In 10 days, we'll know. Polls say it is just too close to call.
I find the whole thing fascinating. If the Yes voters win--how will the dissolution take place? Which currency will Scotland use? Will they be asked or allowed to join the EU (Tho I cannot for a second think they would want to)
I'm very interested to see how this plays out. Scotland has been part of Great Britain for so long, it will be interesting to see what form an independant Scotland would take.
Think North Sea oil and gas. I presume that's been one of the drivers of the independence movement.
Thanx Marvin. I like the fact that you and a very small handful of others here (i'm not one of them) always recognize an opportunity to teach.
I keep having this observation; It seems that when a small country has rich natural resources and has to give a bigger country a cut of the profits, the small country eventually reaches a point where they want it all for themselves and declare independence.
I know it's popular to declare that it was because of freedom, but I continue to see the above described scenario repeated time & time again; someone just gets tired of giving away part of their profits to the people that financed the operation...
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 09-09-2014).]
Scotland has been "plundered" for natural resources long before the first oil well was drilled in North Sea-Scotland and Welsh coal powered Great Britain's industrial revolution. (don't forget whiskey either) 2011 Scottish exports (exports to GB not included)
Scotland has been "plundered" for natural resources long before the first oil well was drilled in North Sea-Scotland and Welsh coal powered Great Britain's industrial revolution. (don't forget whiskey either) 2011 Scottish exports (exports to GB not included):...
You're also consistently one of those teachin' guys. I have learned more from a few people here than I ever learned in school. Thanx guys.
So, they actually have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.
Thanx Marvin. I like the fact that you ... always recognize an opportunity to teach.
Please remember that was just my opinion, based on very incomplete understanding. At best, the situation is no doubt far more complex that a simplisitc economic analysis might portray; at worst, I am totally wrong. I did find this article interesting and informative, and it presents several different views.
In the U.S., "Follow the money" is usually the key to understanding many (if not most) political controversies, but that rule of thumb may not apply to many other countries or cultures around the world.
quote
... someone just gets tired of giving away part of their profits to the people that financed the operation...
That's just human nature (and/or greed) at work. You see it a lot in business. You also see it in both individual and corporate attitudes concerning tax policy.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 09-09-2014).]
Please remember that was just my opinion, based on very incomplete understanding. At best, the situation is no doubt far more complex that a simplisitc economic analysis might portray; at worst, I am totally wrong.
I just read that in Spocks voice!
Maybe I just had too much medicine this morning...
Originally posted by Boondawg: I keep having this observation; It seems that when a small country has rich natural resources and has to give a bigger country a cut of the profits, the small country eventually reaches a point where they want it all for themselves and declare independence.
I guess that is one way some may look at it. If one were to look at it this way it begs the question that nobody seems willing to answer. The question of which there is no agreed upon answer. How much should they give ? According to ability, according to need ? You did not even need to suggest that the bigger country made it possible for the little country to make their self worth. Nobama was wrong when he said "you didn't build that". That whole attitude suggests that somebody else deserves what you worked for.
Originally posted by Cheever3000: Will they have to fight a war like we did?
I don't think so but ...
quote
Originally posted by Formula88: I'm very interested to see how this plays out.
Me too. If they have to fight or not. The US regime had no problem with the USSR breaking up. Not Korea, Viet Nam, and a host of other "entities". Why should they object to any states opting out ?
Yes, I agree. One of the things that makes it a wonderful place. 15 years I've been on this forum. Hard to believe. One of the big reasons why.
I always have had a hard time wrapping my brain around something talked about so commonly.
United Kingdom. Great Britain. Britain. British. Wait. Which is it? Who all is involved here? How does their relationship work? Does it work? How did they get together? What holds them together? Do they see themselves as one? Or is it forced?
So Scotland might want out. Wales, Northern Ireland and England remain then? Who is that good for? Who is that bad for?
This is hilarious, because I always do that when I read Marvin's post.
Mea culpa. I tend to be long winded, so I really work at trying to express my ideas in as few words as possible. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
(By personality and by training, I can be every bit as analytical as Spock, but I like to think that I'm somewhat more emotionally balanced. Regardless, I yam what I yam, and what you see is what you get.)
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 09-11-2014).]
I keep having this observation; It seems that when a small country has rich natural resources and has to give a bigger country a cut of the profits, the small country eventually reaches a point where they want it all for themselves and declare independence.
Maybe the smaller country gets damn fed up with with being plundered by a larger, more powerful neighbor.
The desire for independence in Scotland goes back a long way.
No offence to present day English, but many of their forefathers treated the Scots (and the Irish) worse than animals.
quote
Braveheart - Release Date: May 24, 1995
William Wallace is a Scottish rebel who leads an uprising against the cruel English ruler Edward the Longshanks, who wishes to inherit the crown of Scotland for himself. When he was a young boy, William Wallace's father and brother, along with many others, lost their lives trying to free Scotland. Once he loses another of his loved ones, William Wallace begins his long quest to make Scotland free once and for all, along with the assistance of Robert the Bruce.
Braveheart is the partly historical, partly mythological, story of William Wallace, a Scottish common man who fights for his country's freedom from English rule around the end of the 13th century.
In 14th Century Scotland, William Wallace leads his people in a rebellion against the tyranny of the English King, who has given English nobility the 'Prima Nocta'.. a right to take all new brides for the first night. The Scots are none too pleased with the brutal English invaders, but they lack leadership to fight back. Wallace creates a legend of himself, with his courageous defence of his people and attacks on the English.
Cast: Mel Gibson, Brian Cox, Peter Hanly, Sophie Marceau, Stephen Billington, Angus Macfadyen, John Kavanagh, Alun Armstrong, Catherine McCormack, Brendan Gleeson, Tommy Flanagan, David O'Hara
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 09-11-2014).]
If the Scots vote for independence I bet that the Catalonians are next to break away from their current country. I wonder if that's such a bad thing in the long run, maybe semi-independent regions within the European Union (which would handle foreign relations, common market rules and defense) is the way forward. Nation states are on their way out IMO.
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 09-11-2014).]
Originally posted by Boondawg: Thanx Marvin. I like the fact that you and a very small handful of others here (i'm not one of them) always recognize an opportunity to teach.
I keep having this observation; It seems that when a small country has rich natural resources and has to give a bigger country a cut of the profits, the small country eventually reaches a point where they want it all for themselves and declare independence.
I know it's popular to declare that it was because of freedom, but I continue to see the above described scenario repeated time & time again; someone just gets tired of giving away part of their profits to the people that financed the operation...
yes...this very thing is at the root of Iraq. Iraq was going to nationalize its natural resource, oil as in - the population of Iraq as a whole would get the profits of Iraqs natural resource. well guess what happened? the USA would not stand for such a thing, and put Saddam Hussien in charge to stop such a idea. and where did this little spec on the end known as Kuwait come from? hmmmm
its all BS. no one owns the world. its all grabbed and taken away by force. be it for one, be it for many. but it is NEVER for all.
Originally posted by Pyrthian: Iraq was going to nationalize its natural resource, oil as in - the population of Iraq as a whole would get the profits of Iraqs natural resource. well guess what happened? the USA would not stand for such a thing, and put Saddam Hussien in charge to stop such a idea.
You just don't understand. "Nationalize" does not mean shared equally. It means those in power decide how little to give to the populace. You say the USA would not stand for the populace getting profits form national resources ? Alaska Oil Wealth Nets State Residents $1,174 Checks.
That's a loooooong story having to do with the avoidance of prejudice.
The money was intended for longevity (i.e. Natives), not residency. But that was challenged as being prejudiced.
Basing it on residency left it wide-open to abuse, most recently by large numbers of Pacific Islanders, mostly from Samoa. At least that was the story when I left.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 09-11-2014).]
And they fragment into smaller pieces. Then when the countries that didn't fragment are larger, it makes it easier for them to take the smaller countries by force. So I suppose in a time of relative safety, they don't feel the need to stay in a larger grouping for defensive purposes.
If it was 1940, was Scotland going to be able to defend itself from takeover by Germany? I don't think so.
Catalonia? Yes. They could mount their own defense. Sure. So what those smaller countries are counting on is that someone else would protect/defend them. In 2014. Yes. Probably. 40-50 years from now? Hmmm. I don't know.
Originally posted by frontal lobe: Yes, probably. And they fragment into smaller pieces. Then when the countries that didn't fragment are larger, it makes it easier for them to take the smaller countries by force. So I suppose in a time of relative safety, they don't feel the need to stay in a larger grouping for defensive purposes.
If it was 1940, was Scotland going to be able to defend itself from takeover by Germany? I don't think so. So what those smaller countries are counting on is that someone else would protect/defend them. In 2014. Yes. Probably. 40-50 years from now? Hmmm. I don't know.
I do know. I try to model my behavior upon societal values. Disciplining my children for example after our justice system. Arguments with my wife compare to the workings of Congress, or perhaps mediation solutions. So here I will use the examples of pacts we make with other nations. Military, trade, research, any. In the ... furtherance of pacts, relationships develop. Bonds. Where I live (eleven years now) I have four single women who are immediate neighbors, and a couple of married folks, a couple of elderly neighbors (single and married). I also have a neighbor maybe a quarter of a mile from me (with no one between us). I also have friends forty miles away in Bandera where I used to live (ten years), and life long friends in San Antonio where I grew up. In your uncertainty ... for the purpose of illustration, I view them all as 'countries'. Separate entities. I have no doubt that any of them would come to my aid if I needed it. I would expect them to, according to their ability, as they owe me, for all thing things I have done for them. Not that I feel owed, or that I expect a return for my favors, but I believe I can count on them to do so. Cause they like me. Now, I do more for certain neighbors and friends for differing reasons. Some reward me (baking cookies or something) and some I think take advantage of my willingness to help when I think that they could do it. But help I do. We have no pacts, written in agreements, but many nations do. Large and small nation states. I think the guarantee of smaller nation states counting on protection would be relative to their ... character.
Here is an interesting take on why Scotland is contemplating separating from the British union and some implications for them and all of Europe if not the world.
The Origins and Implications of the Scottish Referendum Geopolitical Weekly Tuesday, September 16, 2014 - 03:01 Print Text Size Stratfor
By George Friedman
The idea of Scottish independence has moved from the implausible to the very possible. Whether or not it actually happens, the idea that the union of England and Scotland, which has existed for more than 300 years, could be dissolved has enormous implications in its own right, and significant implications for Europe and even for global stability.
The United Kingdom was the center of gravity of the international system from the end of the Napoleonic Wars until World War II. It crafted an imperial structure that shaped not only the international system but also the internal political order of countries as diverse as the United States and India. The United Kingdom devised and drove the Industrial Revolution. In many ways, this union was a pivot of world history. To realize it might be dissolved is startling and reveals important things about the direction of the world.
Scotland and England are historical enemies. Their sense of competing nationhoods stretches back centuries, and their occupation of the same island has caused them to fight many wars. Historically they have distrusted each other, and each has given the other good reason for the distrust. The national question was intertwined with dynastic struggles and attempts at union imposed either through conquest or dynastic intrigue. The British were deeply concerned that foreign powers, particularly France, would use Scotland as a base for attacking England. The Scots were afraid that the English desire to prevent this would result in the exploitation of Scotland by England, and perhaps the extinction of the Scottish nation.
The Union of 1707 was the result of acts of parliaments on both sides and led to the creation of the Parliament of Great Britain. England's motive was its old geopolitical fears. Scotland was driven more by financial problems it was unable to solve by itself. What was created was a united island, acting as a single nation. From an outsider's perspective, Scotland and England were charming variations on a single national theme -- the British -- and it was not necessary to consider them as two nations. If there was ever a national distinction that one would have expected to be extinguished in other than cultural terms, it was this one. Now we learn that it is intact. We need a deeper intellectual framework for understanding why Scottish nationalism has persisted. The Principle of National Self-Determination
The French Enlightenment and subsequent revolution had elevated the nation to the moral center of the world. It was a rebellion against the transnational dynasties and fragments of nations that had governed much of Europe. The Enlightenment saw the nation, which it defined in terms of shared language, culture and history, as having an inherent right to self-determination and as the framework for the republican democracies it argued were the morally correct form of government.
After the French Revolution, some nations, such as Germany and Italy, united into nation-states. After World War I, when the Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, Romanov and Ottoman empires all collapsed, a wave of devolution took place in Europe. The empires devolved into their national components. Some were amalgamated into one larger nation, such as Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia, while others, such as Poland, were single nation-states. Some had republican democracies, others had variations on the theme, and others were dictatorships. A second major wave of devolution occurred in 1992, when the Soviet Union collapsed and its constituent republics became independent nation-states.
The doctrine of the right to national self-determination drove the first wave of revolts against European imperialism in the Western Hemisphere, creating republics in the Americas. The second wave of colonial rising and European withdrawal occurred after World War II. In some cases, nations became self-determining. In other cases, nation-states simply were invented without corresponding to any nation and actually dividing many. In other cases, there were nations, but republican democracy was never instituted except by pretense. A French thinker, Francois de La Rochefoucauld, said, "Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue." Even while betraying its principles, the entire world could not resist the compulsion to embrace the principles of national self-determination through republican democracy. This effectively was codified as the global gold standard of national morality in the charters of the League of Nations and then the United Nations. Languages and Dialects of Europe Click to Enlarge The Imperfection of the Nation-State
The incredible power of the nation-state as a moral principle and right could be only imperfectly imposed. No nation was pure. Each had fragments and minorities of other nations. In many cases, they lived with each other. In other cases, the majority tried to expel or even destroy the minority nation. In yet other cases, the minority demanded independence and the right to form its own nation-state. These conflicts were not only internal; they also caused external conflict over the right of a particular nation to exist or over the precise borders separating the nations.
Europe in particular tore itself apart in wars between 1914 and 1945 over issues related to the rights of nation-states, with the idea of the nation-state being taken to its reductio ad absurdum -- by the Germans as a prime example. After the war, a principle emerged in Europe that the borders as they stood, however imperfect, were not to be challenged. The goal was to abolish one of the primary causes of war in Europe.
The doctrine was imperfectly applied. The collapse of the Soviet Union abolished one set of borders, turning internal frontiers into external borders. The Yugoslavian civil war turned into an international war once Yugoslavia ceased to exist, and into civil wars within nation-states such as Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia. At the same time, the borders in the Caucasus were redrawn when newly independent Armenia seized what had been part of Azerbaijan. And in an act that flew in the face of the principle, NATO countries divided Serbia into two parts: an Albanian part called Kosovo and the rest of Serbia.
The point of all this is to understand that the right to national self-determination comes from deep within European principles and that it has been pursued with an intensity and even viciousness that has torn Europe apart and redrawn its borders. One of the reasons that the European Union exists is to formally abolish these wars of national self-determination by attempting to create a framework that both protects and trivializes the nation-state. Scotland's Case
The possibility of Scottish independence must be understood in this context. Nationalism, the remembrance and love of history and culture, is not a trivial thing. It has driven Europe and even the world for more than two centuries in ever-increasing waves. The upcoming Scottish election, whichever way it goes, demonstrates the enormous power of the desire for national self-determination. If it can corrode the British union, it can corrode anything.
There are those who argue that Scottish independence could lead to economic problems or complicate the management of national defense. These are not trivial questions, but they are not what is at stake here. From an economic point of view, it makes no sense for Scotland to undergo this sort of turmoil. At best, the economic benefits are uncertain. But this is why any theory of human behavior that assumes that the singular purpose of humans is to maximize economic benefits is wrong. Humans have other motivations that are incomprehensible to the economic model but can be empirically demonstrated to be powerful. If this referendum succeeds, it will still show that after more than 300 years, almost half of Scots prefer economic uncertainty to union with a foreign nation.
This is something that must be considered carefully in a continent that is prone to extreme conflicts and still full of borders that do not map to nations as they are understood historically. Catalonia, whose capital is Barcelona, the second-largest and most vibrant city in Spain, has a significant independence movement. The Treaty of Trianon divided Hungary so that some Hungarians live in Romania, while others live in Slovakia. Belgium consists of French and Dutch groups (Walloons and Fleming), and it is not too extreme to say they detest each other. The eastern half of Poland was seized by the Soviet Union and is now part of Ukraine and Belarus. Many Chechens and Dagestanis want to secede from Russia, as do Karelians, who see themselves as Finns. There is a movement in northern Italy to separate its wealthy cities from the rest of Italy. The war between Azerbaijan and Armenia is far from settled. Myriad other examples can be found in Europe alone.
The right to national self-determination is not simply about the nation governing itself but also about the right of the nation to occupy its traditional geography. And since historical memories of geography vary, the possibility of conflict grows. Consider Ireland: After its fight for independence from England and then Britain, the right to Northern Ireland, whose national identity depended on whose memory was viewing it, resulted in bloody warfare for decades.
Scottish independence would transform British history. All of the attempts at minimizing its significance miss the point. It would mean that the British island would be divided into two nation-states, and however warm the feelings now, they were not warm in the past nor can we be sure that they will be warm in the future. England will be vulnerable in ways that it hasn't been for three centuries. And Scotland will have to determine its future. The tough part of national self-determination is the need to make decisions and live with them.
This is not an argument for or against Scottish nationhood. It is simply drawing attention to the enormous power of nationalism in Europe in particular, and in countries colonized by Europeans. Even Scotland remembers what it once was, and many -- perhaps a majority and perhaps a large minority -- long for its return. But the idea that Scotland recalls its past and wants to resurrect it is a stunning testimony less to Scottish history than to the Enlightenment's turning national rights into a moral imperative that cannot be suppressed.
More important, perhaps, is that although Yugoslavia and the Soviet collapse were not seen as precedents for the rest of Europe, Scotland would be seen that way. No one can deny that Britain is an entity of singular importance. If that can melt away, what is certain? At a time when the European Union's economic crisis is intense, challenging European institutions and principles, the dissolution of the British union would legitimize national claims that have been buried for decades.
But then we have to remember that Scotland was buried in Britain for centuries and has resurrected itself. This raises the question of how confident any of us can be that national claims buried for only decades are settled. I have no idea how the Scottish will vote. What strikes me as overwhelmingly important is that the future of Britain is now on the table, and there is a serious possibility that it will cease to be in the way it was. Nationalism has a tendency to move to its logical conclusion, so I put little stock in the moderate assurances of the Scottish nationalists. Nor do I find the arguments against secession based on tax receipts or banks' movements compelling. For centuries, nationalism has trumped economic issues. The model of economic man may be an ideal to some, but it is empirically false. People are interested in economic well-being, but not at the exclusion of all else. In this case, it does not clearly outweigh the right of the Scottish nation to national-self determination.
I think that however the vote goes, unless the nationalists are surprised by an overwhelming defeat, the genie is out of the bottle, and not merely in Britain. The referendum will re-legitimize questions that have caused much strife throughout the European continent for centuries, including the 31-year war of the 20th century that left 80 million dead.
Read more: The Origins and Implications of the Scottish Referendum | Stratfor Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook
Here is an interesting take on why Scotland is contemplating separating from the British union and some implications for them and all of Europe if not the world.
Interesting article, thanks for posting.
I think that nationalism (and before the nation state, tribalism) has driven human behavior for much more than the past 200 years.
Also, nothing is forever and the British union isn't either. Britain and it's imperial ambition has caused terrible suffering around the world and has arguably been the root cause for many, if not most, territorial disputes (and the resulting stife and war) that exist in today's world.
The transition to more regionalism within an international framework may be the future, difficult as this transition may be.
Also, nothing is forever and the British union isn't either. Britain and it's imperial ambition has caused terrible suffering around the world and has arguably been the root cause for many, if not most, territorial disputes (and the resulting stife and war) that exist in today's world.
I'm not a fan and defender of Britain per se (and not an attacker, either), but Germany and its imperial ambition ignited a war that resulted in an estimated 50-55 million deaths. So while, yes, Germany wasn't able to spread its imperial ambition as FAR across the globe as Britain, I have a suspicion that while spreading "...terrible suffering..." around the world, they didn't spread 55 million deaths. I suppose I could be wrong over the span of their imperial period. But I doubt it.
Their imperialism spread some good things, too.
I can't think of any good German imperial ambition spread, out of WWII at least. So I find your comment oddly one sided.
Originally posted by frontal lobe: I'm not a fan and defender of Britain per se (and not an attacker, either), but Germany and its imperial ambition ignited a war that resulted in an estimated 50-55 million deaths. So while, yes, Germany wasn't able to spread its imperial ambition as FAR across the globe as Britain, I have a suspicion that while spreading "...terrible suffering..." around the world, they didn't spread 55 million deaths. I suppose I could be wrong over the span of their imperial period. But I doubt it.
Their imperialism spread some good things, too.
I can't think of any good German imperial ambition spread, out of WWII at least. So I find your comment oddly one sided.
Christianity has killed far more people during its ambition and subsequent infection of ...err.. spreading across the world. It wont last forever either.
