's countries in the commonwealth at some time or another. She offered australia her independende about 15 years ago but the majority of australians voted to stay on the mothers breast so to speak. :)

 

 

It is probably a dishonest offer to begin with, the offer of independence in one hand, and behind the back in the otherh and is a knife waiting. But if they sit there and cry about wanting independence and do not take the offer, then the cry wasn't true to begin with it would be better to take the offer and take ones chances on the honesty of the offer, But what ever Australia has more things to worry about with Japan than the crown.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

And superblue i doubt the crown has manipulated the vote count in scotland, though it is possible it is doubtful, she offers the independance to each commonwealth country at varying times and the people get to vote for independance, though perhaps with N.I, wales and scotland it may be different, i don't know. But i'm glad the scots got to vote. It may come up again in X amount of years time, as will australias, unsure if new zealand has ever had a vote for independance from the crown yet though. And canada was granted independance ages ago.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I wonder what the US would look like if 90% of the population voted.

 

It wouldn't just affect the U.S in a good way but it would affect the whole world. I assume more people used to vote in the U.S, but video and radio killed the soap box star. Who want's to stay up to date with the political tide of ones nation when you can numb your brain with entertainment and fantasy and forget the real world exists.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[marigold]

Yeah, there is no way the vote was fixed. I would witness to that in court. The only thing even on that continuum was that a bunch of people out on the islands had to vote by post a few days beforehand and then said they had changed their minds by the time referendum day dawned. I think there was a big upswing for the Yes side at the last minute because of the silly way the Nos were behaving - having politicians weeping on TV and promising all sorts of things like the last stages of a breakup: 'It can be an open relationship!' etc. :)

[hoosieranna]

The crown has always offered independence to it's countries in the commonwealth at some time or another. She offered australia her independende about 15 years ago but the majority of australians voted to stay on the mothers breast so to speak. :)

 

For clarity's sake, Australia is already independent.  There was a referendum about becoming a republic, which would remove the queen as head of state.  The status of the queen was the only thing that might have changed.
 

Edit:  NZ is an independent country as well.  Both have similar statuses as Canada.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Nadezhda

[puellapaschalis]

For clarity's sake, Australia is already independent.  There was a referendum about becoming a republic, which would remove the queen as head of state.  The status of the queen was the only thing that might have changed.
 

Edit:  NZ is an independent country as well.  Both have similar statuses as Canada.

 

I thought the only difference between Australia and New Zealand on the one hand and Canada on the other were that the former - now I was told this by an Ozzie, please don't get mad at me - were 'officially' still colonies, and that the latter was a self-governing dominion. This difference also explained the absence of the union jack in the countries' flags. Is there any credence in that (anymore)?
 

ETA: Of course practially this distinction is cosmetic; I don't see Canada being any more able to govern herself than Australia, or New Zealand, or even smaller places like the Falklands (difference in size and economies and bully boy crybaby tactics from certain neighbours notwithstanding).

Edited September 20, 2014 by puellapaschalis

[hoosieranna]

I thought the only difference between Australia and New Zealand on the one hand and Canada on the other were that the former - now I was told this by an Ozzie, please don't get mad at me - were 'officially' still colonies, and that the latter was a self-governing dominion. This difference also explained the absence of the union jack in the countries' flags. Is there any credence in that (anymore)?
 

ETA: Of course practially this distinction is cosmetic; I don't see Canada being any more able to govern herself than Australia, or New Zealand, or even smaller places like the Falklands (difference in size and economies and bully boy crybaby tactics from certain neighbours notwithstanding).

 

Not mad.  Here's what I know.  The UK parliament's ability to legislate on behalf of the Commonwealth was largely eliminated by the Statute of Westminter in 1931.

 

The Australia Act of 1986 eliminated any ability Westminster had to legislate on behalf of Australia.  The High Court, in 2003, recognized this as the country's independence date.

 

The Canada Act of 1982 ended the UK's involvement in and ability to amend the Canadian constitution.

 

The New Zealand Constitution Act of 1986 ended Westminster's ability to legislate on behalf of New Zealand's parliament.

 

The queen assented to the acts in her role as queen of each of the separate countries, separate from her role as queen of the United Kingdom.

 

I don't much care about Argentina.  I have differing views about self-governance, but put those down to my background.  Some of this I knew but the rest I had to revisit.  Thanks for the research opportunity (social science nerd)!