RSS
From my new column in Taki’s Magazine:
Thursday’s referendum in Scotland on independence from the United Kingdom is difficult for contemporary Americans to understand, since secession has been unthinkable in the United States from the moment Pickett’s Charge at the Battle of Gettysburg fell a few yards short of success. Americans, as General George S. Patton observed, love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. And secession didn’t win.
But earlier Americans appreciated that nothing human is eternal, and that political arrangements can and should be restructured to serve new needs. As an American once observed:
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
On the other hand, the Scottish National Party that controls Scotland’s Assembly has yet to declare a particularly persuasive set of causes for separating from what has been, on the whole, a wildly successful 307-year-old union.
We are supposed to believe that the Scots have endured too long under the insufferably alien lash of David Cameron, Gordon Brown, and Tony Blair.
Read the whole thing there.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Steve, do something on Elizabeth. She’s old, but incredibly durable and gradually interesting.
http://www.isteve.com/Film_The_Queen.htm
“Arguably, thirteen British PMs have been of Scottish ethnicity on at least one parent’s side: Bute, Aberdeen, the great Gladstone, Rosebery, Balfour, Campbell-Bannerman, Bonar Law, MacDonald, Macmillan, Douglas-Home, Blair, Brown, and Cameron.”
Bonar Law.
http://youtu.be/m1agaZinJHg
One of the most popular conspiracies about the NWO is that they want to break large and powerful countries in smaller states that would be dependent of international Organizations like the EU, NATO, UN,…
I find it interesting that prominent left-wing activists and commentators, virtually to a man (or woman), have now undergone a Damascene conversion to the virtues of nationalism, having excoriated it up hill and down dale throughout their previous careers.
Interesting that the same people who want Scots to separate from the English based on minor differences in culture, values, and identity, have always expected the English to import tens of millions of culturally alien foreigners and unify with them.
If Scots should be free to determine their laws and leaders and shape their own societies without any interference from the English, should native English be allowed to do the same without interference from millions of people from foreign continents and cultures? No, that’s different!
No, Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalism have always been favoured by the liberal media. IRA supporters rioting in Ulster were called "nationalists" by the BBC and Guardian, whereas people with a similar aim in Eastern Ukraine are "pro-Russian separatists", and in England they'd have been "far-right extremists". In the 60s African leaders were cheerfully described as 'black nationalists" - and that wasn't meant to be a slur.
I think TPTB were happy to support ScotNats as a way of culturally weakening the English, but they're a bit horrified at what they've unleashed. They are wholly against Scottish Independence, hence the constant drip-feed of negative stories about the terrible things that might happen.
Independence will both remove a huge left-wing block vote (the Scots are little more left-wing in practice than the English, but being left wing there is itself an expression of anti-Englishness), and it'll change the terms of the immigration debate south of the border. Currently all immigrants in England can call themselves "British", and there's been a lot of nonsensical talk about "British values". "English" has been seen more as an ethnicity. If Scotland go, there'll need to be some fast footwork by TPTB to redefine Englishness. Go Scotland !
What will actually happen is the worst of all worlds - a narrow "No" vote followed by a large number of concessions to Scotland, promised in the panics of the last few weeks (and to be paid for by the English) and no attempt made to address the farcical situation by which Scottish MPs can vote on matters which affect England but do not affect their own constituencies (because of devolved powers) - the so called West Lothian Question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Lothian_question
Even if Scotland gets independence from The United Kingdom, the Scottish government will still adopt the British government’s left wing immigration policies of eventually turning Scotland into a country where the majority of the female population will wear a hijab.
With the way things are going, one day Western Europe will become so Muslim that even Latin America will look more culturally Western than Western Europe.
Strangely enough, right up to the early 1960s Scotland was a Tory voting land and strongly pro-unionist.
A great change occurred in the Scottish view of themselves and view of the union in the last 50 years. No doubt this can be traced to the dissolution of the British Empire, of which the Scots did very well, which also gave a strong sense of being on the ‘winning team’, and with the concurrent collapse of heavy industry in Scotland and onset of mass, generational unemployment in certain locales, that trend is strongly associated with Margaret Thatcher by Scots. The destruction of hope, self confidence and psyches caused by the collapse of industry and employment cannot be exagerrated, shades of the Gorbachev/Yeltsin destruction of the Russian working class and consequent demoralisation – Friedmanism whilst being good for private profit has enormously destructive effects on the lives of the poor, and the eventual comeback, as we see is unexpected and just as bitter. A point that the political class, which is all Friedmanite now, should note.
I've come to the conclusion the Scots would be better off governing themselves rather than living in a country run by and for the banking class.
A great change occurred in the Scottish view of themselves and view of the union in the last 50 years. No doubt this can be traced to the dissolution of the British Empire, of which the Scots did very well, which also gave a strong sense of being on the 'winning team', and with the concurrent collapse of heavy industry in Scotland and onset of mass, generational unemployment in certain locales, that trend is strongly associated with Margaret Thatcher by Scots. The destruction of hope, self confidence and psyches caused by the collapse of industry and employment cannot be exagerrated, shades of the Gorbachev/Yeltsin destruction of the Russian working class and consequent demoralisation - Friedmanism whilst being good for private profit has enormously destructive effects on the lives of the poor, and the eventual comeback, as we see is unexpected and just as bitter. A point that the political class, which is all Friedmanite now, should note.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Peter Akuleyev, @Lurker, @Chubby Ape, @Art Deco
“Friedmanism whilst being good for private profit has enormously destructive effects on the lives of the poor, and the eventual comeback, as we see is unexpected and just as bitter.”
Thanks, fascinating insight.
A great change occurred in the Scottish view of themselves and view of the union in the last 50 years. No doubt this can be traced to the dissolution of the British Empire, of which the Scots did very well, which also gave a strong sense of being on the 'winning team', and with the concurrent collapse of heavy industry in Scotland and onset of mass, generational unemployment in certain locales, that trend is strongly associated with Margaret Thatcher by Scots. The destruction of hope, self confidence and psyches caused by the collapse of industry and employment cannot be exagerrated, shades of the Gorbachev/Yeltsin destruction of the Russian working class and consequent demoralisation - Friedmanism whilst being good for private profit has enormously destructive effects on the lives of the poor, and the eventual comeback, as we see is unexpected and just as bitter. A point that the political class, which is all Friedmanite now, should note.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Peter Akuleyev, @Lurker, @Chubby Ape, @Art Deco
Is there any evidence that the poor are the driving force for Scottish secession? My impression when I was in Scotland a few weeks ago is that it is a very middle class driven movement. Wealthy Edinburgh is very strongly pro secession, in Glasgow I saw a lot more “No” signs and Union Jacks. The British government has managed to make “British identity” so all-encompassing and tolerant that it means nothing anymore. It is amazing how few positive arguments the Unionists even try to make – no appeals to patriotism, shared values, history, or anything that might stir some British nationalist passion. The pro-Union argument in the media always boils down to economic scare tactics. And now they are shocked they are losing.
“….the Scots were disproportionately represented in running the British Empire…”
Yes, it’s stange to me that now some in Scotland want to dissolve the UK. I mean, what would have been the British Empire without the Scots? Northern Ireland remained British because of the real Scotch-Irish and Canada was conquered by the 78th Fraser Highlanders and the victors of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham in Quebec City which gave Canada to Britain wore Kilts and played Bagpipes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4eVwzZ9a_A&feature=youtu.be&t=2m45s
Perhaps this smacks of short-term, oversimplistic thinking, but it seems to me that -59 left-socialist seats in the Commons, England can restore a sensible immigration policy, break free of the EU, and thus be better prepared for what horrors await the world this century.
I’m generally for nationalism, but the version peddled by the SNP is junk which deserves rejection. The Scot nationalists whine that British immigration policy is too restrictive, which is like ISIS breaking away from al Qaeda because the latter was too moderate. The nats want to keep the pound — guess those evil English must be good for something! (The Tories say, “You’re welcome”.) The nats will probably try to weasel out of paying any share of UK national debt, but they want all the North Sea oil (which, I presume, English scientists and engineers and laborers played no small share in discovering and extracting). Salmond promises that university and gummint health care will be free, free, free forever: how does a Scot say “fat chance”?
This whole sorry debate has been about nothing but money, no discussion of patriotism (Brit or Scot), history, culture, identity.
Some English Tories say they would be better off without lefty Scotland boosting Labour (although Labour would still have had a majority in Westminster without Scotland in the 1997, 2001, and 2005 elections; this talk of a permanent Tory majority if Scotland bolts is nonsense). Whatever conservatives (not necessarily Tory partisans, just conservatives of the heart) remain in Scotland will be eternally worse off, however: the SNP are the Davos crowd’s idea of nationalists, which is to say not genuine nationalists at all.
An indy Scotland might lead eventually to an indy Wales, which would help the Tories further. Wales has AFAICT less prospect for economic self-sufficiency than Scotland, but Wales has the advantage (from a blood-and-soil nationalist POV) of an obscure, impossible-for-outsiders local language to scare off immigrants — and that language’s status and survivability would be much greater in an indy Wales than currently. (Yes, pedants, Scotland has Scots Gaelic, but nobody speaks it, whereas a significant minority of Welsh do speak Welsh, and Welsh has modern media promotion.)
I am not so pessimistic. “Far right” parties have been gaining strength everywhere in Europe for the past 20 years, and have already achieved breakthroughs of joining governing coalitions in a few countries. Even without winning, they are driving the mainstream right parties to the right on national issues.
Scotland leaving the UK will make the worst British party (LibDems) weaker and the best (UKIP) stronger.
Most of the EU put the brakes on mass legal Muslim immigration some time ago. There is still illegal immigration, high birth rates, and chain migration issues to deal with. But if you don’t already have family there, it is extremely hard to immigrate to the EU legally, unlike in the 1960’s when France opened its border with Algeria and Germany with Turkey.
The big question is, will these spots of good news add up to positive action as the demographics get worse and worse each year?
Interesting that the same people who want Scots to separate from the English based on minor differences in culture, values, and identity, have always expected the English to import tens of millions of culturally alien foreigners and unify with them.
If Scots should be free to determine their laws and leaders and shape their own societies without any interference from the English, should native English be allowed to do the same without interference from millions of people from foreign continents and cultures? No, that's different!Replies: @Laban
“prominent left-wing activists and commentators, virtually to a man (or woman), have now undergone a Damascene conversion to the virtues of nationalism”
No, Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalism have always been favoured by the liberal media. IRA supporters rioting in Ulster were called “nationalists” by the BBC and Guardian, whereas people with a similar aim in Eastern Ukraine are “pro-Russian separatists”, and in England they’d have been “far-right extremists”. In the 60s African leaders were cheerfully described as ‘black nationalists” – and that wasn’t meant to be a slur.
I think TPTB were happy to support ScotNats as a way of culturally weakening the English, but they’re a bit horrified at what they’ve unleashed. They are wholly against Scottish Independence, hence the constant drip-feed of negative stories about the terrible things that might happen.
Independence will both remove a huge left-wing block vote (the Scots are little more left-wing in practice than the English, but being left wing there is itself an expression of anti-Englishness), and it’ll change the terms of the immigration debate south of the border. Currently all immigrants in England can call themselves “British”, and there’s been a lot of nonsensical talk about “British values”. “English” has been seen more as an ethnicity. If Scotland go, there’ll need to be some fast footwork by TPTB to redefine Englishness. Go Scotland !
What will actually happen is the worst of all worlds – a narrow “No” vote followed by a large number of concessions to Scotland, promised in the panics of the last few weeks (and to be paid for by the English) and no attempt made to address the farcical situation by which Scottish MPs can vote on matters which affect England but do not affect their own constituencies (because of devolved powers) – the so called West Lothian Question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Lothian_question
The Scots should know which side their bread is buttered, but if it’s “Yes”, it’ll be fun. The SNP will be like New Labour on crack. The borders will be opened to vibrancy on a scale never before experienced by the Scots, who have mostly missed what’s been enriching the English for decades.
Mostly:
An “incident” in which Kris Donald had no involvement whatsoever. Compare the much less sadistic and prolonged murder of Stephen Lawrence, which has received far more attention and (as has been pointed out by Roger Scruton) helped create the PC tyranny under which the vibrancy in Rotherham has been occurring. And Rotherham is merely the tip of the iceberg.
A great change occurred in the Scottish view of themselves and view of the union in the last 50 years. No doubt this can be traced to the dissolution of the British Empire, of which the Scots did very well, which also gave a strong sense of being on the 'winning team', and with the concurrent collapse of heavy industry in Scotland and onset of mass, generational unemployment in certain locales, that trend is strongly associated with Margaret Thatcher by Scots. The destruction of hope, self confidence and psyches caused by the collapse of industry and employment cannot be exagerrated, shades of the Gorbachev/Yeltsin destruction of the Russian working class and consequent demoralisation - Friedmanism whilst being good for private profit has enormously destructive effects on the lives of the poor, and the eventual comeback, as we see is unexpected and just as bitter. A point that the political class, which is all Friedmanite now, should note.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Peter Akuleyev, @Lurker, @Chubby Ape, @Art Deco
Yes, agree with your whole comment.
Over here people on the left and right, Scottish and English can be heard saying that Scotland is a naturally socialist country. If that is true, it’s a pretty recent thing.
In the great Labour landslide of 1945, England, Scotland & Wales all swung towards Labour but in fact Scots remained more loyal to the Tories than the English.
Even in the 1950s MacMilllan was able to win more than 50% of the popular vote in Scotland for the Tories.
The current support for the SNP isnt so much a nationalist vote as a leftist vote as far as I can see. Salmond seems to be promising a return to Labour policy – only more so. Incredibly the SNP is pushing the line that Britain is too restrictionist, whats needed for Scotland is really large-scale immigration (clue: not from England or Europe) not like England with it’s trivial and barely noticeable millions of Africans and Asians apparently. Clearly the SNP is in no real sense a nationalist party at all.
In online comments I often see SNP types pushing a particular anti-Tory line, again they don’t really come across as nationalists at all.
As has been pointed out those people with the correct pov think Scottish independence is wonderful but leaving the EU is unthinkable. The doublethink in that is too obvious to dwell on. And of course the SNP seem to think that slavish devotion to the EU is also ‘nationalist’. No, I don’t get it either. Why it’s almost as if the conspiracy theory – to encourage the ‘right’ sort of nationalism had some substance to it.
Demographics is another complicating factor, a non-trivial percentage of Scotland’s population is English, a non-trivial percentage of England’s population is Scottish. And of course there are a huge number of ‘mixed’ families.
Those who hope that Scottish independence will somehow prevent Scotland from being swamped with non-white immigration are deluding themselves. The only reason Scotland has avoided immigration so far is because it is part of the Union; immigrants prefer to settle in England when immigrating to the UK, so Scotland gets little of this immigration influx.
Part of the price that the globalist ruling elite impose on “independent” white nations is that they must accept increasing numbers of non-white “refugees” and other immigrants. Thus, Ireland now has a large and growing non-white population, and Scotland does not, because Ireland is “independent” and Scotland is not. Make Scotland “independent” and the floodgates will open.
And no, there is no political party in Scotland now that is willing to define Scottishness on racial terms. There might be such a party, once the immigration flood gets going, but by that point the damage will be done. Until then, an independent Scotland will lurch leftwards, while England without the Scots will be more conservative, giving UKIP a chance, so clouds and silver linings and all that.
The Scottish case for separation does seem pretty weak; “I don’t like those guys to the south of us” also applies to us Americans yet I don’t see Yankees wanting to leave the Union. Funny though how it is okay for Quebecers or Scots to vote on leaving a Union yet when our Southrons did it, it started a war. I guess Lincoln didn’t get the memo about self-determination.
Scotland will likely vote “no” because the English are offering them “max devo” (maximum devolution of local powers). Not sure what that means in practical terms, but it sure sounds like Scotland is going to be another Puerto Rico.
Per capita domestic product in Scotland hugs the British mean. Puerto Rico's is about one-third lower than the American mean and the island also suffers from severely elevated crime rates (homicide rates 5x the American mean, to take one example), which Scotland does not.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
Scottish independence would be the best thing that’s ever happened for nationalism on the island (at a time when it couldn’t be more badly needed). I hope they don’t choke at the last minute.
So if it looks like things actually move in the direction of breakaway and they’re right on the cusp of doing it then will the rest of Britain try to use force to prevent it? Will it be squelched or allowed to proceed?
I find it interesting that “empire hating’ is now a part of Scots nationalism, because as Steve points out the Scots were not integral to the Imperial project. So were the Irish, but I don’t seem them apologizing on that point.
And really, has anyone worried about the Empire since Suez?
And to be clear, what they are voting on is a referendrum to have a long and extended discussion on what independence means. There is a reason they call it Perfidious Albion.
A great change occurred in the Scottish view of themselves and view of the union in the last 50 years. No doubt this can be traced to the dissolution of the British Empire, of which the Scots did very well, which also gave a strong sense of being on the 'winning team', and with the concurrent collapse of heavy industry in Scotland and onset of mass, generational unemployment in certain locales, that trend is strongly associated with Margaret Thatcher by Scots. The destruction of hope, self confidence and psyches caused by the collapse of industry and employment cannot be exagerrated, shades of the Gorbachev/Yeltsin destruction of the Russian working class and consequent demoralisation - Friedmanism whilst being good for private profit has enormously destructive effects on the lives of the poor, and the eventual comeback, as we see is unexpected and just as bitter. A point that the political class, which is all Friedmanite now, should note.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Peter Akuleyev, @Lurker, @Chubby Ape, @Art Deco
I agree entirely with your overview of how the Scots got to this fork in the road. A few years ago some malicious American professor named Ignatieff wrote a book called “How The Irish Became White”, well another book could be written on Scotland called “How The Scots Became NAMs”, to use the polite N-word.
I’ve come to the conclusion the Scots would be better off governing themselves rather than living in a country run by and for the banking class.
“But Britain has no written constitution, so Prime Ministers, even of a minority government like Cameron’s, have arbitrary powers resembling those of the captain of a pirate ship.”
http://takimag.com/article/fair_play_to_scotland_steve_sailer/print#ixzz3DZgm10X2
Britain does have a constitution, it just isn’t a written one. The powers of the prime minister are constrained by this unwritten constitution, tradition, and common law. However, that doesn’t mean that a PM won’t sidestep those constraints, no different than the current resident of the white house seems to avoid the written constitution of the US almost daily.
Secession is unthinkable in American politics? There has been talk of Texas seceding recently along with secession movements in Alaska, the Second Vermont Republic movement and the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. Also, the rest of Illinois wants to kick Cook County out of the state but since Cook County controls the state it never goes anywhere.
It is useful to get an outsider’s perspective on UK affairs, but Steve mis-states the constitutional issues. (I am commenting on the full article.) In the UK’s constitution, which is uncodified but by no means ‘unwritten’, the Prime Minister does not have ‘unfettered power’. Executive powers are exercised almost entirely under the provisions of various Parliamentary statutes, and are subject to judicial review. An important exception is the power to declare and wage war, which may still be exercised by the Government, in the name of the monarch, under the Royal Prerogative, though in recent years it has become accepted that major military action must be approved by a resolution of Parliament.
The power of the Prime Minister in practice rests on the Parliamentary system. Parliament has the unlimited power to make statutes, including legislation to change its own procedures and composition. (Increasingly, statutes themselves can come under challenge in the Courts for inconsistency with EU or European Human Rights legislation, but the worst the Courts can do is to advise Parliament that the statutes need to be amended.) The Prime Minister is, by custom, the leader of a political party which, alone or in a coalition with others, can regularly command a majority in the House of Commons. The power of the PM in practice depends on the size of his parliamentary majority and the loyalty of his party. If either of these break down, as happened to Margaret Thatcher in 1990, he or she can be gone in a heartbeat.
These points can be illustrated by the case of the local government of London, mentioned in Steve’s article. In the 1960s a new authority, the Greater London Council, was set up by statute. It was always unpopular with some Conservative politicians, because part of its raison d’etre was to channel resources from the wealthier (and therefore more Conservative) outer fringes of London to the poorer inner areas. In the early 1980s the GLC became increasingly controversial, because the leader of the Labour majority on the council, Ken Livingstone, used it to promote various left-wing causes, such as nuclear disarmament, which the Thatcher Government considered none of its business. Some of the GLC’s actions were struck down by the Courts, but it remained a thorn in the Government’s side. For a variety of reasons the Government decided to abolish the GLC and leave local government in London mainly to individual boroughs (most of which have populations in the hundreds of thousands). The abolition of the GLC, like its creation, was achieved by Parliamentary statute, not by an executive decision. (The office of elected Mayor of London, incidentally, was only created much later under Tony Blair’s Labour Government. Ken Livingstone was elected as the first Mayor, but defeated later by Boris Johnson. The powers of the Mayor are in fact quite limited.)
So far as the Scottish Referendum is concerned, it follows from an agreement between the devolved Scottish Administration and the UK Government that the latter would respect and implement the outcome of a Scottish referendum on independence. The details of the referendum procedure are set out in an Act of the devolved Scottish Parliament, itself acting under powers conferred by the UK Parliament. If the vote is in favour of independence, the Scottish and UK Governments are committed to working towards its implementation, but this will require at least one further Act of the UK Parliament. It is entirely conceivable that as the full horror of the task becomes clear, the whole idea will be abandoned or greatly watered down – ‘Independence Lite’.
“The destruction of hope, self confidence and psyches caused by the collapse of industry and employment cannot be exagerrated, shades of the Gorbachev/Yeltsin destruction of the Russian working class and consequent demoralisatio – Friedmanism whilst being good for private profit has enormously destructive effects on the lives of the poor, and the eventual comeback, as we see is unexpected and just as bitter.”
I don’t think its Friedmanism. Especially the example of russia, were crony capitalism would be a better word…
A great change occurred in the Scottish view of themselves and view of the union in the last 50 years. No doubt this can be traced to the dissolution of the British Empire, of which the Scots did very well, which also gave a strong sense of being on the 'winning team', and with the concurrent collapse of heavy industry in Scotland and onset of mass, generational unemployment in certain locales, that trend is strongly associated with Margaret Thatcher by Scots. The destruction of hope, self confidence and psyches caused by the collapse of industry and employment cannot be exagerrated, shades of the Gorbachev/Yeltsin destruction of the Russian working class and consequent demoralisation - Friedmanism whilst being good for private profit has enormously destructive effects on the lives of the poor, and the eventual comeback, as we see is unexpected and just as bitter. A point that the political class, which is all Friedmanite now, should note.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Peter Akuleyev, @Lurker, @Chubby Ape, @Art Deco
Friedmanism whilst being good for private profit has enormously destructive effects on the lives of the poor, and the eventual comeback, as we see is unexpected and just as bitter. A point that the political class, which is all Friedmanite now, should note.
Thanks for the boilerplate.
On the question of Scottish Independence, I tend to apply Steve’s logic from his 2003 article “The Partition Possibility”- essentially, if the Scots have to start paying for their own bloated welfare benefits, instead of having them subsidized by England, they’ll have no choice but to (eventually) start slashing budgets and trimming the fat. Without England to blame for their problems, they’ll be forced to fix things themselves.
Unfortunately, what they’re likely to get is the worst of all possible outcomes- a “No” vote that means the Scots don’t have to pay for their own problems, but one narrow enough to convince London to cede even more power to the devolved Parliament in Edinburgh. Logically, it would make much more sense to simply abolish the Scottish Parliament if Scotland rejects independence, but this is not likely. Perhaps that was the point all along- threaten secession to compel the English to continue enabling Scotland’s bad habits.
Separate or united, though, Scotland and England are clearly separate nations, with different histories, songs, dances, athletic teams, dialects, and religions. It’s good that they’ve been cooperating continuously since 1603/1707/1745 (whichever date you choose), instead of regularly warring as in the 600-700 years before that, but that doesn’t erase an underlying distinction which is probably more pronounced than those between the Scandinavian countries.
I would use the word “blowback” rather than “comeback” to describe what is happening:
– Success of nationalist parties all over Europe
– Scottish secession
– Tanking approval ratings of all Friedmanite governments all over the Western world.
– An increasingly embittered working class. Scots are edging towards violence now.
Expect more unexpected blowback against globalist, Friedmanite elites.
One of the most popular conspiracies about the NWO is that they want to break large and powerful countries in smaller states that would be dependent of international Organizations like the EU, NATO, UN,…
And yet the EU, along with all the major political parties in the UK and virtually all the major business sectors, is doing all it can to push Scotland into voting “No” on secession.
Anonymous 6:37 has a good insight. The Scots, at least enough of them, did very well out of the British Empire, but not so well after the empire was wrapped up and the UK started participating in globalization and deindustrialization. While the Tories always did worse than Scotland than elsewhere, they won the election in Scotland in 1955, and Scotland’s turn to Labour only started then, with the Tory vote collapsing in particular during the Thatcher government. Of course, Blair doing nothing to reverse globalization and deindustrialization means that Labour is discredited as well.
On Scottish PMs, its probably best to count those who represented a Scottish constituency in Parliament, but that still is alot given Scotland’s proportion of the population. For the twentieth century alone, I count Campbell-Bannerman, Asquith (a Yorkshireman who lived in London but represented a Scottish constituency), Bonar Law, MacDonald, and Douglas-Home. Brown is not listed since his government was in the twenty-first century. Of course Winston Churchill of all people represented a Scottish constituency for part of his career.
Brown would still be in the Westminster parliament in the event of a “Yes” vote, since the separation would still not actually happen for at least a couple of years. “Yes” is really just authorizing the devolved Scottish government to start negotiating for independence. And the rest of the UK still gets a say in that there is a process of negotiation, as happened with Ireland, though as the Irish example shows, trying to force Scotland to stay wouldn’t be a good idea. There is, however, a strong case for a UK wide referendum on “devomax”, which would affect UK wide institutions more than outright independence. Post Scottish independence, the UK still exists containing England (including Wales) and Northern Ireland, though maybe England should be withdrawing from the UK, leaving Scotland with Northern Ireland.
That theory might make a little bit of sense if large, powerful countries like the USA, China, or the former USSR were any better at resisting globalism than the small states. Alas, they are if anything more susceptible, since they have imperial desires to pursue along with quality of life demands.
Steve’s column and some comments on the other site touches on US secession. This is a non-starter, at least along state lines, for several reasons:
1. The association of secession with the losing side in the Civil War, and with slavery.
2. The American empire is still very much alive, though the fall in living standards associated with imperial decline has already become. Successful secessionists movements are usually a by-product of the fall of empires, with the British empire being a good example.
3. Starting with the civil war, the nineteenth century Republicans started playing fast and loose with state lines and state formation for partisan political reasons, and state lines were always tangled in the Northeast. For these reasons, secession-by-state just doesn’t work for large parts of the US, the states are often either too small in population or don’t cover a sufficiently homogenous reason. The one serious actual attempt at secession involved a regionally based confederation of states.
Incidentally, on a state by state basis, even the modern partisan red-blue divide is greatly exaggerated. Its much more of a case of central cities vs the countryside. The degree to which states are pulled into the red or blue camp depends on whether one of the few remaining rural Democratic pockets are in the state (New England), whether the suburbs tend to vote with the city or more with the countryside (Texas and Georgia are red because the suburbs and exurbs are bright red), and there are quite a few states that just don’t have any major cities.
So if the US dissolves, the natural successor units would be city-states based on large metropolitan areas. I’m not sure what would happen with the rural areas. A series of almost imaginable events would have to take place first, that would themselves probably radically change the geography.
secession is not unthinkable for THIS american: I call for the invalidation of the constitution and the reinstatement of the articles of confederation, initial implementation to begin immediately, and full implementation complete in 10 years.
Who will join me in this?
“…shades of the Gorbachev/Yeltsin destruction of the Russian working class and consequent demoralisation…”
Gorby was worse for Russia than Maggy was for Britain, but both have justly earned the undying hatred of their respective peoples. And they were such fans of each other.
No, they earned the hatred of ignorant and malicious cranks.
Personally I favor independence for Scotland
independence for Catalonia and Basque country
Independence for each Italian region that wants to secede
The future of Europe will probably be again smaller kingdoms/city-states.
Smaller ethnic-based countries may have more control over immigration.
Of course, it could also go the other way, small weak stats overrun by muslim hordes
So in the end, the real important question is to control immigration, the rest is minor
http://takimag.com/article/fair_play_to_scotland_steve_sailer/print#ixzz3DZgm10X2
Britain does have a constitution, it just isn't a written one. The powers of the prime minister are constrained by this unwritten constitution, tradition, and common law. However, that doesn't mean that a PM won't sidestep those constraints, no different than the current resident of the white house seems to avoid the written constitution of the US almost daily.Replies: @Steve Sailer
What I meant was that a PM with a working majority in Parliament can get passed legislation both routine and fundamental, with none of the supermajorities needed for constitutional amendments in the U.S.
I just want to know whether an independent Scotland will get one of the Gurkha regiments.
Scotland represents roughly 10% of the UK population, but a considerably larger proportion of the UK landmass, although for various reasons most of Scotland is more or less uninhabitable – that’s the reason why it has such a low population density, historically it simply could not support a mass population, hence an enormous fraction of the Scottish population emigrated, probably more Scots emigrated per capita than any other ethnicity, including Irish and Italians.
Talking of immigration, due to the (remainder) UK’s policy of mass immigration, it would take as little as 7 years to make up the shortfall in population due to Scotland’s loss. Another effect would be to push up UK population density to be far the highest in Europe, if we disregard Malta.
Peter Akuleyev,
The uptick surge in ‘yes’ votes seems to be coming from Glasgow and the other former industrial towns of Scotland’s ‘central belt’ where most of Scotland’s population is concentrated. On another note, a very big proportion of ‘Scots’ from Glasgow are really transplanted Irishmen.
Devo-max is awful and Farage should rally the English against it once the referendum fails. Why? It allows the Scots to borrow under the cover of the Sterling, thus affecting the English majority, which only has a say once.
1. Pass enabling legislation which creates regional governments for England as well and devolve as much discretion on these as the celtic fringe receives. (North, Midlands, West Country, &c).
2. Distribute to each British region an unrestricted bloc of revenue in an amount to be determined by a formula which takes account of population and per capita income. Distribute to the regions nothing more than that bar occasional disaster relief. They would be dependent on local revenue for the remainder of their public finance.
3. Incorporate into the enabling legislation for regional government limits on public sector borrowing by those governments or their subsidiaries (rather like those spelled out in the Minnesota state constitution). Require balanced budgets and require referenda to issue bonds for l/t debt.
4. Subject regional and local governments to bankruptcy law, like you would any other corporation.Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
“We are supposed to believe that the Scots have endured too long under the insufferably alien lash of David Cameron, Gordon Brown, and Tony Blair.”
Of course Brown & Blair were PMs *because* of Scotland, and arguably the Tories could have chosen a less milquetoast conservative if they weren’t trying to win votes from the left.
I love Scotland, but I hope they vote for independence mostly to take their 58 socialist MPs out of Westminster. If the Scots are too stupid to save themselves from multiculturalism, perhaps at least the rest of Britain can save itself if the Scots are gone. Absent the rest of Britain, perhaps the Scots will change their minds, too. Independence may make both countries better.
The notion that the English and Scottish are fundamentally different is garbage and always has been.
Having turned London into one of the world’s biggest centers of Islamic fundamentalism, Westminster can’t suddenly turn and try to appeal to the long history of blood and soil brotherhood with the Scots. The history of the British Empire has already been turned by the BBC and the race agitators into one long tale of slavery and oppression. Plus, a good amount of “British” politicians are anything but (Ed Milliband is the grandson of a revolting Polish Jewish Bolshevik who fled in fear after assisting Lenin during the Battle of Warsaw. David Cameron is a mixture of Russian and Scandinavian ancestry. And I’m not even mentioning such all-stars as David Lammy, Diane Abbot, and the “esteemed” Baroness Warsi).
Poland and Lithuania were united for almost exactly the same length of time, and by a similar process (personal dynastic union followed by formal union a century or two later). Nobody questions these being separate countries today. Scotland was an independent state from its foundation in the 9th century until 1707- that's almost 900 years, during most of which Scotland was extremely hostile to her southern neighbor. Even since personal union in 1603, largely-Scottish armies have clashed with mostly-English ones several times (in the civil wars and The '45).
The "Guid Scots Leid" has been in steep decline since the Act of Union, but adoption of the English language didn't exactly keep Ireland wedded to the Union, and the modern Scottish vernacular is far more different from the English of London than Canadian English is from American. Scottish Protestantism was, from its inception, Presbyterian to the bone, whilst the Church of England was an ever-changing grab-bag of elements from Lutheranism, Calvinism, Catholicism, and whatever else suited the royal fancy.
Language, history, religion, geography- if being distinct in all those areas doesn't create at least a plausible claim to nationhood, I'm not sure what does.
Scotland’s voluntary union with England
“Voluntary” is definitely stretching it. Most Scots were against the Union, though in 1707 the notions of popular sovereignty and universal male suffrage were still far in the future. The Scottish leadership were generously bribed to vote for union with England.
“Incredibly the SNP is pushing the line that Britain is too restrictionist, whats needed for Scotland is really large-scale immigration (clue: not from England or Europe) not like England with it’s trivial and barely noticeable millions of Africans and Asians apparently. “
I think a lot of this (coming from the political class, not from the streets) is moral posturing – another kick at the racist English from the enlightened Scottish political class. The reality is that the percentage of immigrants in Scotland is tiny, so they can afford to look down on those benighted English bigots.
“In countries where there is only one race, broad and lofty views are taken of the colour problem” – thus Churchill in 1943, commenting upon English shock at the segregation practiced by the US Army (and described in Neville Shute’s novel The Chequer Board). Now the English are the Yanks and the Scots are the English, if you get my drift.
We visit Scotland every year – and we’re starting to see Eastern European staff in quite remote places. But Glasgow and Edinburgh are still overwhelmingly Scottish cities. The English can’t make the same claim for Birmingham and London.
(English unionist politicians (that’s nearly all of them) are in trouble if UKIP and English Tory backbenchers rebel against the blank political cheque Cameron and Co have written out to Scotland over the last two weeks. If the cheque’s not honoured things could get “a little bit tasty” i.e. combative)
Perversely Ive seen more genuine sounding Scots saying they would rather voter BNP or UKIP if they thought they would win, SNP is a poor second choice.
Im wondering if it is all posturing - would an independent Scotland turn out to be New Labour on steroids as per their public pronouncements or something else?
Devo-max is awful and Farage should rally the English against it once the referendum fails. Why? It allows the Scots to borrow under the cover of the Sterling, thus affecting the English majority, which only has a say once.
1. Pass enabling legislation which creates regional governments for England as well and devolve as much discretion on these as the celtic fringe receives. (North, Midlands, West Country, &c).
2. Distribute to each British region an unrestricted bloc of revenue in an amount to be determined by a formula which takes account of population and per capita income. Distribute to the regions nothing more than that bar occasional disaster relief. They would be dependent on local revenue for the remainder of their public finance.
3. Incorporate into the enabling legislation for regional government limits on public sector borrowing by those governments or their subsidiaries (rather like those spelled out in the Minnesota state constitution). Require balanced budgets and require referenda to issue bonds for l/t debt.
4. Subject regional and local governments to bankruptcy law, like you would any other corporation.
Never, never, never as the late Dr Paisley would say. The "regions" are an EU creation. Peter Hitchens:If we are to have a Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Parliament, then we need an English one too.
There is precedent: Ireland, less than a century past. MPs representing constituencies in Ireland kept their seats until Parliament dissolved. Lords kept their seats until they died.
Gorby was worse for Russia than Maggy was for Britain, but both have justly earned the undying hatred of their respective peoples. And they were such fans of each other.Replies: @Art Deco
but both have justly earned the undying hatred of their respective peoples.
No, they earned the hatred of ignorant and malicious cranks.
Not sure what that means in practical terms, but it sure sounds like Scotland is going to be another Puerto Rico.
Per capita domestic product in Scotland hugs the British mean. Puerto Rico’s is about one-third lower than the American mean and the island also suffers from severely elevated crime rates (homicide rates 5x the American mean, to take one example), which Scotland does not.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/433651/Scotland-still-top-of-British-murder-rates-despite-record-fall-in-violent-deaths
My question is, when Scotland scoots, will Englishmen get their pistols back?Replies: @Art Deco
You really have no idea what the hell you’re talking about.
Great piece, Steve. To the extent that I understand this Scottish campaign (not much), I’m torn between sympathy for devolution and decentralization on one hand and tradition and continuity on the other.
I’m leaning slightly towards the other, which must say something about my DNA-level instincts.
“By American standards, they are strikingly lacking in checks and balances. For example, it’s absurd that Prime Minister Cameron could unilaterally grant Scotland a secession referendum predicated on a simple majority of Scottish votes and without the voters of the rest of the United Kingdom having any say.
Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki’s Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don’t get paid for their work. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/fair_play_to_scotland_steve_sailer/print#ixzz3DbMTKjw1”
If there was a referendum instead of the Revolutionary War in the USA Great Britain would have voted to keep itself shackled to America and America would, of course, want to be independent and self-determinized.
Overall your article is excellent!
To be precise, Prime Ministers can have less power relative to their cabinets than Presidents have relative to their cabinets: Clement Atlee, for example, was more of a chairman than an executive of the famous Labour government of 1945-1949 that featured numerous strong men such as Cripps and Gaitskell.
But, Her Majesty’s Government, a.k.a., the Crown-in-Parliament. a.k.a., whoever can command the confidence of a majority of the House of Commons, has remarkable powers to alter seemingly fundamental arrangements simply on a majority vote in Parliament. For example, the Blair Government seriously considered abolishing the House of Lords.
On the other hand, Britain has an impressive political culture that attracts a higher quality of individual to Parliament than to the American Congress. For example, something you don’t see as much in America are brilliant statesmen of unfashionable views, such as Enoch Powell and Tony Benn. Ron Paul is a worthy American version, but he’s not exactly Enoch Powell.
Goldbuggery is a sign of brilliant unconventionality? Assessing every foreign conflict as a consequence of clumsiness of American and Israeli policymakers is a sign of brilliant unconventionality? Paul couldn't persuade more than two of the other six men in his little caucus to endorse his candidacy.
Very true. At one time, the House of Lords, or senates in the former dominions, such as Canada, were referred to as the houses of sober second thoughts, and had the ability to prevent passage of bills thought inappropriate. Those days are gone, as the establishment parties have, more or less, made them into rubber stampers.
“The notion that the English and Scottish are fundamentally different is garbage and always has been.”
Poland and Lithuania were united for almost exactly the same length of time, and by a similar process (personal dynastic union followed by formal union a century or two later). Nobody questions these being separate countries today. Scotland was an independent state from its foundation in the 9th century until 1707- that’s almost 900 years, during most of which Scotland was extremely hostile to her southern neighbor. Even since personal union in 1603, largely-Scottish armies have clashed with mostly-English ones several times (in the civil wars and The ’45).
The “Guid Scots Leid” has been in steep decline since the Act of Union, but adoption of the English language didn’t exactly keep Ireland wedded to the Union, and the modern Scottish vernacular is far more different from the English of London than Canadian English is from American. Scottish Protestantism was, from its inception, Presbyterian to the bone, whilst the Church of England was an ever-changing grab-bag of elements from Lutheranism, Calvinism, Catholicism, and whatever else suited the royal fancy.
Language, history, religion, geography- if being distinct in all those areas doesn’t create at least a plausible claim to nationhood, I’m not sure what does.
Part of the price that the globalist ruling elite impose on "independent" white nations is that they must accept increasing numbers of non-white "refugees" and other immigrants. Thus, Ireland now has a large and growing non-white population, and Scotland does not, because Ireland is "independent" and Scotland is not. Make Scotland "independent" and the floodgates will open.
And no, there is no political party in Scotland now that is willing to define Scottishness on racial terms. There might be such a party, once the immigration flood gets going, but by that point the damage will be done. Until then, an independent Scotland will lurch leftwards, while England without the Scots will be more conservative, giving UKIP a chance, so clouds and silver linings and all that.
The Scottish case for separation does seem pretty weak; "I don't like those guys to the south of us" also applies to us Americans yet I don't see Yankees wanting to leave the Union. Funny though how it is okay for Quebecers or Scots to vote on leaving a Union yet when our Southrons did it, it started a war. I guess Lincoln didn't get the memo about self-determination.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
Genuine Yankees are are rare and irrelevant; they haven’t controlled Boston since the 19th century. But there is the Second Vermont Republic. Though they seem more devolutionist than actually secessionist.
Neither side got the memo about racial realism. Both sides fought to make their resulting country less white than had they “lost”. Look it up: except for Texas, states seceded in the exact descending order of their blackness.
Per capita domestic product in Scotland hugs the British mean. Puerto Rico's is about one-third lower than the American mean and the island also suffers from severely elevated crime rates (homicide rates 5x the American mean, to take one example), which Scotland does not.Replies: @Reg Cæsar
Think again:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/433651/Scotland-still-top-of-British-murder-rates-despite-record-fall-in-violent-deaths
My question is, when Scotland scoots, will Englishmen get their pistols back?
If this is how Scots make use of home rule, what will they do with independence?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/433120/EXCLUSIVE-Kenny-MacAskill-plans-blades-in-jail-after-Sikh-faith-pleas
As in 1861 across the sea, the question should be not “Do we fight to keep them in?”, but “Why haven’t we expelled them long before now?”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/433651/Scotland-still-top-of-British-murder-rates-despite-record-fall-in-violent-deaths
My question is, when Scotland scoots, will Englishmen get their pistols back?Replies: @Art Deco
Homicide rates in Scotland fluctuate around 2.0 per 100,000, or 60% higher than the British mean. Homicide rates in Puerto Rico run to about 25.0 per 100,000, or 12.5x those of Scotland and 5x the American mean.
But, Her Majesty's Government, a.k.a., the Crown-in-Parliament. a.k.a., whoever can command the confidence of a majority of the House of Commons, has remarkable powers to alter seemingly fundamental arrangements simply on a majority vote in Parliament. For example, the Blair Government seriously considered abolishing the House of Lords.
On the other hand, Britain has an impressive political culture that attracts a higher quality of individual to Parliament than to the American Congress. For example, something you don't see as much in America are brilliant statesmen of unfashionable views, such as Enoch Powell and Tony Benn. Ron Paul is a worthy American version, but he's not exactly Enoch Powell.Replies: @Art Deco
Ron Paul is a worthy American version,
Goldbuggery is a sign of brilliant unconventionality? Assessing every foreign conflict as a consequence of clumsiness of American and Israeli policymakers is a sign of brilliant unconventionality? Paul couldn’t persuade more than two of the other six men in his little caucus to endorse his candidacy.
Norway and Sweden were once one country. Portugal and Spain were once a single country. Ireland and Britain used to be one Kingdom. The Czech Republic and Slovakia used to be state. What is the big deal with an independent Scotland? Could be good for both countries. I doubt any of the nations I have mentioned want to be re-joined together now.
“It’s absurd that Prime Minister Cameron could unilaterally grant Scotland a secession referendum predicated on a simple majority of Scottish votes and without the voters of the rest of the United Kingdom having any say.”
No it isn’t. It takes two to marry, but only one to divorce.
"Voluntary" is definitely stretching it. Most Scots were against the Union, though in 1707 the notions of popular sovereignty and universal male suffrage were still far in the future. The Scottish leadership were generously bribed to vote for union with England.Replies: @Lurker
I understood that it was the Scottish elite leadership who very much the front runners for it in the first place – of course that may have been the bribery talking.
Hi LT, I was typing in haste and did not make it clearer. Indeed the moral posturing is very much from the top. Its just that in online discourse I detect much of the same posturing from assorted anonymous commenters. Scratch what appears to be a blood & soil type Scot Nat and they bleed Guardian boilerplate.
Perversely Ive seen more genuine sounding Scots saying they would rather voter BNP or UKIP if they thought they would win, SNP is a poor second choice.
Im wondering if it is all posturing – would an independent Scotland turn out to be New Labour on steroids as per their public pronouncements or something else?
Yeah, because they were dismembered by Russia, the Habsburg Empire, and Prussia!
“Art Deco says:
Thanks for the boilerplate.”
As opposed to the reflexive, arrogant pomposity you exude like a slug exudes slime?
1. Pass enabling legislation which creates regional governments for England as well and devolve as much discretion on these as the celtic fringe receives. (North, Midlands, West Country, &c).
2. Distribute to each British region an unrestricted bloc of revenue in an amount to be determined by a formula which takes account of population and per capita income. Distribute to the regions nothing more than that bar occasional disaster relief. They would be dependent on local revenue for the remainder of their public finance.
3. Incorporate into the enabling legislation for regional government limits on public sector borrowing by those governments or their subsidiaries (rather like those spelled out in the Minnesota state constitution). Require balanced budgets and require referenda to issue bonds for l/t debt.
4. Subject regional and local governments to bankruptcy law, like you would any other corporation.Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
“Pass enabling legislation which creates regional governments for England as well and devolve as much discretion on these as the celtic fringe receives. (North, Midlands, West Country, &c).”
Never, never, never as the late Dr Paisley would say. The “regions” are an EU creation. Peter Hitchens:
If we are to have a Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Parliament, then we need an English one too.