Showing posts with label Scotland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scotland. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Neo-Confederate fantasies go into the dumpster

The neo-Confederate heads are full of "Braveheart" and nonsense. They have their Confederate Celtic fantasies.

This video is the real Scotland. 


This person, calling himself Shogun, is evidently a sensation. A shogun was the ruler of Japan before the Meiji Era in Japan. 


From the article. 

Over the summer, Shogun uploaded a freestyle video called "Vulcan"​ onto YouTube, in which he flip-flops between infuriated and languorous​; rapping about drug addiction, self-hate, depression and, importantly, hope. In the months that followed, it swiftly racked up over half a million views. Newer freestyles have similarly impressed, and this month he'll support legendary UK rapper Akala on tour.

I think that with the way the economy is changing, Rap, the music of the dispossessed, is finding a world wide audience. As the article points out it is a global phenomenon.

This is the video for direct viewing.  Where are the bagpipes? Click on the image to see the whole thing. 


Friday, June 24, 2016

A Scarecrow to other nations

The British just voted to leave the European Union with much of the vote for the separation driven by Xenophobia and the fact is that the new economic system has left many behind.

The British pound has taken a steep drop. http://qz.com/715669/the-british-pound-is-getting-crushed/

It could break up the United Kingdom. http://qz.com/715751/could-brexit-spark-the-breakup-of-the-united-kingdom/

There will be negative consequences here. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/british-voters-just-unleashed-an-economic-and-political-tsunami-224755

Our local Texan idiots are using Brexit as a model for Texit.

https://www.facebook.com/texasnatmov/

The successful passage of Brexit should serve as a warning here what could happen. An economic that serves elites eventually is going to get opposition.

It will be interesting to see what a heavily populated island with not that many natural resources and long dependent on trading does as an isolationist nation.

It might be that Britain will serve as a warning to other nations what happens when you make these type of choices.

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Neo-Confederates play with the facts on secession

The League of the South is reporting on a recent Catalan vote on secession.

http://www.lsrebellion.blogspot.com/2014/11/81-of-catalans-vote-for-independence.html

The headline proclaims "81% of Catalans Vote for Secession." Is that true? No.

The facts are in this article:

http://www.newsweek.com/spains-catalans-vote-secede-symbolic-ballot-turnout-low-283306

Turn out was very low as reported in "Newsweek."
"Turnout was also relatively low, at around 2.23 million out of 5.4 million potential voters."
The reason the turn out was low was because it wasn't a real ballot. It was at places run at by pro-independence groups and not official polling places. As reported.
The "consultation of citizens" plebiscite in the wealthy northeastern region followed a legal block by the central government against a more formal, albeit still non-binding ballot which regional leaders had originally pushed for.
Because of the legal restrictions set on it, the ballot was set up and manned by grassroots pro-independence organizations, and Spanish unionist parties argue that, even for that reason alone, it could not legitimately reflect the wishes of anyone.
So there isn't the overwhelming support for independence as represented by the League of the South. There is a lot of support for independence in Catalonia, but it very well might be less than a majority.

This is another League of the South headline:

"Venice votes to cut ties with Italy"

http://lsrebellion.blogspot.com/2014/03/venice-votes-to-cut-ties-with-italy.html

It was an online poll.

League of the South was hyping Scottish secession for some time. If you read their articles you would have thought that there was overwhelming support for it in Scotland.

Actually, though, when the vote came in the results showed a clear majority supported staying with the United Kingdom.

All these secession movements in Western Europe plan on having their new nation join the European Union which has greatly diminished the impact of national borders so functionally they will exist as a local unit n a very large state. Their capitol will be in Brussels.




Friday, September 19, 2014

Island of Great Britain will not have a boundary and will remain unbound

The island of Great Britain will not getting a boundary any time soon and will remain unbound. The world will avoid having an additional boundary.

The Scottish referendum for secession went down to defeat by about 55% to 45%, a substantial margin.

Those who love division and divisiveness, the neo-Confederates, were hoping to see Scottish secession succeed to give their own campaign for secession credibility.

The Scottish National Party (SNP) can't be considered entirely defeated. They are getting more devolved powers from the central government. Also, other regions of England have decided they would like some devolved powers also. However, this might strengthen the British union by providing some local flexibility allowing the ending of discontents.

It will be interesting to see what the impact on Scottish politics is. The "No" voters now see themselves as a majority and probably are a little tired of the whole Scottish independence movement. Alex Salmond said this in response to the results: 
Earlier, Scotland's first minister, Alex Salmond, struck a defiant note at a downbeat Scottish National party rally in Edinburgh, saying he accepted Scotland had not "at this stage" decided to vote for independence.
The "No" voters might not want to deal with any more "stages." They might want to have a majority in the Scottish parliament and push the SNP aside. People probably will realize that if you play with matches you might start a fire.

The neo-Confederates will have to go back to hoping for some catastrophe to discredit modern society and provide the disorder where they would hope to get power.

Prior blog on this:

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2014/09/scottish-secession.html#.VBwQmfldWSo


Saturday, September 13, 2014

Scottish Secession Update1: Update 2: Secession vote lost.

Update 2: Scottish secession lost in the polls. 55.3% No (Against) to 44.7% Yes (For). Wasn't close.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2014/sep/18/-sp-scottish-independence-referendum-results-in-full

The neo-Confederates are deriving great hopes out of the increasing chances that Scotland will vote for secession in the Thursday Sept. 18, 2014 referendum that is coming up.

Also, I am getting a great many questions about it. Do I think Scotland will vote for secession, should Scotland secede, what will be the impact on the neo-Confederate movement?

I am not closely watching the Scottish secession campaign and the arguments. However, I have the following thoughts.

1. Will Scotland vote for secession?

I don't know. The polls show that the support for secession has been steadily increasing to the point it is now called a statistical tie between the pro- and anti-secession forces and there is some thought that this represents a continuing trend to a more pro-secession sentiment.

However, it isn't known if some people might say one thing to a pollster and vote differently in the voting booth.

The reporting that I have read says that the issues discussed have been around the economics of secession. These issues are important, but I think in the end you have a national identify beyond these issues. People die for their country and volunteer for military services for something more than economics or a discount at the mall.

The possibility has been steadily increasing. I don't think we will know until Sept. 18th.

2. Should Scotland secede?

I am surprised that the referendum is a simple majority. I would think that you wouldn't want to secede because at a specific time passions were running high over some issue and secession passed based on 50.0001%.  The American Constitution is amended by 2/3'rd vote of each congressional house and 3/4th ratification of the states.

However, it is their business how they do it.

Also, it is their business whether they want to do it or not.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be a citizen of a small country. I like taking road trips and driving thousands of miles and know that I will not be faced with any boundaries. I like a large job market and a vast nation with vast opportunities. But that is just me. I suppose those in the Vatican love the small size of their country.

3. What would Scottish Independence be?

However, it needs to be considered that Scottish independence is not going to be entirely independent. They are planning to join the European Union and then instead of being part of a government in London they will be part of an administration in Brussels.

The reason all these independence movements are thriving in Europe is that with the European Union (EU) you really don't need to be a part of larger European state. A EU citizen from Spain can easily get a job in Germany or move to England. You are part of a large continental economic system. You don't have to worry about being trapped in some small national economy.

In other ways the world's economy has become transnational. With the World Trade Organization and other economic groups regulations are defined by transnational bodies more and more and not by the specific state some region might find itself in.

In such a Europe and such a world the nation state becomes less relevant. If you want a free Ruritania I suppose you can.

The surge of secession sentiment in Europe is driven by transnational institutions as much as any local feeling. If you have a transnational defense force and a transnational state like the European Union the need for the current national government isn't that great if at all needed.

Of course as a small nation you don't have much of a prospect if you decide you want to leave a transnational state since you are no longer part of a state with a sufficient size to be independent of the transnational state.

4. Will Scottish secession lead to violence?

With independence people have to make a decision whether they are British citizens or Scottish citizens. With no national boundary existing in living memory there are probably a lot of people living in Scotland who will choose being British rather than Scottish.

I suppose that it will occur to someone to require Scottish citizenship for a lot of Scottish government jobs leading to people losing their jobs. Maybe there will be other discriminatory legislation.

What will be the condition of people living there who chose to remain British and can't vote and are suddenly foreigners?

How will the 45% that voted against secession feel suddenly being forced out of a nation they wanted to remain in?

How magnanimous will be the victors in a pro-secessionist vote?

What happens if the negotiations over the breakup are rancorous?

Given the nature of humanity to do the wrong thing and be obnoxious we can't dismiss the prospect that there will be some violence.

There might not be violence, but British residents might find a discriminatory atmosphere such as their children being taunted at school. There might be an large exodus from Scotland.

5. How will Scotland treat secession in Scotland?

When the issue of Quebec secession came up some Native Canadian groups said unequivocally that they weren't going to be a part of Quebec and would stay with Canada.

Some parts of Scotland might vote against secession, would they have to go along? Especially sections on the border with England would they have to go along with secession?

My feeling is that the leaders of Scottish independence aren't going to tolerate secession from Scotland.

6. Impact of Scottish secession in the United States of America:

A successful Scottish campaign will be a tremendous moral boost to the neo-Confederate movement, a radicalizing influence, and will greatly aid the neo-Confederate movement.

If someone had proposed that Scotland would be an independent nation in the 60s, 70s, 80s, it would have seemed laughable. The previous implausibility of Scottish secession will be a great encouragement for American secessionists to continue trying. The Scottish Nationalist Party got single digits in the polls when they started. Now it is a real possibility.

So the poor current prospects of any secessionist movement will suddenly be much much less of a discouragement. It might be that support is just a single digit, but so was the SNP's when it started. You just need to keep pushing and not give up.

It will be much easier to imagine being successful with the example of a successful independence movement whose initial prospects seemed ludicrously improbable.

The Union of Scotland and England happened 307 years ago. It predates the American republic. Just because a nation has existed for a long time will no longer mean it necessarily will persist in the future. What might have seemed eternal might prove to be transitory.  The American Civil War is about 150 years ago.

Czechoslovakia was independent nation between World War I and II and now is two nations. We don't think of Czechoslovakia much and Eastern Europe always seems to be being shuffled into new states with new boundaries. Scotland occupies a large place in the American imagination. It is an English speaking nation with a large number of descendants in the United States. It is not some distant third world nation. It occupies a large presence in English language literature. We imagine them as being similar to us. The American public will think about what happened in Scotland.

Samuel Francis, a strong supporter of honoring the Confederacy had a position that secession was "infantile" because he thought it was improbable. There are neo-Confederates like him who though they would have liked to see an independent Confederacy, thought it was romantic sentiment unrestrained by common sense. Now with Scottish secession I think neo-Confederates who thought secession as being a sentiment unrestrained by reason will re-think their position.

Also, for those who haven't considered the neo-Confederate movement  but identify with the Confederacy or are Lost Cause enthusiasts but reject secession as a widely improbable prospect, Scottish independence will result in them giving it some consideration for the same reasons it will encourage the people who currently are neo-Confederate secessionists.

Persons commenting on Scottish secession have noted that Scottish secession has gained support as a means to a political end, a liberal Scotland wishing to separate from a more conservative Britain. If you can't win the election, define a district where you can win the elections.

A lot of people living in the former Confederate states formerly without much interest in the Confederacy might get interested because of their discontent with national policies.

The example that this might happen is already shown by rural counties in Colorado and California who are advocating secession because they can't get their way. Their secession demand is based on no more than the idea that they don't like not getting their way and that somehow their votes ought to count more than the votes of others.

As I said before the secession movements in Scotland and Quebec started out in single digits. In the 1990s John Shelton Reed's opinion polls showed 15% support in the former Confederate states for secession, though it has to be remembered that he was one of the founders of the neo-Confederate movements so the poll is somewhat suspect to me.

However, recent polls have found surprisingly high identifications with the Confederacy. A recent Public Policy Poll survey found that 29% of Mississippians would back the Confederacy in another Civil War and 21% weren't sure. Those poll results are way better than the initial poll results of most independent movements.

With Scottish independence it can easily be imagined that what might have been merely wistful thinking will become a serious contemplation of possibility.

Also, with a referendum in Scotland on independence being held, the whole idea of having a referendum on secession will not be such a fringe idea. A state, possibly Mississippi could have a referendum on secession. They might not be able to implement the results if the vote is for secession passes, but that isn't so important. Once a secession referendum passes, the national government would lose legitimacy and that would start a series of causes and effects leading on to conflict.

As for the ability of our military and police to stop secessionists the recent events at the Clive Bundy ranch show how the government might not act against clearly illegal acts by secessionists. Clive Bunday was renting land and just decided it was his on the basis of some specious reasoning and decided not to pay his rent and got away having an armed insurrection against the authorities. The insurrectionists even set up road blocks on public roads resulting in complaints by people living in the area.

Follow up blog on this:

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2014/09/island-of-great-britain-will-not-have.html#.VBwQaPldWSo

Update:

Was interviewed for this article on Scottish secession.

http://www.annistonstar.com/news/article_8afe40f2-3bd1-11e4-b833-6f8c8335ebd3.html



Sunday, February 16, 2014

Independence is, well, independence.

The Scottish independence activists are proposing an independent Scotland but keeping the British pound. The British government has said that they don't not plan to have a shared currency with an independent Scotland.

Independence is just that, independence. You are on your own.

This has led to whining that an independent Scotland won't take on any of Britain's debt. Since Scotland gets about $100 billion pounds a year from Britain more than it puts in, an independent Scotland would actually do a lot for Britain to handle its own debt. Even a quit payment of 200 billion pounds to independent Scotland would work out well financially.

The neo-Confederate movement is of course supporting the Scottish secessionists. http://www.lsrebellion.blogspot.com/2014/02/london-threatens-scotland-on-secession.html  The League of the South is calling this a threat under some definition of "threat" not known to logic. If you want to move out of the house, is it a threat that the other residents of the house don't want to pay or help pay your rent at your new residence?

The thing about being your own country is that you are your own country. It is more than pretty stamps and flags and colorful national costumes worn by dancers and buildings and pronouncements. You are on your own.

You will need to maintain a currency, investor confidence, good trade relations, etc. As a small nation you will have to negotiate with larger nations which don't particularly need you unless you are lucky enough to have something special right there in your national territory. Maybe a mineral deposit or a strategic location for a base.

If the economy of your small nation collapses because in the world system of trade your major industry goes under or your agricultural product is unneeded you have to beg for foreign aid rather than claim support for the region on the basis of fellow nationals helping out their distressed fellow citizens. Of course with earthquakes and other natural disasters it is the same, get out the tin cup.

The whole point of the various groupings of European nations over the years is that being a small nation really doesn't work well for the economy or defense. Hence various economic programs for European integration since World War II. From Benelux to the European Union and other groups. Hence there has been NATO.

The Scottish secessionists expect to be let in the European Union. They should reflect, if they are capable of such an intellectual process, on how Scottish secession is fundamentally contradictory to the whole point of the European Union. Europe has spent 70 years trying to erase national divisions and borders and is not going to want to create more national borders. The European Union is an integrationist movement not a secessionist movement. Also, if one nation originating from secession from a member state is admitted, it encourages other secessionist movements.

Nations are fundamentally imagined. Lots of history in Europe and forgotten kingdoms and boundaries that can be the basis of a lot of revived nations by imaginative individuals. Does the European Union want to be a brawl of 500 nations? Do they want to be a power vacuum?

Finally the European Union will have to consider whether an independent Scotland which found the British intolerable will be able to get along with other nations and be a good member in the European Union.

If Scottish secessionists are not happy with the British parliament where they have representation they should think how negotiations with the giant European Union will go when they apply for membership even without the opposition of the British. Or how much leverage they will have in the European Union as a small nation.

Finally, a lot of people living in Scotland will not want to give up British citizenship. They will find it difficult to sell their houses or businesses for what they are worth if they try to leave. Yet they will find themselves discriminated against. A brief review of the end of the Ottoman Empire should give an idea what might be forthcoming.

The other side of this issue is the documentation of Scottish immigrants to Britain. They would have to have some type of permit to work and live or otherwise be on tourist visas.

Independence is Independence. It isn't a romantic Saturday matinee movie. You had better have a really good reason for it.


Tuesday, January 07, 2014

"Washington Post" alarmed by possible Scottish secession. UPDATE:

The Washington Post is alarmed by possible Scottish secession.

They are running this Op Ed piece on possible Scottish secession by George Robertson of Britain.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/scotland-secession-could-lead-to-re-balkanization-of-europe/2014/01/05/df076e94-578e-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html


The Washington Post itself ran this editorial against Scottish secession titled, "Scottish independence is part of a worrying trend."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/scottish-independence-vote-is-part-of-worrying-trend/2012/10/30/4c320fb2-1896-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_story.html

The hypocrisy of this is somewhat hilarious.

In 1995 the Washington Post published this article by League of the South (LOS) Michael Hill and then LOS board member Thomas Fleming. The organization was then called the Southern League and was conceived by Thomas Fleming. UPDATE: I forgot to put this link in for the article.

http://dixienet.org/rights/2013/new_dixie_manifesto.php

This was a column about the Southern League by Washington Post columnist George Will.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-12-28/news/1995362074_1_lombard-league-league-meetings-southern-writers

Evidently indulging secessionists in the United States because you think at the time it was quixotic is okay, but finding out that what was for decades a seemingly quixotic secessionist movement in Scotland, that it is now on the verge of success is a horror.

The Scottish National Party for years polled single digits in elections.

That nations are imagined is an axiom of cultural geography. We are a particular nationality because we think we are. The neo-Confederates have figured this out. Thomas Fleming proposed the Southern League after observing in Italy the Lega Nord (Northern League) and the break up of the Soviet Union. The League of the South studied the nationalist movement that created Norway out of Sweden. The idea of Norway started out as a literature that created Norwegian distinctiveness. Once the Norwegians thought of themselves as Norwegians the nation was a foregone conclusion.

The Soviet Union is no more because at one point even its leaders no longer imagined themselves as Soviets.

The Washington Post is has been missing in action in reporting the neo-Confederates in the United States. The Post might consider that the United States is full of monuments honoring secessionists who made a violent attempt to break up the United States. The whole idea of secession isn't necessarily confined to Europe.

If Scotland secedes then secession will become a real possibility for many elsewhere. Great Britain has been a nation for quite some time. The Scotland and England have been one nation since 1707. That is over 300 years ago. There may be successful secessionist movements elsewhere, but if the Catalans do or don't secede it won't have too much impact on the American or the English speaking imagination. However, Scotland, England, and Great Britain occupy a special space in the American imagination.

If Scotland does secede what was unimaginable become imaginable.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Popular Posts Last 30 days

Popular Posts All Time