Free Republic

AuH2ORepublican: ‘As for the slogan insisting that Catalonia will be part of Spain forever, it reminds me of “Las Malvinas Son Argentinas”’
Memories is nice.

Impy, regarding your point about the US breaking away: such are the accidents of history in which governments fall and nations born. A little better—and luckier—generalship and we’d have quickly suppressed the rebellion and that would have been that; Providence decreed otherwise, despite the lack of plebiscite.

Closer to home, support for Irish independence was not as popular as nationalist quarters pretend: while separatists won 80 of Ireland’s 105 seats in the 1918 GE, this was courtesy of only 36.27% of the electorate. 66 seats had no Unionist candidates—five-eighths of Ireland’s seats were decided by a process that would embarrass a banana republic.
Nevertheless, there does seem to have been rising Irish support for Home Rule—illustrative is the trajectory of Robert Erskine Childers who went from empire-loyalist to 32 counties/physical force republican.

In Scotland, separatist feeling undoubtedly increased in the period leading up to 2014’s referendum and afterwards: the SNP’s 2010 GE results were average (12.73% of electorate) but nearly trebled a mere 5 years later to 35.52% (down to 24.51% as of 2017).

Dr. Ian F.W. Beckett noted the importance of long-term public commitments in COIN conflicts in ‘Insurgency in Iraq: An Historical Perspective’ (U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, 2005), describing how premature announcements of withdrawal undermines the governmental authorities. No entity can expect loyalty if not intending to remain to reciprocate that loyalty. In addition to utilitarian motives for the transferring of loyalty, emotion is likely also a factor with feelings of betrayal arousing antipathy (you acknowledged ‘how very painful’ separation must be to a patriot).

There is a real risk that opening the door to independence in and of itself promotes independence—Gladstone’s embrace of Home Rule for Ireland likely encouraged Irish nationalism, and SNP support can be seen to rise in parallel with Westminster opening the door to independence, then fall as the door swings shut.

Putting independence on the table is like declaring to one’s Significant Other, ‘Feel free to leave any time you like, I’ll not stand in your way’. While superficially ‘nice’ and ‘civilised’, many on the receiving end will perceive it as indifference—evidence that the relationship is over. Many don’t want to hear either their SO or their Motherland’s government announcing: ‘You’re free to leave—stay or go, it’s up to you.’ What they want to hear is (as Toronto Prof. Jordan Peterson says describing the commitment of marriage): ‘We’re not running away—no matter what happens.’

Wyowolf, you should really take up your dispute with the person who created that map, that being someone else, i.e. someone not me. And if you want to promote the breakup of countries, start with your own.

jdsteel: ‘Nah, we just need to return to 50 States providing most of the government as our founding fathers envisioned. Where the government that is closest to the people affects them the most, and the federal government takes care of stuff that is actually IN the Constitution!’

Exactly, JD. We all need to return to our old values—we need to remember what once made us great. And we need to cultivate patriotism: we need American patriotism and British patriotism and French patriotism, Spanish patriotism, etc. We need to be united not balkanised—closely united with our fellow countrymen; and loosely associated with those who share our values across the West. We need to be united in the face of the multiple threats to Western Civilisation, and not weakening and promoting division amongst our allies.

‘No more brother wars.’

To be accurate, what needs to be adjusted?

I’m not seriously advocating the dissolution of the US, and I would appreciate it if Americans would return the favour. Or lead by example by starting with their own country, whichever is preferred.

Legality is not put aside because a minority unilaterally decides to do so. That’s not how law works.

Only 37.83% of Catalans are recording as favouring independence in an illegal and highly dubious (ballots could be printed online and used at any polling station) referendum.

¡Cataluña es España y siempre lo sera!

Those abstaining were doing so in accordance with Spanish law and the 1978 constitution approved of by over 90% of Catalan voters (61.43% of electorate). Catalans have constitutional processes available that the separatist minority are choosing to flout.

The abstainers were sensible as those voting against separation have arguably given a degree of legitimacy to the illegal referendum. Those spoiling or returning blank ballots might have been emphasising their opposition to separation, their adherence to Spanish law, or both, but again have inadvertently given it a degree of unmerited legitimacy.

Absolutely, John O! Britain too needs to return to old values, where government saw to defence, foreign policy, legal infrastructure and little else, other powers being devolved to the burghs (hospitals, policing, welfare and municipal administration), and citizens left alone outside of that.

We need to reapply old lessons, not split ourselves up into ever smaller and weaker units. E.g. Czechoslovakia—what good did carving them out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire do? They got to enjoy 20 years as an independent nation desperately pursuing alliances with other countries before being occupied by the Nazis for 6 years then run by the Reds for 44; 2 years after communism’s collapse, the Czechs—as if they weren’t weak enough—decided to split further. And now they’re two small voices in the EU. They’d have been better off staying part of Austria-Hungary. Author Lewis Grassic Gibbon (1901–35) put it admirably as well as colourfully:

About Small Nations. What a curse to the earth are small nations! Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland, San Salvador, Luxembourg, Manchukuo, the Irish Free State. There are many more: there is an appalling number of disgusting little stretches of the globe claimed, occupied and infected by groupings of babbling little morons—babbling militant on the subjects (unendingly) of their exclusive cultures, their exclusive languages, their national souls, their national genius, their unique achievements in throat-cutting in this and that abominable little squabble in the past. Mangy little curs a-yap above their minute hoardings of shrivelled bones, they cease from their yelpings at the passers-by only in such intervals as they devote to their civil-war flea-hunts. Of all the accursed progeny of World War, surely the worst was this dwarf mongrel-litter. The South Irish of the middle class were never pleasant persons: since they obtained their Free State the belch of their pride in the accents of their unhygienic patois has given the unfortunate Irish Channel the seeming of a cess-pool. Having blamed their misfortunes on England for centuries, they achieved independence and promptly found themselves incapable of securing that independence by the obvious and necessary operation—social revolution. Instead: revival of Gaelic, bewildering an unhappy world with uncouth spellings and titles and postage-stamps; revival of the blood feud; revival of the decayed literary cultus which (like most products of the Kelt) was an abomination even while actually alive and but poor manure when it died… Or Finland—Communist-murdering Finland—ruled by German Generals and the Central European Foundries, boasting of its ragged population the return of its ancient literary culture like a senile octogenarian boasting the coming of second childhood…

(Gibbon, Lewis Grassic. “Glasgow.” (1934) Smeddum: A Lewis Grassic Gibbon Anthology, edited by Valentina Bold, Canongate, 2001, pp. 97–109)

jdsteel: Despite the globalists dreams of no more countries seems like we humans prefer self rule from smaller countries of our own. Next up....Kurdistan!
Surely you mean, ‘Next up… CSA’? How many nations do you think the US should be divided into?

Maybe these countries for starters?

Although, if believing it sensible to create new nations with populations of only 7½m people, with that yardstick, I suppose you might prefer ultimately splitting the US into as many as 43 nations?

Incidentally, between voting against, spoiling ballots and abstaining in accordance with Spanish law, 62.17% of Catalans appear to be loyal to Spain.

¡Cataluña es España y siempre lo sera!

As you say, naturalman1975, the media little likes our Prince—or even the Royals as a whole. The Times and Sun are owned by republican Rupert Murdoch, so they’ll seize every opportunity to blacken the Royals’ name; while tabloids like the Mail print the scandal before printing the proof of its falsity.

E.g. there was the fuss over HRH Charles’ passing mention of Mohammed in his ‘Thought for the Day’ in December 2016—499 words, and they focus on 32 of them.

Nevermind that he started off with the persecution of Syrian Christians (90 words); nevermind that he continued his remarks with drawing attention to the persecution of other faiths in the Middle East (66 words). Nevermind that he closed with, again, the persecution of Syrian Christians (44 words). Ignore all that to concentrate on 32 sodding words. How does the line go?
‘When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger.

Republics v. monarchies:
GK Chesterton’s famous epigram goes: ‘When a man stops believing in God, he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes in anything’ (and the truth of that can be seen in people turning to Buddhism, Islam, and increasingly their political beliefs become quasi-religions). Perhaps we can say similarly about republics: ‘When a country ceases being a kingdom, its people then are not without kings, but make anybody king.’

Mark Steyn has noted the evolution of US political dynasties, with George H.W. Bush (41) succeeded by his son George W. (43) who was nearly succeeded by his brother ¡Jeb!, and Bill Clinton (42) succeeded by his wife Hillary as Democratic POTUS candidate.

Say what you like about actual monarchy but at least you get a non-hereditary political class: this may seem incredible to Americans but neither Canada’s Stephen Harper, Australia’s Tony Abbott, New Zealand’s John Key nor Britain’s David Cameron is the previous Prime Minister’s brother or wife.

Mark wrote that in 2014 and we now have the Clintons’ daughter Chelsea being discussed as a future candidate along with Michelle Obama, and Ivanka Trump for 2024. The US political system seems increasingly incestuous.

Mark has also written about the arrogance and entitlement of US politicians, particularly presidents, which stand in stark contrast to the humility of our royals. Here is an article from 2012:

[Obama] and his family are about to jet off on their Christmas vacation to watch America slide off the fiscal cliff from the luxury beach resort of Kailua. The cost to taxpayers of flying one man, his wife, two daughters, and a dog to Hawaii is estimated at $3,639,622. For purposes of comparison, the total bill for flying the entire royal family (Queen, princes, dukes, the works) around the world for a year is £4.7 million—or about enough for two Obama vacations. …
In his recent book Presidential Perks Gone Royal, Robert Keith Gray, a former Eisenhower staffer, revealed that last year the U.S. presidency cost American taxpayers $1.4 billion. Over the same period, the entire royal family cost British taxpayers about $57 million. There’s nothing “royal” about the current level of “presidential perks”: The Obama family costs taxpayers more than every European royal house put together.

Nor can it be dismissed as Democratic Party excess as from the same article:

In 2003, the advance team for President Bush informed Buckingham Palace that he would only be able to stay there if they took out all the windows and replaced them with blast-proof glass. The Queen, keeping a straight face, politely refused, and the president was forced to spend three nights in an insecure palace.

Returning to matters home, given that the Crown in Scotland runs its estates at a profit, which is infinitely more than can be said for Holyrood—rather than abolishing Holyrood and restoring direct rule by Westminster, how about we abolish Holyrood and restore direct rule by Her Maj? I’d vote for it.

proud American in Canada: ‘[I]t is hard to care about the problems of enormously wealthy people who have never worked a day in their lives.’

IKR?

So, proud-American-not-living-in-America, how many Exocets have you decoyed?

Over 230 years and still bitching.
Like some crazy ex-girlfriend constantly phoning and texting.
You walked out on us! It’s over. You don’t get to have a say in our lives anymore.

Are you familiar with one of your compatriots, Nigel Davies? A ‘professional historian and educator’ (from his blog profile—not to be confused with another late historian of the same name (1920–2004), a specialist on pre-Columbian America). He has had articles published in Quadrant, and blogs with no great frequency at ‘rethinking history’ (although if just discovering him, as I have, then there’s a fair few essays to read through going back to 2009); comments along with his replies can also be informative.

I think you might be politically in tune with him. Here’s a sample essay from 2011 by him, a rebuttal of American mythos: ‘‘The problem of (American?) politically correct history.’

Two free Quadrant articles by him:
“Ten Myths About the Phoney War.” Quadrant, January–February 2017, quadrant.org.au/magazine/2017/01-02/ten-myths-phoney-war.
“The Great Myth of Britain’s ‘Great Betrayal’.” Quadrant, October 2010, quadrant.org.au/magazine/2010/10/the-great-myth-of-britain-s-great-betrayal.

Returning to your point about being better off without written law (and I concur). As I understand Common Law (not a lawyer), it evolves along with Society; change is slower but steadier; and it is more flexible as one can work to effect one change—one court case—at a time. E.g. abortion was legal at Common Law—R v Bourne, 1938—before the Abortion Act 1967, and it was legal in precisely the extreme circumstances that abortion advocates trot out as part of their Motte and Bailey tactics to shield their advocacy of unlimited abortion.

And let’s not forget that the American Revolutionary leaders did not take a Year Zero approach to their new nation but largely adopted the best of British practices and ideas; e.g. the US Bill of Rights (amendments to the original constitution, written 2 years afterwards) was inspired by our own 1689 Bill of Rights, to the point of the US 8th Amendment being copied almost verbatim:

1689 BoR: ‘That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;’
US BoR 8A: ‘Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.’

Better that Britain remember and restore our own traditions than adopt another’s, even if they are ultimately rooted in our own.

For example, America’s famous 2nd Amendment, the idea behind which is that citizens have a right to bear arms as a defence against a tyrannous government; but the British—specifically English—tradition is different. Our tradition is not a right to bear arms but a duty to, and not in defence against a tyrannous government but in defence of the Kingdom. This duty goes back to at least Henry II’s Assize of Arms of 1181 requiring freemen to have arms according to their station (and because of such ordinances, England had an armed and practiced body of men to win battles at Crecy, Agincourt, etc.).

There was much debate about the formulation of the 1689 Bill of Rights’ clause defining bearing arms, the original stating: ‘It is necessary for the publick Safety, that the Subjects which are Protestants, should provide and keep Arms for their common Defence,’ i.e. stipulating the centuries-old obligation of the people to form as militia in defence of the realm. Unfortunately, it was watered down to, ‘That the Subjects, which are Protestants, may provide and keep Arms, for their common Defence’ and then weakened further to its final version, ‘That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law.’
(Further reading: Malcolm, Joyce Lee. To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994. Print.
Malcolm, Joyce Lee. ‘The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms: The Common Law Tradition.’ 10 Hastings Const. L. Q. 285–314 (1983). Available at: http://www.constitution.org/mil/maltrad.htm)

America chose a different path—God bless them for it, but it’s not our path. We need to return to our own traditions.

The Labour Party are the party of unearned wealth and privilege, and Corbyn is just another middle class Lefty. This is all theatre, and they only reason they voted against the bill is because they’re not in power. Do you seriously contend that the Labour Party that, 5 minutes after winning the 1997 GE, passed the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (s.32 of which was used to arrest Liberty GB’s Paul Weston for quoting Winston Churchill), cares about freedom in the slightest? Do you seriously contend that a Labour Party, led by IRA-sympathisers like John McDonnell who wanted to honour the IRA and lauded their use of the ‘bomb and bullet, and Jeremy Corbyn who ‘stood in honour of dead IRA terrorists’, have any principles whatsoever?

The only ‘power grab’ that Labour objects to is the power they’re not grabbing for themselves.

No, Berlin_Freeper, only unexpected to someone unfamiliar with modern politics on either side of the Pond: a Labour Party led by IRA-sympathisers does not know what a ‘principle’ is and they will vote to sabotage the Tories every time.

The GE result is only deemed ‘humiliating’ by the Left opposition who cannot see a molehill without attempting to make an ever larger mountain out of it. See here a good clip of The Moggster calmly handling the histrionic Jon Snow as he does this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCbJGzj4tNw

As JRM says, it was ‘a less successful result than we had wanted.’ The Conservatives lost their Parliamentary majority, which is disappointing but they increased their votes 21.43% over Cameron’s 2015 result. They still have the largest number of MPs, and in partnership with Ulster’s DUP, will happily carry any important vote, as we have seen here.

More interestingly, they severely mauled the SNP in Scotland, seeing their vote increase 74.6% while the SNP’s vote decreased almost 33%. With now 13 MPs in Scotland and partnered with our Ulster brothers of the DUP, it was, as the DUP’s Arlene Foster remarked, a ‘good night for the Union.’

Our Kingdom remains united and we are regaining our independence from the EU. Nay say all you like but we’re bouncing back regardless.

Neither a close nor unexpected result as the opposition largely voted on party lines rather than principle:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-09-11/division/CC76A36B-D2D7-4A24-8099-E8EC5409C56D/EuropeanUnion(Withdrawal)Bill?outputType=Party

309 (one with whip suspended) of the 317 Conservative MPs voted for the bill, along with their partners, the 10 DUP MPs, and credit to only 7 of Labour’s 262 MPs. Unsurprisingly, 238 Labour MPs (17 absences or abstentions), all 4 Plaid Cymru MPs, the single Green MP, all 12 Lib Dem MPs, and 34 of 35 SNP MPs voted against. (Perhaps the only surprise is North Down’s independent Unionist MP, Sylvia Hermon, widow of former RUC Chief Constable Sir John Hermon, voting against.)

Apart from Lady Hermon, the remainder’s only interest is preventing the Tories governing.

‘Scotland’ is not asking for anything, submarinerswife—a few dozen headbangers in Berlin does not equate to Scotland (est. population in 2016: 5,404,700; electorate in 2017: 3,988,432).

We’ve had our referendum (2014):
Supporting separation: 1,617,989
Supporting our Union: 2,001,926
And this with an electorate artificially increased by the SNP to include 16 year old schoolies and EU citizens.

While the 2015 GE saw the SNP painting the electoral map yellow, winning 56 of Scotland’s 59 seats, this was courtesy of little more than a third of our electorate, such are the vagaries of Constituency FPTP. And in 2017, the SNP haemorrhaged votes, losing almost half a million, along with 21 MPs; even in the seats they held, their majorities were slashed.
One prominent SNPer saw his 9,641 majority reduced to 21.
At Glasgow East, the SNP saw a 10,387 majority reduced to 75.
At Glasgow South West, their 9,950 majority was reduced to 60.
At Fife North East, their previous majority of 4,344 was reduced to 2. 2! T-W-O, TWO!
In total, SNP votes were down 32.79% from 2015. From representing barely a third of Scotland’s electorate in Westminster, the SNP now represent less than a quarter—24.51%.
In contrast, the Conservatives saw their votes increase 74.6% making them the second party in Scotland in both votes and MPs. Maybe not in the rest of Britain but June 8 was a Tory night in Scotland—and as Ulster’s Arlene Foster (DUP) remarked, it was a ‘good night for the Union’.

Enjoy the OP’s Berlin story for what it is… hilarious. This is what Scottish separatists are reduced to: a few—or just a couple even—dozen parading outside the Reichstag. The ““““““““Reichstag”””””””” (good optics). Could they BE any more embarrassing?

The Union is safe. God Save the Queen.

You might note from both linked articles that Switzerland is just as cucked and on the road to Hell as any place else. They’ve allowed this imam to preach hate whilst collecting Swiss welfare for thirteen years; and only now he ‘might have to leave Switzerland … Local authorities are looking into deporting him. … Ramadan can challenge the change of asylum status, which is not yet legally binding. … Biel Security Director Beat Feurer says … that people who do not integrate may be thrown out of Switzerland.’ He’s been in Switzerland 19 years and still speaks no Swiss language ‘and only rudimentary English’, and the Swiss are still talking in terms of ‘may’, ‘might’, ‘looking into’…

As for Poland—demographics will end them as well: Poland’s people emigrate as its population flatlines - time for new policies?’ (Irish Times, 2015)

All the West is on the road to Hell, the only difference between any of our countries is how far we’re along and how fast we’re going; but there is not one single Western country taking a different road.

Switzerland maybe?

A Libyan imam who received Swiss welfare and preached messages of hatred has lost his asylum status. Local authorities are looking into deporting him. Because Abu Ramadan has a Libyan passport and has made several trips to Libya since his arrival to Switzerland in 1998, the migration authorities cancelled his asylum request earlier this month. Abu Ramadan has a permanent resident permit (C), but now canton Bern can look into revoking it. However, Ramadan can challenge the change of asylum status, which is not yet legally binding. As Swiss public television reported on Wednesday, Ramadan received CHF600,000 ($620,000) in state welfare payments while preaching messages of hatred against other religions from a mosque in Biel.

(see also ‘Switzerland’s controversial Islamic leaders’ on the same site)

Not wishing to counsel only doom and gloom but the first step in solving a problem is recognising one has one.

Dream on: 11,389,568 English votes for Labour (28.98% of English electorate) and 12,346,007 votes (31.41% of electorate) for Tories: a 2.43% of electorate difference does not a ‘right wing’ country make—and that’s without taking into account another half-million plus votes for various other left wing parties (Alliance for Green Socialism, Communist League, Socialist Labour Party, Socialist Party of Great Britain, Workers Revolutionary Party, etc.) into account.

And how ‘right wing’ are Tories these days? The Tories only argument with Labour is who can pish most taxpayer-cash into the various socialist money pits. The Tories are as happy as Labour to imprison our troops (from Lee Clegg on Maggie’s watch to Sgt. Blackman) and are more concerned with pushing LGBT issues to the military than ensuring they have the kit and RoE to do their job.

Any prospect of the Tories restoring the death penalty? No.
Any prospect of the Tories restoring our right to bear arms (as per 1689 Bill of Rights)? No.
Any prospect of the Tories getting rid of the NHS? No.
Any prospect of the Tories seriously reducing immigration? No.
Any prospect of the Tories rolling back Muslim influence? No.
Any prospect of the Tories doing anything genuinely right wing? No.

Some figures:
England: electorate (2017) 39,303,867; MPs 533
Scotland: electorate (2017) 3,988,432; MPs 59
If England was right wing they could drag the rest of the country rightwards with ease, regardless of any contrary wishes of Wales, Scotland and NI combined (117 MPs and 7,529,291 electorate between them).

The problem with separatists is their ignoring very real problems in favour of chasing chimera—splitting centuries-old countries up and ‘othering’ your countrymen will not magically usher in ‘utopia’. East & West Europe at the turn of the 20th Century totalled 21 countries (including Turkey). Over the course of a century, 1901’s 21 countries fragmented (sometimes explosively) into 49. Is Europe better, more stable, more industrious, for that fragmentation?

More brother wars are not the answer. Mathew 7:15: ‘Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.