Pages

 

Recent Pages by iceweasel:
Witches, Satanism, and an Exorcism: A Tour Through the Rightwing Psyche Gateway Pundit Doesn't Understand What Words Mean Monday Morning Lockdown Literature Schadenfreude: One Trump Moment--Watch Ted Cruz Issues Statement, Blames the Bitches

Jump to bottom

50 comments

1 Decatur Deb  Sep 15, 2014 6:36:12am

I’m voting “Yes” to Scottish Texas independence.

We’ve had enough of being told that we aren’t strong enough, smart enough or well-connected enough to stand on our own. Enough of being told that we need to have our goverment decided for us by a mass of reactionary Marxist Daily Mail NYT readers in England, Manhattan whose politics and interests are not our own.

Enough also, of putting our faith in the prospect of Labour the TPGOP regaining power - under the influence of the aforemention ‘megablob’ of Conservative/UKIP GOP-e nutjobs in England DC, they have become nothing more than a lite version of the DemonRats, abandoning the working propertied class and even incorporating some of UKIP’s La Raza’s anti pro-immigration hysterics.

Over the last seven years or so, Alex Salmonds SNP Gov Perry’s government has, using the limited devolved powers available to it, protected Scotland Texas from some of the excesses of DNC austerityprofligracy - for example, we do not have to pay Obamacare medical prescription charges and our students do not have to pay the massive increase in tuition fees (300%! state income taxes that students job creators in the rest of the UK US do. But we still have to pay the hated ‘bedroom tax’ Department of Education that the Tories liberals brought in to economically cleanse the poor from anywhere that’s remotely nice to live in, of their rightful ignorance and the NHS NFL and the rest of the welfare state our heritage is being dismantled as fast as the the Tories DemonRats nasty greedy little fingers can manage.

The only real way to save our way of life is to disconnect ourselves once and for all from this madness that WE NEVER VOTE FOR and create a new country of our own design, one that speaks to our values and represents our interests….

(Don’t know or worry much about life on the ground in Scotland, but this was too easy. The fact is that no nation is strong enough, smart enough, and brave enough to stand alone against the forces that would make this world a hell.)

2 CarolJ  Sep 15, 2014 7:39:43am

How condescending. The powers that
Scots want are given to any serious political entity in the United States. The states have their own money, a broad freedom to set policy. Directly voted upon Members of Congress and Governors are beholden to local authorities. A state the proportional size of Scotland would have practically half of Congress and the leverage to boot-control over national oil revenues and policy, and strong influence over social policy as well.

Scotland apparently has not control over fiscal policy, over fishing rights, over their own money they send down to London and have no influence over policy that affect their lives.

3 iceweasel  Sep 15, 2014 10:23:37am

re: #1 Decatur Deb

(Don’t know or worry much about life on the ground in Scotland, but this was too easy. The fact is that no nation is strong enough, smart enough, and brave enough to stand alone against the forces that would make this world a hell.)

I don’t know why you want to argue that all entities that seek independence are the same:

‘m voting “Yes” to Scottish Texas American independence.

We’ve had enough of being told that we aren’t strong enough, smart enough or well-connected enough to stand on our own. Enough of being told that we need to have our goverment decided for us by a mass of reactionary Marxist Daily Mail NYT readers in England, Manhattan whose politics and interests are not our own.

Enough also, of putting our faith in the prospect of Labour the TPGOP regaining power - under the influence of the aforemention ‘megablob’ of Conservative/UKIP GOP-e nutjobs in England DC, they have become nothing more than a lite version of the DemonRats, abandoning the working propertied class and even incorporating some of UKIP’s La Raza’s anti pro-immigration hysterics.

We can play this game all day, but Jimmah and I have better things to do. :)

4 lostlakehiker  Sep 15, 2014 10:29:26am

Independence for Scotland figures to work out badly if it is chosen. The problem already with the UK is that London wags the nation. It’s just too big relative to the rest of the country, and concentration of power leads to abuse of power.

Glasgow would be the same with respect to Scotland. Furthermore, a new Scotland would not live in the same secure neighborhood it woke up in yesterday. A weaker Britain means a less secure North Atlantic. And finally, there’s this sober thought from our own US declaration of independence: don’t fly from evils known to evils unknown unless the known evils are intolerable.

5 Decatur Deb  Sep 15, 2014 10:30:22am

re: #3 iceweasel

I don’t know why you want to argue that all entities that seek independence are the same:

We can play this game all day, but Jimmah and I ave better things to do. :)

As an American with Irish ancestry, I’m sort of sympathetic to the Scots (though I do wish they’d stayed on their island). At the same time I don’t care to see the US’ strongest and most reliable ally castrate itself in the face of a still-dangerous world.

6 Aye Pod  Sep 15, 2014 11:48:11am

re: #4 lostlakehiker

Independence for Scotland figures to work out badly if it is chosen. The problem already with the UK is that London wags the nation. It’s just too big relative to the rest of the country, and concentration of power leads to abuse of power.

Glasgow would be the same with respect to Scotland. Furthermore, a new Scotland would not live in the same secure neighborhood it woke up in yesterday. A weaker Britain means a less secure North Atlantic. And finally, there’s this sober thought from our own US declaration of independence: don’t fly from evils known to evils unknown unless the known evils are intolerable.

The notion that Scotland would be worse served in terms of economic balance by having an economic powerhouse within it’s own centre - ie Glasgow - instead of in London - is really dumb.

Being ruled by London is clearly the only escape from the horrors of GLASGOWCENTRISM! Vote NO!

Once again, not one fucking mention of the social injustices and inequalities that are being heaped on the poor to a greater extent everday in the current system, and which have finally become intolerable. We now have the chance to rid ourselves once and for all of the tory rule and right wing politics that we never vote for but which is nevertheless repeatedly imposed on us. That sort of thing doesn’t even appear on your radar does it? You’d think we were discussing a game of Risk given the range of factors that come into your consideration. Scotland is not your geopolitical tool, to be configured and primed for maximum superpower utility.

So in short, you can take your privilige and your trident system and jam them both up your bahookie.

7 iceweasel  Sep 15, 2014 11:53:19am

re: #5 Decatur Deb

As an American with Irish ancestry, I’m sort of sympathetic to the Scots (though I do wish they’d stayed on their island). At the same time I don’t care to see the US’ strongest and most reliable ally castrate itself in the face of a still-dangerous world.

Again with the arguments that Scotland is oh so powerful—except when it isn’t. Care to explain this?

8 Decatur Deb  Sep 15, 2014 12:02:12pm

re: #7 iceweasel

Again with the arguments that Scotland is oh so powerful—except when it isn’t. Care to explain this?

This wiki cut is a bit long, but the defense/defence issue isn’t simple. Bottom line, Scotland will struggle to field a division-sized Home Guard and even the remaining UK could lose its nuclear forces, at least for a long reorganizational period. Even the referendum is said to have slowed Britain’s reaction to the ISIS slaughter of two of its citizens.

Defence
Budget

The SNP have said that there was a defence underspend of “at least £7.4 billion” between 2002 and 2012 in Scotland and that independence would allow the Scottish government to correct this imbalance.[86] In its white paper, the Scottish government plans that an independent Scotland would have a total of 15,000 regular and 5,000 reserve personnel across land, air and maritime forces by 2026.[87] In July 2013, the SNP proposed that there would be a £2.5 billion annual military budget in an independent Scotland.[88] The House of Commons Defence Select Committee said that the £2.5bn budget was too low.[89] Andrew Murrison, UK Minister for International Security Strategy agreed and said it was “risible” for the SNP to suggest it could create an independent force by “salami-slicing” from current British armed forces units.[90]

The House of Commons defence committee also stated that Scottish independence would have a negative effect on its industry,[91] while the UK government said it would not be willing to build warships in a foreign country.[92] Geoff Searle, the director of BAE Systems’ Type 26 Global Combat Ship programme, said in June 2014 that the company had no alternative plan for shipbuilding,[93] but this position was later revised by the Chairman of BAE, who stated that they could resume shipbuilding in the English city of Portsmouth if an independent Scotland was established.[94]

The Royal United Services Institute said in 2012 that an independent Scotland could set up a Scottish Defence Force, comparable in size and strength to those of other small European states like Denmark, Norway and Ireland, at an annual cost of £1.8 billion.[95] The authors acknowledged that an independent Scotland would “need to come to some arrangement with the rest of the UK” on intelligence-gathering, cyber-warfare and cyber-defence, that the future cost of purchasing and maintaining equipment of its forces might be higher due to smaller orders, and that recruitment and training “may prove problematic” in the early years.[95]

Dorcha Lee, a former colonel in the Irish Army, said that Scotland could eschew forming an army based on inherited resources from the British Army and instead follow an Irish model of a limited self-defence force.[96]
Nuclear weapons
A Trident missile armed Vanguard class ballistic missile submarine leaving its base in the Firth of Clyde.

The Trident nuclear missile system is based at Coulport weapons depot and naval base of Faslane in the Firth of Clyde area. While the SNP objects to having nuclear weapons on Scottish territory, British military leaders have said that there is no alternative site for the missiles;[97][98] in April 2014, several British military leaders co-signed a letter stating that forcing Trident to leave Scottish waters would place the UK nuclear deterrent in jeopardy.[99] Nowhere to Go, a report by Scottish CND, concludes that the removal of Trident from Scotland would force unilateral nuclear disarmament by the United Kingdom, as the weapons have no viable alternative base.[100] A report by the Royal United Services Institute said that relocating Trident would be “very difficult, but not impossible” and estimated that it would take about 10 years and create an additional cost of around £3 billion.[101]

A seminar hosted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace stated that the Royal Navy would have to consider a range of alternatives, including disarmament.[102] British MP Ian Davidson cited a UK report published by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament that suggested that the warheads could be deactivated within days and safely removed in 24 months.[103] A report in 2013 from the Scotland Institute think tank suggested a future Scottish government could be convinced to lease the Faslane nuclear base to the rest of the UK to maintain good diplomatic relations and expedite NATO entry negotiations.[104]
NATO membership
Current map of NATO, member states shown in dark blue

In 2012 the SNP dropped a long-standing policy of opposition in principle to NATO membership.[105] MSPs John Finnie and Jean Urquhart resigned from the SNP over the policy change.[106] The Scottish Green Party and Scottish Socialist Party remain opposed to continued membership of NATO.[107]

The SNP position that Trident nuclear weapons should be removed from Scotland but that it should hold NATO membership has been criticised by Willie Rennie, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats,[108] and Patrick Harvie, co-convenor of the Scottish Green Party.[109] Alex Salmond said it would be “perfectly feasible” to join NATO while maintaining an anti-nuclear stance and that Scotland would pursue NATO membership only “subject to an agreement that Scotland will not host nuclear weapons and NATO continues to respect the right of members to only take part in UN sanctioned operations”.[110] In 2013, Professor Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute stated that “pragmatists” in the SNP accepted that NATO membership would be likely to involve a long-term basing deal enabling the UK to keep Trident on the Clyde.[111]

The former Secretary General of NATO and Scottish Labour peer Lord Robertson said in 2013 that “either the SNP accept the central nuclear role of NATO … or they reject the nuclear role of NATO and ensure that a separate Scottish state stays out of the world’s most successful defence alliance.”[112] General Richard Shirreff criticised SNP proposals for defence and questioned whether other NATO members would accept an independent Scotland that rejected the principle of nuclear deterrence.[113] This was disputed by Mariot Leslie, a former UK permanent representative to NATO, who stated that NATO would not want to disrupt its arrangements by excluding Scotland.[114]
Intelligence

A UK government paper on security stated that Police Scotland would lose access to the intelligence apparatus of the UK, including MI5, SIS and GCHQ.[115] The paper also says that an independent Scottish state would need to build its own security infrastructure.[115] Theresa May has commented that an independent Scotland would have access to less security capability, but would not necessarily face a reduced threat.[115] In 2013, Allan Burnett, former head of intelligence with Strathclyde Police and Scotland’s counter-terrorism co-ordinator until 2010, said that “an independent Scotland would face less of a threat, intelligence institutions will be readily created, and allies will remain allies”. Peter Jackson, Canadian-born professor of security at the University of Glasgow, agreed that Special Branch could form a “suitable nucleus” of a Scottish equivalent of MI5, and that Scotland could forego creating an equivalent of MI6, instead “relying on pooled intelligence or diplomatic open sources” like Canada or the Nordic countries.[116] Baroness Ramsay, a Labour peer and former Case Officer with MI6, said that the Scottish government’s standpoint on intelligence was “extremely naïve” and that it was “not going to be as simple as they think”.[116] Nicola Sturgeon has stated that Scotland would create its own security service like MI5 to work alongside police and tackle terrorism, cyber attacks and serious organised crime.[117] She also stated creating an external intelligence agency would remain an option.[117]

Not really my business, but history has not stopped, and the next despotic world-conqueror is always just around the corner.

9 Aye Pod  Sep 15, 2014 12:50:19pm

re: #8 Decatur Deb

America had to go through quite a lot to win it’s independence - much more than Scotland will have to, even in most lurid fever dreams of the ‘No’ campaign. It is also likely that the geopolitical impact of Scottish independence will never come close to matching that of Americas struggle.

If you had been around then, would you have supported American independence, or would you have argued that it’s better to remain forever a subsidiary part of Britain?

10 Decatur Deb  Sep 15, 2014 1:00:15pm

re: #9 Aye Pod

America had to go through quite a lot to win it’s independence - much more than Scotland will have to, even in most lurid fever dreams of the ‘No’ campaign. It is also likely that the geopolitical impact of Scottish independence will never come close to matching that of Americas struggle.

If you had been around then, would you have supported American independence, or would you have argued that it’s better to remain forever a subsidiary part of Britain?

America had someplace to go, a continent to be stolen, and an ocean to protect us. Old-World separatist movements just break the pie into smaller and smaller slices to be fought over. Are you sure to retain the Orkneys and Shetlands?

(Pittsburgh still remembers the Black Watch—my family wouldn’t let me go no matter how much we loved the pipes.)

11 Backwoods_Sleuth  Sep 15, 2014 1:03:39pm

John Oliver tackled explaining this on Sunday:

Youtube Video

12 becominginvisible  Sep 15, 2014 1:24:13pm

As an American who pays more attention to media and events elsewhere in the world I have only paid attention to a trickle of information about the referendum. If I were Scottish and voting I may or may not have the same opinion I currently have, I would be voting yes, er, sorry, aye. Before this last weekend it seemed that the no side didn’t really have solid footing and those against were mostly worried about losing the ability to go from one end of the island to the other without crossing a border. Even though they already do cross a border. To hear banks squealing that if you have a mortgage or bank with what will be an English based bank YOU WILL NEED TO BE WORRIED. Because no one banks with a bank not from the country they live in. Oh, wait, yes/aye they do. At the same time the big oil companies also start squealing (and probably wailing) that there will be repercussions if Scotland votes yes but didn’t clarify what those repercussions would be. I’d vote aye. If I’d been on the fence the banks and oil companies would have knocked me off onto the aye side. Aye I do realize there is so much more to the split than that wee bit.

Voting is on Thursday. What time do the polls close?

13 Backwoods_Sleuth  Sep 15, 2014 1:25:26pm

re: #10 Decatur Deb

America had someplace to go, a continent to be stolen, and an ocean to protect us. Old-World separatist movements just break the pie into smaller and smaller slices to be fought over. Are you sure to retain the Orkneys and Shetlands?

(Pittsburgh still remembers the Black Watch—my family wouldn’t let me go no matter how much we loved the pipes.)

I’m half-Irish. They were Fenians.
When I was last in Scotland, I was told by an Irishwoman now living in Scotland to not talk about that out loud in public because it would cause very certain “difficulties”.
I said, “Why ? I was brought up to be proud of that fact” and explained exactly why and regaled her with all the old family stories.
She was stunned and amazed, and said she was sure to be sharing everything I said to her father.

14 becominginvisible  Sep 15, 2014 1:25:38pm

re: #10 Decatur Deb

Shetland is leaning yes.

15 Decatur Deb  Sep 15, 2014 1:29:17pm

re: #14 becominginvisible

Shetland is leaning yes.

“Leaning” is the scary part in all of this. It’s pretty difficult to pierce the fog of polling at a casual glance, but it seems certain that the results are going to be 45-55 at most, whichever way. Rough start for a momentous decision.

16 aagcobb  Sep 15, 2014 1:29:24pm

I have a hard time getting worked up about this. Since the end of the Cold War a lot of small new countries have sprung into existence in Europe and most of them are doing alright, except for the ones with the misfortune of sitting right next to Russia. If Scotland votes Aye it won’t be the first and it probably won’t be the last new country as people freed from the fear of war assert their identities. I don’t know how the election will turn out, which looks like virtually a coin flip now, but it won’t be the end of the world either way.

17 Decatur Deb  Sep 15, 2014 1:31:36pm

re: #16 aagcobb

I have a hard time getting worked up about this. Since the end of the Cold War a lot of small new countries have sprung into existence in Europe and most of them are doing alright, except for the ones with the misfortune of sitting right next to Russia. If Scotland votes Aye it won’t be the first and it probably won’t be the last new country as people freed from the fear of war assert their identities. I don’t know how the election will turn out, which looks like virtually a coin flip now, but it won’t be the end of the world either way.

Would you like FRYs with that?

18 Aye Pod  Sep 15, 2014 1:37:59pm

re: #10 Decatur Deb

America had someplace to go, a continent to be stolen, and an ocean to protect us. Old-World separatist movements just break the pie into smaller and smaller slices to be fought over. Are you sure to retain the Orkneys and Shetlands?

(Pittsburgh still remembers the Black Watch—my family wouldn’t let me go no matter how much we loved the pipes.)

Well maybe the ‘better together’ campaign should make Vladimir Putin their new strategy Tsar, if the big problem facing Europe really is the unstoppable continuous fragmentation into ever tinier and tinier countries by ‘old world separatist movements’ (in which you include Scotland as far as I can tell, simply because of what side of the world it is on.) Anyway, where did that happen, exactly? Maybe the countries that went that way now too small to be seen with the naked eye and that’s why we don’t know about them?

Btw, who do you think is going to invade Scotland? The bleedin’ vikings? Pirates perhaps? :-)

Nuclear weapons are not installed on Scottish soil to give the Scots extra protection, or jobs. They are on our soil because the biggest danger is from the nuclear installations themselves, and London wants that danger as far away as possible from it.

British nationalism always wants to play big on the world stage, it has to live up to it’s historical baggage somehow even if that really means little more than being the tool of the big boys. Scotland just isn’t that kind of place, and it’s people don’t have those kind of pretensions. That isn’t to say that a future Scotland should be entirely isolationist, it’s just that we don’t have the same need to puff ourselves up as if to say “We’ve still got it! Good old Brittania! Still important after all these years.Look at us , we’re in a proper war and everything”. It will be refreshing, if the vote goes our way, to be free from having to carry part of that weird and embarrassing complex that we call British nationalism. I’m really looking forward to that, and more generally to chance to have a real say - a vote that counts and isn’t incidental - in the development of a new country, which places social justice and care for the vulnerable at the top of it’s agenda.

And with that, I’m out of here till after the referendum. Take care till then :-)

19 goddamnedfrank  Sep 15, 2014 1:47:58pm

Cross posting ‘cause why the fuck not:

Again, there is one big parallel between the Scotland independence vote and the ‘88 Chilean plebiscite, the tones of the opposing campaigns. In both cases the campaigns for change are clearly positive, forward looking and uplifting, while the campaigns for maintaining the status quo are horribly patronizing, inept, laden with fear and dire heavy handed economic warnings against change.

20 goddamnedfrank  Sep 15, 2014 1:50:58pm

re: #18 Aye Pod

Nuclear weapons are not installed on Scottish soil to give the Scots extra protection, or jobs. They are on our soil because the biggest danger is from the nuclear installations themselves, and London wants that danger as far away as possible from it.

Yeah that’s pretty obvious. If England wants reliable second strike capability they should stick with submarines, which they already have. The missile base argument is a total non-starter.

21 iceweasel  Sep 15, 2014 2:02:46pm

re: #12 becominginvisible

As an American who pays more attention to media and events elsewhere in the world I have only paid attention to a trickle of information about the referendum. If I were Scottish and voting I may or may not have the same opinion I currently have, I would be voting yes, er, sorry, aye. Before this last weekend it seemed that the no side didn’t really have solid footing and those against were mostly worried about losing the ability to go from one end of the island to the other without crossing a border. Even though they already do cross a border. To hear banks squealing that if you have a mortgage or bank with what will be an English based bank YOU WILL NEED TO BE WORRIED. Because no one banks with a bank not from the country they live in. Oh, wait, yes/aye they do. At the same time the big oil companies also start squealing (and probably wailing) that there will be repercussions if Scotland votes yes but didn’t clarify what those repercussions would be. I’d vote aye. If I’d been on the fence the banks and oil companies would have knocked me off onto the aye side. Aye I do realize there is so much more to the split than that wee bit.

Voting is on Thursday. What time do the polls close?

The polls close at 10pm Thursday, but they’re not at all sure what time the results will come in: theguardian.com

22 becominginvisible  Sep 15, 2014 2:06:53pm

re: #21 iceweasel

Thanks.

23 Decatur Deb  Sep 15, 2014 2:16:05pm

re: #20 goddamnedfrank

Yeah that’s pretty obvious. If England wants reliable second strike capability they should stick with submarines, which they already have. The missile base argument is a total non-starter.

UK has no land-based or air-launched nukes. They’re all on the boomers, which were based where they are for reasons of access to deep water in the higher latitudes.

24 HappyWarrior  Sep 15, 2014 2:17:58pm

re: #16 aagcobb

I have a hard time getting worked up about this. Since the end of the Cold War a lot of small new countries have sprung into existence in Europe and most of them are doing alright, except for the ones with the misfortune of sitting right next to Russia. If Scotland votes Aye it won’t be the first and it probably won’t be the last new country as people freed from the fear of war assert their identities. I don’t know how the election will turn out, which looks like virtually a coin flip now, but it won’t be the end of the world either way.

Right, this is why I’m leaning towards aye though it’s not like I have any thing to say as an American. And honestly, I really strongly disagree with the idea that Scotland can’t fend for itself economically and that they need England to be prosperous. In the end though, I am glad that there’s going to be a vote on this. I really hope the best for Scotland regardless of what happens Thursday.

25 becominginvisible  Sep 15, 2014 2:25:10pm

I wonder if the Shetland Islands still have USA/Russia missile detection installations? When I was there in the 80’s the islanders snickered that the rent from the two installations covered a lot of services for the Islands. I haven’t kept up with military whatnot, I thought satellite surveillance might have replaced on ground surveillance. Wait, are there two threads for The Referendum? bbl

26 Floral Giraffe  Sep 15, 2014 3:30:51pm

Just happy to “see” you back posting. Hope you are both well!
And your favorite wins the race ;)

27 William Burns  Sep 15, 2014 3:47:34pm

An independent Scotland is out of the EU, out of Nato, and hasn’t even figured out what currency it will be using. The money isn’t there to build the Social Democratic paradise the SNP promises, and peak production on the North Sea was over ten years ago. But however much a disaster Scottish independence is one thing is certain: The Scots will still find a way to blame it on the English.

28 CarolJ  Sep 15, 2014 4:14:05pm

Burns, I think they have figured it out regarding finances. An independent Scotland won’t need all that much for military defense. No natural enemies and an pretty peaceful neighborhood. If things light up enough for a real war, the United States would likely be in the thick of it. Then the Scottish will simply provide their share of local policing and defense. And even that is nothing like what they have to pay for now.

Also Scotland has a smaller population of 5 million or so. The money not sent down to London will subsidize health and welfare quite well, and add in oil revenues, they are not going to do poorly at all. Unburdened by having to provide resources to British military adventures or diplomatic adventures will help sufficiency. They will also be able to keep more of the money they earn from tourism as well. Scotland is considered safe and pretty peaceful for a tourist.

The more I think about it, an independent Scotland has the potential of being the Iceland/or Costa Rica of the area: a small prosperous nation, peaceful and in short a refuge for some folks from the more restless world.

As for not being in the EU or Nato, their proximity to Great Britain will allow them to be protected as well.

29 William Burns  Sep 15, 2014 4:16:51pm

Oh, and if Jimmah doesn’t like what the UK Labour Party has become, maybe some of the blame belongs to the last two Labour Prime Ministers, both born in Scotland. “Cameron” isn’t exactly the most “English” of names either and the current PM’s ancestry traces north of the Tweed as well. Maybe freedom from sleazy, inept Scottish leadership is what both English parties need!

30 CarolJ  Sep 15, 2014 4:17:54pm

re: #25 becominginvisible
If the installations are still there, yes, the terms would have to be renegotiated with the new Government, but I’m pretty sure the installations would remain, especially if the USA is funding upkeep and personnel.

31 Backwoods_Sleuth  Sep 15, 2014 4:29:03pm
32 Rev_Arthur_Belling  Sep 15, 2014 4:32:34pm

I’ve no dog in this hunt (though I have Scotch-Irish ancestors), so take what I say with a grain or 2000 of salt. I wish the Scots the best whatever their decision, and self-determination is a worthwhile effort.

33 Decatur Deb  Sep 15, 2014 4:52:33pm

re: #28 CarolJ

Burns, I think they have figured it out regarding finances. An independent Scotland won’t need all that much for military defense. No natural enemies and an pretty peaceful neighborhood. If things light up enough for a real war, the United States would likely be in the thick of it. Then the Scottish will simply provide their share of local policing and defense. And even that is nothing like what they have to pay for now.

Also Scotland has a smaller population of 5 million or so. The money not sent down to London will subsidize health and welfare quite well, and add in oil revenues, they are not going to do poorly at all. Unburdened by having to provide resources to British military adventures or diplomatic adventures will help sufficiency. They will also be able to keep more of the money they earn from tourism as well. Scotland is considered safe and pretty peaceful for a tourist.

The more I think about it, an independent Scotland has the potential of being the Iceland/or Costa Rica of the area: a small prosperous nation, peaceful and in short a refuge for some folks from the more restless world.

As for not being in the EU or Nato, their proximity to Great Britain will allow them to be protected as well.

Depending on the whims of the US or the proximity of England for defense isn’t independence—that’s a ‘protectorate’.

34 aagcobb  Sep 15, 2014 4:58:00pm

re: #33 Decatur Deb

Depending on the whims of the US or the proximity of England for defense isn’t independence—that’s a ‘protectorate’.

Well a lot of small countries would fit that description then. I bet they feel independent anyway.

35 becominginvisible  Sep 15, 2014 5:04:23pm

re: #30 CarolJ

Sorry I wasn’t as clear as I’d hoped to be. When I was in Shetland in the ‘80’s the cold war was still rolling. There was a spot on a hill on one of the islands that was rented to the USA and a spot right next to it rented to Russia. There were two compounds with the very latest in radar technology-side by side-with a common wall as detection for missiles fired by/at USA/Russia. It was actually extremely funny. According to the peeps in Shetland the rent paid by the two countries covered a lot of the Islands expenses. Made life easier and provided amusement. While the two countries were busy fist shaking and demonizing each other, the soldiers running the radar sites would take turns doing the weekly shopping in town. Russians and USA soldiers would shop every other week but each would have the others shopping list to fill. I have wondered if satellites have replaced the need for on-the-ground radar installations. Google map still has the area ‘unavailable’ but I don’t know if it is because the installations are still there or if it is used for something else.

I assumed the oil companies would be absolutely shitting themselves at the thought of having to re contract all the equipment and drill sites they have in Scottish territory. Peak oil is over but the drilling and capture goes on. Lots of natural gas off the coast of Scotland. Shetland’s Sullom Voe oil and gas terminal just expanded Link.

36 CarolJ  Sep 15, 2014 5:09:37pm

re: #34 aagcobb

I can think of a few nations in the area: Iceland, Norway. A nation in our side of the globe: Costa Rica. A local home force is sufficient for civil unrest, search and rescue. Scotland will provide troops for the UN if asked, and will do its own search and rescue. Costa Rica probably does the same.

37 sagehen  Sep 15, 2014 5:10:27pm

things I like about Scotland:

sheepdog trials
whiskey
the Fringe Festival
Sean Connery
Robert Carlyle
Annie Lennox
KT Tunstall
snuggly sweaters

things I truly hate about Scotland:

haggis
bagpipes
golf
the weather
Glasgow accents

Obviously, I’m far too shallow to have a vote on the matter.

Does it count that I worry how much more right-wing England will be without the Scottish lefties skewing the UK average?

38 aagcobb  Sep 15, 2014 5:16:26pm

re: #37 sagehen

things I like about Scotland:

sheepdog trials
whiskey
the Fringe Festival
Sean Connery
Robert Carlyle
Annie Lennox
KT Tunstall
snuggly sweaters

things I truly hate about Scotland:

haggis
bagpipes
golf
the weather
Glasgow accents

Obviously, I’m far too shallow to have a vote on the matter.

Does it count that I worry how much more right-wing England will be without the Scottish lefties skewing the UK average?

Or the debacle of Cameron doing virtually nothing while the Empire dissolves could destroy the Tories.

39 Backwoods_Sleuth  Sep 15, 2014 5:19:03pm

re: #35 becominginvisible

..snip…

I assumed the oil companies would be absolutely shitting themselves at the thought of having to re contract all the equipment and drill sites they have in Scottish territory. Peak oil is over but the drilling and capture goes on. Lots of natural gas off the coast of Scotland. Shetland’s Sullom Voe oil and gas terminal just expanded Link.

Oh, I’m sure the oil companies are freaking out. But you’re likely correct about peak oil, which is why Scotland is heavily moving into windpower.
When I was there just a few years ago, turbines were everywhere in the Highlands. In the Orkneys, there was a bit of stubbornness, but in Burray the people just went ahead and did it themselves, locally funded, paid off the first turbine well before anticipated, provides electricity for everyone the, and were sells the excess back to the main grid.

Here’s a photo of the first turbine when I visited there:

Wind turbine at Burray in the Orkneys

40 becominginvisible  Sep 15, 2014 5:29:53pm

re: #39 Backwoods_Sleuth

Wow! how very shiny it is. Is it one of the gnormous ones that always spin slow? Shetland had the style of turbines that people could go up inside and walk around in to check the bits that move. Okay that made it sound like a tourist thing and it’s a maintenance thing.

41 Backwoods_Sleuth  Sep 15, 2014 5:33:04pm

re: #40 becominginvisible

Wow! how very shiny it is. Is it one of the gnormous ones that always spin slow? Shetland had the style of turbines that people could go up inside and walk around in to check the bits that move. Okay that made it sound like a tourist thing and it’s a maintenance thing.

Yeah, it was huge and spun very slow. But was kicking out power. We were able to look into the control room inside the base of the tower.

ETA: I think this one was built in 2003 or thereabouts. It was maybe 3 years old when I was there.

42 goddamnedfrank  Sep 15, 2014 5:44:36pm

There’s absolutely no reason that an independent Scotland can’t apply to and join NATO, if they so wish. As a matter of law the NATO states of Norway, Denmark and Spain all ban the deployment of nuclear weapons on their soil during peacetime, while Iceland and Lithuania ban nuclear weapons deployments on their soil altogether. So nothing about Scotland’s stance on the nuclear issue would prevent their membership.

43 EPR-radar  Sep 15, 2014 5:51:32pm

The idea that Scotland should not become independent because it might be inconvenient for US interests is remarkably obnoxious. Normally one needs GOP/wingnut ideas to get to that level.

44 goddamnedfrank  Sep 15, 2014 6:08:09pm

There is also no reason that an independent Scotland can’t join the EU, with or without joining the Eurozone, again should they want to. As far as “losing the pound” goes, nothing would prevent an Scotland from slaving their own currency to the pound, or even the US dollar. Several nations do this, giving them all the benefits of a stable currency without having to invent one from scratch.

45 iceweasel  Sep 16, 2014 4:59:38am

re: #42 goddamnedfrank

There’s absolutely no reason that an independent Scotland can’t apply to and join NATO, if they so wish. As a matter of law the NATO states of Norway, Denmark and Spain all ban the deployment of nuclear weapons on their soil during peacetime, while Iceland and Lithuania ban nuclear weapons deployments on their soil altogether. So nothing about Scotland’s stance on the nuclear issue would prevent their membership.

Absolutely - posted this on the other thread:

Hmm. Since when have NATO been in the business of decreasing their membership? This must be a new strategy I haven’t heard of.

Also - think about this - a freshly independent, peaceful western country whose people have voted to get the nuclear weapons off their soil being strong-armed by NATO into keeping those nuclear weapons against their democratically expressed wishes, with threats of dismissal and the insinuation that they will be left to the wolves if they don’t comply?

If NATO behaved like that, they would lose all moral credibility. This is all just another bullshit scare story from the No campaign —which specialises in promoting fear and shutting down thought.

46 iceweasel  Sep 16, 2014 5:03:27am

re: #37 sagehen

Does it count that I worry how much more right-wing England will be without the Scottish lefties skewing the UK average?

From Billy Bragg (they don’t get much more English and left wing than him)

theguardian.com

Yes, the Scottish MPs - many of them Labour - will have to leave Westminster, but the notion that this will give the Tories an inbuilt majority is nothing but scaremongering. Only two Labour governments since 1945 have relied on Scottish votes to win a majority. When England wants to throw the Tories out, the English are quite capable of doing it themselves, thank you very much.

In the post-independence debate about how the remaining parts of the UK are governed, the elephant in the room will be devolution for England. Regional assemblies elected under a proportional system with Holyrood-style powers would offer us the opportunity to address the inequalities that have opened up between London and the rest of the country.

Support for Scottish self-determination might not fit neatly into any leftwing pigeon hole, but it does chime with an older progressive tradition that runs deep in English history - a dogged determination to hold the over-mighty to account. If, during the constitutional settlement that will follow the referendum, we in England can rediscover our Roundhead tradition, we might yet counter our historic weakness for ethnic nationalism with an outpouring of civic engagement that creates a fairer society for all.

47 FemNaziBitch  Sep 16, 2014 8:21:58am

I haven’t followed this with too much detail. It just seems strange to me that in a time when we are pushing for various countries to have independence from tyrants (or China for example), AND GIVEN OUR HISTORY, the US needs to STFU regarding Scotland.

48 Aqua Obama  Sep 16, 2014 8:34:33am

re: #43 EPR-radar

The idea that Scotland should not become independent because it might be inconvenient for US interests is remarkably obnoxious. Normally one needs GOP/wingnut ideas to get to that level.

On the contrary, I think Americans, and corporations in particular, have a lot to gain in the case of Scottish independence. One only needs to look at the smaller EU nations and how their relatively small populations allows them to do what France and Germany cannot do with tax policy. And, Scotland speaks English which is a big plus.

49 becominginvisible  Sep 17, 2014 7:08:06am

I see the Guardian has posted estimated declaration times for the vote as ending with Aberdeen votes tallied by 6am Friday.

50 Backwoods_Sleuth  Sep 17, 2014 7:22:28am

OpEd in today’s NYT supporting “Yes”:

Scotland’s Moment of Destiny
By ALAN CUMMING
September 17, 2014


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 79 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
5 days ago
Views: 181 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1