Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Will Scotland Become the New Cuba?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Will Scotland Become the New Cuba?

    Castro's revolution was seen as a threat by-example to South and Central America by the US. Will Scotland be the same for the global separatists?

    STEENOKKERZEEL, Belgium — For Kurt Ryon, the mayor of Steenokkerzeel, a Flemish village 10 miles northeast of Brussels, watching the Scottish independence campaign in the final days before the referendum is like watching a good game of soccer. “They were losing for the first half and most of the second half,” he said, “but now we’re in the 85th minute and they could be winning.”

    Mr. Ryon, who wants his native Flanders to split from Belgium, is rooting for Scotland to do the same from Britain, and like a faithful soccer fan he has all the gear: a T-shirt from the Scottish pro-independence “yes” campaign, a collection of “yes” pins on his denim jacket and copious amounts of a beer specially brewed by Flemish nationalists to express their solidarity. The label says “Ja!” next to a Scottish flag, Flemish for yes

    From Catalonia to Kurdistan, nationalist and separatist movements in Europe and beyond are watching the Scottish independence referendum closely — sometimes more so than Britons themselves, who seem to have only just woken up to the possibility that Scotland might vote next Thursday to bring to an end a 307-year union. A curious collection of left and right, rich and poor, marginal and mainstream, these movements are united in the hope that their shared ambition for more self-determination will get a lift from an independent Scotland.

    In the separatist-minded Basque Country, an autonomous community in northern Spain, the leader of the governing nationalist party has been known to dress up in a Scottish kilt and jokes that Basques would rather be part of an independent Scotland than remain part of Spain, which has ruled out any kind of vote. In Veneto, a region of northern Italy, nationalists have held a Scottish-inspired online referendum and now claim that 9 in 10 inhabitants want autonomy.

    Busloads of Catalans, South Tiroleans, Corsicans, Bretons, Frisians and “Finland-Swedes” are headed for Scotland to witness the vote. Even Bavaria (which calls itself “Europe’s seventh-largest economy”) is sending a delegation.

    “It would create a very important precedent,” said Naif Bezwan of Mardin Artuklu University in the Kurdish part of Turkey. Across the Iraqi border (“the Kurdish-Kurdish border,” as Mr. Bezwan puts it), where a confluence of war, oil disputes and political turmoil has renewed the debate about secession, Kurds pine for the opportunity of a Scottish-style breakup. “Everyone here is watching,” said Hemin Lihony, the web manager at Rudaw, Kurdistan’s largest news organization, based in Erbil, Iraq.

    History offers few examples of nations splitting up in a consensual way. The velvet divorce between the Czechs and the Slovaks in 1993 is one, the Norwegian referendum on independence from Sweden in 1905 another. But mostly, nation states go to war over their borders.

    America fought a civil war to preserve the union. Turkey fought Kurdish nationalists for decades and still denies them the right to Kurdish-language education. Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia — a status still not recognized by some countries — only after a war in the 1990s.

    President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who annexed Crimea in March after a stealth invasion and a referendum there, and who has been accused of aggressively aiding separatists in eastern Ukraine, has happily supported Scotland’s independence bid. But his attachment to self-determination is highly selective: In the Russian republics of Chechnya and Dagestan, he has deployed savage force to crush Muslim separatists seeking to break from Russia.

    In some cases, the referendum in Scotland is fueling new hopes, however improbable, among separatist fringe groups. When the president of the Texas Nationalist Movement, Daniel Miller, was invited to the University of Stirling in Scotland this year, he said the Scots were paving the way for an independent Texas. “Scottish independence is a study in the very same debates that will take place in Texas ahead of the binding referendum on independence that is in our future,” Mr. Miller said.

    In others, it is re-energizing long-running debates with considerable geopolitical importance. In Taiwan, which China claims as part of its territory even though Taiwan is effectively independent with its own currency, military and democratically elected government, some hope that a Scottish “yes” vote could trigger a more careful deliberation over the island’s future.

    Wang Dan, a student leader in the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests in Beijing, wrote in a recent column for Taiwan’s Apple Daily, “If the Scottish vote succeeds, it will be worth considering by those who advocate deciding Taiwan’s status through a referendum.”

    But it is in Europe that a Scottish “yes” vote would likely create the largest ripples.

    It would be the first time that a member of the European Union faces secession by one of its regions. If Scotland succeeds in negotiating its own membership in the bloc, as even opponents of independence predict that it eventually would, it would suddenly make the prospect of independence seem safer and more attractive elsewhere on the Continent, said George Robertson, a former secretary general of NATO.

    “There is a serious risk of a domino effect,” said Mr. Robertson, himself a Scot and an opponent of independence. A “yes” vote, he warned, could trigger “the Balkanization of Europe.”

    Nationalists, however, say that a bit of Balkanization may be just what Europe needs.

    In the slightly dilapidated Brussels office of the European Free Alliance, which groups together 40 parties representing Europe’s “stateless nations,” a busy map shows what Europe would look like if they all became independent.

    François Alfonsi, the president of the alliance and a proud Corsican, admits that it would be messy, but “democracy is messy and democracy is what Europe needs.”

    National self-determination, he said, “is about bringing policies closer to the people.”

    Across town, Mark Demesmaeker, a Flemish member of the European Parliament who has decorated his office with a Scottish flag and keeps a copy of the Scottish white paper on independence on his desk, speaks of “failed nation states.”

    In his view, Britain has failed to give the Scots and Welsh proper representation in Parliament, and Spain has failed to deliver democracy to Catalans and Basques eager to have their own independence vote.

    Other nations, like France and Italy, have been mired in political and economic stagnation. Mr. Demesmaeker’s own country, Belgium, cannot even form a government. (Belgium had elections in May and is still deep in coalition talks; the last time it took 541 days.)

    Pro-European national movements like his own, the New Flemish Alliance — now the biggest party not just in Flanders but in all of Belgium — are the best antidote to the far-right, anti-European and anti-immigrant nationalist movements that did so well in European elections earlier this year, he said.

    “If Scotland votes ‘yes,’ it will be an eye opener for many people on the street,” he said. “Most people think it’s our fate to be part of Belgium. But Flanders could be a prosperous nation. It’s a democratic evolution that is going on in different states of the European Union. Eventually we want Flanders to take its place in the E.U.”

    If plenty of nationalists have pledged their solidarity with Scotland, the reverse has been less true. The Scottish referendum takes place just days before the regional government of Catalonia is expected to confirm that it will hold an independence vote of its own on Nov. 9, which would override legal and political objections from Madrid.

    Alfred Bosch, a Catalan lawmaker, said his counterparts in Scotland had shown little interest in being associated with events in Catalonia.

    The Scots “probably want to distance themselves from anything that they see as not as ripe and as mature as their own process,” Mr. Bosch suggested. “They don’t want to create any hostility from Spain or other countries that might also have pro-independence movements,” not least because those governments will have to recognize an independent Scotland and consider whether to allow it into the European Union.

    Whatever the outcome of next week’s referendum, many nationalists say Scotland has already won.

    “They have the opportunity to decide their own future,” said Andoni Ortuzar, the president of the governing Basque Nationalist Party, who wore a kilt in the 2012 carnival to celebrate the announcement of a Scottish referendum that year.

    “That’s what national self-determination is,” he said. “That’s all we ask.”

  • #2
    Re: Will Scotland Become the New Cuba?

    I reckon the big story in all of this is:

    If such a long-term Scottish-English alliance unravels, what could potentially occur in Europe?

    While we've discussed and will likely continue to discuss the arbitrary colonial borders in places like the Afghanistan, Iraq, the rest of the Middle East, and Africa......I wonder if we might miss the less obvious forest in all the European trees?

    I wonder if the fairly pleasant Czech and Slovak split will be repeated elsewhere?

    Hopefully without instability/violence.

    Ukraine is another example of a less stable and externally influenced unraveling.

    Comment


    • #3
      Breaking AWay

      Originally posted by lakedaemonian View Post
      I reckon the big story in all of this is:

      If such a long-term Scottish-English alliance unravels, what could potentially occur in Europe?

      .. . .
      Calling it an "alliance" is a bit of a stretch. Scotland was conquered by Britain, and, until recently, felt unfairly treated within the UK.

      In general, the conquered are willing to stay with the conqueror while they think they are getting a good deal. Rome had relatively few revolts while it's rule was fair to it's territories.

      When you consider the state of Europe under the Euro, and Merkel claiming that the Euro is essential to the EU, you'd have to be insane not to want out.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Will Scotland Become the New Cuba?

        Originally posted by lakedaemonian View Post
        I reckon the big story in all of this is:

        If such a long-term Scottish-English alliance unravels, what could potentially occur in Europe?
        The big story in all this is:

        If the Scottish-English alliance unravels and Texas secedes, will people born in Texas who moved away be granted dual-citizenship? Would we have to move back there? Because I don't like the humidity or the bugs.

        Sorry. Shutting up now.

        Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Will Scotland Become the New Cuba?

          Great powers have played the divide-as-convenient card for a long time. North Korea and South Korea, North Vietnam and South Vietnam, etc. and that's only recently. With the policy of central government dissolution now in vogue - Iraq, Libya, etc. an additional catalyst has been added to the long-simmering stew. Be careful what you wish for, I suppose, is the lesson.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Will Scotland Become the New Cuba?

            Originally posted by shiny! View Post
            The big story in all this is:

            If the Scottish-English alliance unravels and Texas secedes, will people born in Texas who moved away be granted dual-citizenship? Would we have to move back there? Because I don't like the humidity or the bugs.

            Sorry. Shutting up now.
            Renounce which ever citizenship you don't want.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Will Scotland Become the New Cuba?

              Originally posted by shiny! View Post
              The big story in all this is:

              If the Scottish-English alliance unravels and Texas secedes, will people born in Texas who moved away be granted dual-citizenship? Would we have to move back there? Because I don't like the humidity or the bugs.

              Sorry. Shutting up now.
              Missed hearing your voice, shiny. So don't shut up ever. But why would Texas want to secede? They've practically taken over the country in the 50 years since Johnson was in the big chair. The Lubbock County/Texas Panhandle mindset dominates the country domestically and internationally (and Orange County too! Forget my Southern Cali Bircher bros? Nevah!). And while there may still be tension, the Cowboys and the Yankees (as in New York & Old Money) surely have come to an mutually profitable accommodation in dividing up the spoils.



              As Saint Olgelsby wrote:

              Quigley is the author of a huge book about the contemporary world, Tragedy and Hope, to which I will return in chapter two. I begin my debt to Quigley here by borrowing the following observation from his summary. Noting that since 1950 a "revolutionary change" has been occurring in American politics, Quigley says this transformation involves "a disintegration of the middle class and a corresponding increase in significance by the petty bourgeoisie at the same time that the economic influence of the older Wall Street financial groups has been weakening and been challenged by new wealth springing up outside the eastern cities, notably in the Southwest and Far West." He continues:

              “These new sources of wealth have been based very largely on government action and government spending but have, none the less, adopted a petty-bourgeois outlook rather than the semi aristocratic outlook that pervades the Eastern Establishment. This new wealth, based on petroleum, natural gas, ruthless exploitation of national resources, the aviation industry, military bases in the South and West, and finally on space with all its attendant activities, has centered in Texas and southern California. Its existence, for the first. time, made it possible for the petty-bourgeois outlook to - make itself felt in the political nomination process instead of in the unrewarding effort to influence politics by voting for a Republican candidate nominated under Eastern Establishment influence.... By the 1964 elec¬tion, the major political issue in the country was the financial struggle behind the scenes between the old wealth, civilized and cultured in its foundations, and the new wealth, virile and uninformed, arising from the flowing profits of government-dependent corporations in the Southwest and West.” (Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 1966)

              The whole point of introducing the Cowboy/Yankee language, of course, is to bring precisely that old money/ new money, Atlanticist-Frontierist tension into focus in the plane of current events. The main idea of looking at things this way is to see that a sectional rivalry, derived from the patterns of the Civil War, still operates in American politics, indeed that at the altitude of national power elites, it may be the most sensitive and inflamed division of all, more concentrated than race and class and more basic than two-party system attachments and ideologies. The argument of this book is that the emerging clash of Yankee and Cowboy wills beneath the visible stream of events is the dominant fact of real U.S. political life since 1960. The dissolution of the Yankee/ Cowboy consensus of World War II and the Cold War until 1960 is behind the Dallas of Kennedy and the Watergate of Nixon.

              Let us go a step further with these types, Cowboy and Yankee, and sketch a first outline of the differing worlds they see.

              The Yankee mind, of global scope, is at home in the great world, used to regarding it as a whole thing integrated in the far-flung activities of Western exploration, conquest, and commerce. The Yankee believes that the basis of a good world order is the health of America's alliances across the North Atlantic, the relations with the Western Democracies from which our tradition mainly flows. He believes the United States continues the culture of Europe and relates to the Atlantic as to a lake whose other shore must be secured as a matter of domestic priority. Europe is the key world theater, and it is self-evident to the Yankee mind that the fate of the United States is inevitably linked up with Europe's in a career of white cultural destiny transcending national boundaries: that a community of a unified world civilization exists, that there is such a thing as "the West," "One World."

              The Cowboy mind has no room for the assumption that American and European culture are continuous. The Cowboy is moved instead by the discontinuity of the New World from the Old and substitutes for the Yankee's Atlantic-oriented culture a new system of culture (Big Sky, Giant) oriented to an expanding wilderness Frontier and based on an advanced Pacific strategy.

              The Yankee monopolists who first broke faith with the goal of military victory in Vietnam did so in view of what they saw as the high probability of failure and the certain ambiguity of success. The Cowboy entrepreneurs who fought hardest to keep that faith alive did so out of conviction of the necessity of success. Said the multicorporate-liberal Yankee (about 1968): "The United States cannot wage a whining nonnuclear land campaign in Asia. It will destroy its much more essential relations in Europe if in spite of all wisdom its leadership continues to siphon off precious national blood and treasure to win this war. It is necessary to stand down." Said the Cowboy: "Only the strong are free."

              The distinction between the East Coast monopolist and the Western tycoon entrepreneur is the main class-economic distinction set out by the Yankee/ Cowboy perspective. It arises because one naturally looks for a class-economic basis for this apparent conflict at the summit of American power. That is because one must assume that parties without a class economic base could not endure struggle at that height. It is then only necessary to recall that antiwar feeling struck the Eastern Establishment next after it struck the students, the teachers, and the clergy-struck the large bank-connected firms tied into the trans-Atlantic business grid. During the same period, industrial segments around the construction industry, the military-industrial complex, agribusiness, the Southern Boom of the sixties and seventies, and independent Texas/ Southwest oil interests-i.e., the forces Quigley calls "new wealth"-never suffered a moment of war-weariness. They supported the Texan Johnson and the Southern Californian Nixon as far as they would go toward a final military solution. (See Steve Weissman and Steve Johnson, Ramparts, August 1974)

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Will Scotland Become the New Cuba?

                since 1950 a "revolutionary change" has been occurring in American politics, Quigley says this transformation involves "a disintegration of the middle class and a corresponding increase in significance by the petty bourgeoisie
                Didn't the 'middle class' see its best years in the 50s and early 60s? Of course there was a revolutionary change in US governance, which began in the early 40s as it prepared for post-war global dominance. What was left of the American Republic would go the way of the Roman Republic, lost to Empire. That's how it works.

                The bit about the rising significance - significant in what way? - of the petty bourgeoisie has me stumped. We see it today manifested in the Tea Party and elsewhere but in the 50s?

                Thought provoking post, Woods.

                Thanks
                Last edited by don; September 11, 2014, 11:58 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Price For Independence? Bankers will let you know

                  Royal Bank of Scotland has drawn up plans to shift its head office from Scotland – where it has been based since 1727 – in the event that next week's independence referendum backs a break away from the rest of the UK.

                  The announcement followed news that Lloyds Bank would also move its head office to England and a warning that mortgage lenders are preparing to restrict lending in the event of a yes vote as concerns deepen over the currency that an independent Scotland would use.

                  Treasury sources had indicated on Wednesday night that such a move by RBS was likely after the other bailed-out bank with major operations in Scotland, Lloyds Banking Group, revealed it too would set up legal entities in England to protect its credit rating.

                  The moves by the banks, which received £65bn of taxpayer bailouts in 2008 and 2009, follows a warning by another pillar of the Scottish financial community – Standard Life – that it would shift business to England. BP has also spoken of its concerns.

                  Sir Charlie Mayfield, the chairman of the John Lewis Partnership, is the latest leading business figure to step into the debate, warning on Thursday that prices will rise in Scotland if it breaks away. But the employee-owned retailer does not intend to reduce its commercial operations in Scotland, where it has nine stores, a contact centre and more than 3,000 employees.

                  The Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, faced intense scrutiny on Wednesday from MPs on the Treasury select committee about the financial implications for an independent Scotland.

                  He stressed that Threadneedle Street had contingency plans in the face of concerns about capital flight from Scotland and indicated that a Scottish central bank could need at least 25%, and possibly more than 100%, of the nation's GDP in reserves if the first minister, Alex Salmond, decides to use sterling after independence without the support of Westminster.

                  The precise amount of reserves needed to back an independent Scotland will depended on the size of the banking sector, at least 10 times the size of Scottish GDP.

                  There had been mounting expectations that banks would shift their registered offices to seek the protection of the Bank of England – to protect customers and the bank's all-important credit ratings.

                  Carney promised to provide a detailed analysis to the committee on Thursday morning of his comments on the approach taken by other countries.

                  In a statement issued last night, Lloyds – which owns Bank of Scotland and is 25% owned by taxpayers – spelled out its contingency arrangements, which would be likely to involve moving its registered office from Scotland, where its Halifax Bank of Scotland business is registered. "While the scale of potential change is currently unclear, we have contingency plans in place which include the establishment of new legal entities in England," it said.

                  "This is a legal procedure and there would be no immediate changes or issues which could affect our business or our customers," added Lloyds, which is the largest private-sector employer in Scotland with 17,000 staff.

                  RBS said on Thursday: "As set out in the risk disclosures in RBS's annual report, there are a number of material uncertainties arising from the Scottish referendum vote which could have a bearing on the bank's credit ratings, and the fiscal, monetary, legal and regulatory landscape to which it is subject. For this reason, RBS has undertaken contingency planning for the possible business implications of a yes vote. RBS believes that this is the responsible and prudent thing to do and something that its customers, staff and shareholders would expect it to do.

                  "As part of such contingency planning, RBS believes that it would be necessary to redomicile the bank's holding company and its primary rated operating entity (The Royal Bank of Scotland plc) to England. In the event of a yes vote, the decision to redomicile should have no impact on everyday banking services used by our customers throughout the British isles.

                  "However, RBS believes that it would be the most effective way to provide clarity to all our stakeholders and mitigate the risks previously identified in our annual report."

                  Banks are also thought to be devising other contingency plans. One source said they may transport more bank notes to Scotland to "ensure appropriate liquidity" if customers want to withdraw more cash in the event of a yes vote.

                  One housing industry insider said there has already been an impact on the housing market, with signs that the market for homes worth more than £600,000 – the top end of the market in Scotland – is drying up. At the same time, commercial property deals were being put on hold until the vote was known – and could be abandoned in the event of a yes vote.

                  Some potential property buyers have inserted clauses into their offers saying "subject to a no vote", according to the mortgage broker Ray Boulger of John Charcol. He said: "A yes vote will create massive problems in terms of how mortgages are denominated and regulated. We expect it to be much more difficult for Scottish borrowers to get mortgages post a yes vote."

                  Other bankers are speaking of a pause in lending until the situation is clear. Lenders are refusing to comment publicly for fear of being accused of playing politics. But one said: "Before that poll [the Sunday Times/YouGov poll that showed the yes campaign in the lead] it was interesting but not critical. Now we are watching things very, very closely. It – introduces huge uncertainty and one way of decreasing our exposure and risk would be to reduce the loan-to-value offered to borrowers."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Will Scotland Become the New Cuba?

                    Originally posted by Woodsman View Post
                    Missed hearing your voice, shiny. So don't shut up ever.
                    Thank you very much.

                    But why would Texas want to secede? They've practically taken over the country in the 50 years since Johnson was in the big chair. The Lubbock County/Texas Panhandle mindset dominates the country domestically and internationally (and Orange County too! Forget my Southern Cali Bircher bros? Nevah!). And while there may still be tension, the Cowboys and the Yankees (as in New York & Old Money) surely have come to an mutually profitable accommodation in dividing up the spoils.
                    I was mainly kidding but you asked a question about Texas and I will give you my $0.02 as an exiled Texan.

                    I think we have to make a distinction between the elites and average people (if there even is such a thing as an average anybody). Yes, the "cowboy elites" have prospered mightily post WWII. But middle-class Texans aren't as deferential to elites as a lot of other people are. There's a patriotic pride among many Texans reminiscent of pre-Civil War Southerners. Meaning they love their country but if push comes to shove they love Texas more. To understand this strange pride and patriotism you have to look to their (our) history:

                    Texas is the only state in the union that was once it's own country. When Texans gave up their sovereignty to become one of the united states, they did so with certain conditions. Those conditions were written into the charter admitting Texas into the union:

                    1. If its people so choose, Texas can at any time divide itself into as many as five states, each state to have a full complement of senators and representatives in Washington. Instead of two senators from Texas there could be ten, all voting as a block.

                    2. If its people so choose, Texas can at any time secede from the USA.

                    These two conditions have always given Texans a way out if they ever feel too dissatisfied with Washington; it's their ace in the hole. I think the psychological effect of this has been that Texans feel just a little more "free" than the average citizen. Less likely to resign themselves to federal control and serfdom.

                    With major friction over unpopular EPA rules hitting their energy and agricultural sectors, with Washington aiding and abetting an invasion of their southern border that is costing them a fortune, sentiment among a lot of Texans is currently running pretty high in the dissatisfaction camp.

                    While other states might get angry at Washington, Texans can actually do something about it- legally. I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that Washington would abide by the charter. It would probably be catastrophic for Texas to attempt it, but they might just get angry enough to do it someday. Like all politics, it'll all depend on what the propagandists tell the votors to think.

                    My recollection of living in Texas during Vietnam...

                    Old men supported the war like they did most everywhere. They thought hippies were sissies and pacifists were commies, like they did most everywhere. But among the youth there were huge protests that never got reported. There were large "Mothers for Peace" demonstrations that never got reported.

                    My ex- was a student at UT Austin from '68-'71. There were lots and lots of protests there. A hundred-thousand protestors marched from campus to the capital in a peaceful demonstration. Not one newspaper, TV or radio station reported it in San Antonio (home of four major military bases) only eighty miles away.

                    Protesters were often pepper sprayed. One time this resulted in protesters running back to campus, stripping off their clothes in agony and jumping into fountains. Passers-by, not understanding what had just happened, thought it looked like fun. So they, too, stripped off their clothes and jumped into the fountains. The Vietnam war led directly to public nudity ;-)

                    Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Price For Independence? Bankers will let you know

                      Looks to me like just more dog and pony show to get people to vote no.

                      I mean, the idea if the yes vote happens is that 18 months later a new National Parliament is elected whose first order of duty is calling a constitutional convention, and 24 months later, to implement a constitution.

                      The yes vote doesn't even have Scotland leaving the UK for 2 whole years. That's plenty of time to work out any nonsense. RBS still holds Citizens Bank and Charter One Bank in the US, independent banks in almost every European country, and other subsidiaries in Australia, China, Hong Kong, India, Japan and Singapore. It's among the top 20 banks in the world by total assets. One little vote is not going to kill them.

                      I can't remember another time the potential break-away of a small 5 million person nation has caused so much international panic in the press. Quebec has 8 million people, is directly tied to the US economically far more tightly than Scotland, and when that last vote was held in 1995 - and I lived as a US citizen pretty close to the border at the time - there was not all this much crazy panic. And that one happened with about 1% of the vote being the deciding factor - it was 49.5% yes to 50.5% no, and every opinion poll had yes solidly in the lead in the weeks going into the vote.

                      I'm pretty sure tradition on these things is that undecideds break for the no vote. And the same thing happened back then. Chretien all the sudden has a change of heart and support for more autonomy for Quebec grows. Same stuff happens in 2014 Scottish issue. "We'll give you more power if you vote no!" But it only happens once polls have the yes side in a position to potentially win.

                      I can recall it all being discussed. But I can't recall anywhere near the level of fear-mongering and panic.

                      I mean, think about all the things that are just not that scary but made to be terrifying in this media campaign:

                      - Currency. You've got at least 2 years to have a discussion and figure it out. Scottish banks can print pound notes if they want in the meantime. Not all that scary.

                      - Military Bases. You've got at least 2 years to have a discussion and figure it out. It's not that hard to set up something like NORAD. It's not like there aren't US military personnel in Canada. It's not like we don't share an early warning system and missile response system right now. I'm sure that England and Scotland could figure something out.

                      - International Markets. These damn things have way more weight put on them in the press now that before. They're uncritically treated like the Hand of God in medieval literature. But they've already moved to price in a 50% chance of a yes vote. They move on the rumor, not the news. It's probably not all as scary as they make it out to be.

                      Look what this whole discussion does to discourse.

                      Now instead of talking about the possibilities of a written constitution for the people of Scotland - and so many possibilities exist for constitutional transformation at the birth of a nation - the wider-world conversation is entirely fixated upon money, markets, and bombs and nothing else.

                      There's little to no talk of history. Little to no talk of tradition. Little to no talk of constitutional possibilities or even the brass tax stuff like timelines.

                      It's all just this etherial talk. "Be obedient little children or the invisible hand shall strike you down! Woe be to thee who thinks for himself and casts an independence vote on its own merit! For the vengeance of the invisible hand is swift and devastating! Vote no Children, and save your souls!"

                      I am sure of very little about the future. But one thing I'm sure about is that when/if future people survive and dig up our old writings from this era, they're going to think beyond any reasonable doubt that we worshiped a god called "The Economy" or "The Market" and had a million superstitions and rain dances we'd do to try to please it.

                      Given all the destruction and bloodshed that has gone into national independence movements in the past - including in Scotland - I'm sure a little up/down vote on independence will not mean the end of the world. I'm also pretty sure England will get by her 55 million people just fine without Scotland's 5. They'd done it in the past.

                      I'm also pretty sure they'd all get along just fine if they vote no and nothing changes.

                      Sometimes struggles have no clear winner/loser. It's the tales we spin up around them that pump drama into the situation.

                      Last edited by dcarrigg; September 11, 2014, 03:34 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Will Scotland Become the New Cuba?

                        Originally posted by shiny! View Post
                        ...If the Scottish-English alliance unravels and Texas secedes, will people born in Texas who moved away be granted dual-citizenship?

                        ...
                        Maybe they'll just move back to London?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Will Scotland Become the New Cuba?

                          Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
                          Maybe they'll just move back to London?
                          Cool! I got to spend three blissful days in London back in 1973. Fell in love with the city and the people. And warm Guinness. Nobody carded us.

                          I was there with a high school tour. A clerk at Harrod's asked us where we were from. I said San Antonio, Texas. She literally started shrieking, "THE ALAMO! THE ALAMO! Girls! They're from Texas!"

                          All the other clerks on the floor came running over to see the kids from Texas and pepper us with questions about the Alamo. We felt like rock stars!

                          Things have probably changed a lot since then ;-)

                          Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Will Scotland Become the New Cuba?

                            and pepper us with questions about the Alamo.
                            Hope you didn't tell them how small it is and mention the chintzy gift shop

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Will Scotland Become the New Cuba?

                              Originally posted by don View Post
                              Hope you didn't tell them how small it is and mention the chintzy gift shop
                              I was embarrassed because I had only been there once!

                              Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X