Yay, all the way.

But better prepare the strategic popcorn reserve. If they truly pull it off, the British establishment will go into full-blown scorched earth mode, the Belgian and Spanish establishments will shit themselves -- and the average schmuck will get it up the ass.

Whatever the majority vote for, it's going to get ugly.

Id love to know the positives and negatives of Scotland's independence for Scotland, but from the gut think independence is a better choice almost always.

Control of your own national destiny seems to be a HUGE positive. Needing to create your own military at great expense seems to be a big negative. At least that's how it looks from the West coast of America.

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting YEA, Scotland should be a sovereign nation.

I love how my Democratic friends are for secession in Europe, but against it at home.

That is an interesting development.
Explanations anyone?

Because one is secession from a monarchy after centuries of mistreatment and the other is basically "we don't want no uppity lib-uhrl nigger telling us what to do"?

Well, yes...but those are only some of the reasons FOR wanting secession. Many southerners have wanted secession since they were unsuccessful the first time they tried, and believe (rightly or wrongly) that they've suffered over a century of mistreatment...on top of the reason you mention.
On the other side I must imagine many 'Scottish' are of English lineage so don't feel as mistreated? (perhaps why their secession failed?)
I see the question differently, to me, it's do you have a right to leave...for ANY reason you find reasonable. You've added another layer. You've made me see that to the 'Democratic friends' it's likely only OK for reasons the 'Democratic friends' think are reasonable, not an absolute right a people may use for their own reason. That's a disappointing thought, but probably correct.

Well, my response was not meant to be taken entirely seriously.

That said, most of the people @blankfist is talking about (his "democratic friends") probably have reasons not a million miles away from that.

As to whether secession is an inherent right, I don't know; it's a complicated question.

Legally, not really. Obviously, anything in international law is kinda murky with different jurisdictions etc, but there doesn't seem to be much support for the concept as a blanket rule. In individual cases, where there is a significant cultural difference, it can happen and with the backing of the parent country and the international community.

What is certain is that there is no legal framework that would allow secession in any form from the USA.

Morally and ethically? Jesus, that's a minefield. In theory, I could get behind the idea that if you have a well defined geographical region with a majority population that wants independence, you should be allowed to do that.

In practice, it's kind of a nightmare and often leads to all kinds of suffering and misery (I don't really need to list examples, do I?).

So yeah, as in so many things in life, the answer is "it depends".

So Monarchies are oppressive? Hmmm. Interesting. Got it.

But doesn't Norway also have a Monarchy? And in this comment, didn't you extoll the values of their nationalized and socialized industries? Would you not then also give a pass to Norway's people who might reject that form of government and feel the need to secede? Same for Denmark, Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, Sweden, the UK, and most of the civilized Western world for that matter?

Yes, monarchies are inherently oppressive. They're an archaic throwback and an embarrassment to any country that still clings to them.

For the record I am a citizen of the Republic of Ireland and a permanent resident of New Zealand. I'm a member of the NZ Republic movement. I am not a subject of the crown, and the requirement to swear allegiance to the Queen is the one thing that is stopping me getting my NZ citizenship (which I have long since qualified for).

This is a point of principle and I would support any movement in any country to remove the monarch as head of state, even if they are only a figure head.

Now, all that said, what does that have to do with my approval for Norway's oil industry, NZs gun laws or socialised healthcare in pretty much the entire developed world?

You do realise that one can approve of one aspect of something while simultaneously disliking another aspect of the same thing? I think fast cars are cool, but I don't like their environment impact. I love beer, but I know that it's full of calories, and so on.

Anyway how would secession work in this case? There's no single geographical region to secede. Unless by secession you mean that the citizens of a country should have the right to determine how their country is run, in which case I wholeheartedly agree.

Sure. But it makes it hard to take you seriously when you cite monarchical governments as examples of ways to do things better in the States, is all. And further sillier to claim somehow Scotland has a right to secession while, say, Texas does not.

Just making sure we shine a light on intellectual dishonesty, is all.

Drop the passive aggressive tone. It's not intellectual dishonesty to recognise that not all situations are the same.

Texas doesn't have a right to secede. There is no legal framework for it to do so under US law. That has nothing to do with my opinion, that is reality.

Scotland, OTOH, did have a right to secede based on the Edinburgh Agreement.

Whether they should secede is a different argument, and one of sufficient complexity that I don't feel a blanket yes or no could cover all cases.

I see no reason for Texas to secede, so I don't believe it's warranted.

I sorta wanted Scotland to secede, partly out of interest, partly because of my aforementioned dislike for monarchy, but even then I wasn't sure it was in Scotlands best interests. Since I don't live there, my interest really didn't go much beyond Groundskeeper Willie and John Oliver.


As for whether the US can learn lessons from monarchical governments, of course it can. Just because you shouldn't adopt their system of a head of state, doesn't mean there aren't aspects of their government/society that aren't vastly superior to your own (arguably broken) democracy.

To claim otherwise would be hubris.

What was that about hubris?

So, when you can't refute the points of fact I made, you just make pithy comments? Got it.

I stated an opinion. There's no hubris there. Jesus, I even qualified it with phrases like "I see no reason" and "I don't believe".

"I see no reason for Texas to secede, so I don't believe it's warranted"

does not equate to

"there can be no possible reason Texas should ever secede, and I am the arbiter of whether it should or not"

If you can provide me with a legitimate reason for Texas to secede, I'd consider changing my opinion. Right now, the only arguments I've heard for Texas to secede have been essentially thinly-veiled racism and right wing propaganda.

And we haven't even touched on the fact that the vast majority of Texans don't actually want to secede

edit: just in case you didn't realise from the or the fact that I flat out stated it to @newtboy, my original post was tongue-in-cheek

So decrees the Crown! No secession for anyone except within a monarchy!

So you don't have an argument or a point to make. Fair enough. I won't waste any more of my time on you.