[Mamzelle]

I wish big cities could be their own “state”—look how Chicago ruins Illinois.

[SeekAndFind]

THE FOUR TRENDS:

1. SELF-GOVERNMENT WILL INCREASINGLY TRUMP ECONOMICS

2. NATIONALISM WILL INCREASINGLY CLAD ITSELF IN PROGRESSIVE CLOTHING.

3. ELITES ARE NOT AS PERSUASIVE AS THEY USED TO BE.

4. THE IDEA OF “ONE NATION” IS DEAD.

[gaijin]

What would The Founders do?

Texas next?

[CPT Clay]

http://nypost.com/2014/09/16/price-of-scotch-whisky-could-skyrocket-if-scotland-secedes/

Oh Noes!!!!!!!!!!

[Gay State Conservative]

If Quebec didn’t do it Scotland certainly won’t.

[Usagi_yo]

Wrong.

Scotland yes/no for going independent is a referendum on Progressive Politics. Increased taxes + growth of the Welfare fueled by the unfettered immigration of ungrateful’s who come with their overwhelming 3rd world birthrates to economical conquer and burden the western democracies until they collapse.

[GraceG]

Positive: People should have the right to rule themselves...

Negative: A Balkanized Europe would make things easier for the Islamonazis to take over it...

[sphinx]

The modern nation state was built by and for warfare. Remove the threat of war, and polities could be much smaller. This is exacerbated in Europe by the EU, which is attempting to supplant the traditional national governments. It's an interesting experiment.

Scotland can't hope to survive indefinitely on North Sea oil. Its reference points must be Ireland, Norway, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. To make a success as a microstate on the flank of a continental giant, it has to be agile and extremely competitive. Brain dead socialist party hacks leading the government will not cut the mustard. Whether an independent Scotland can meet that test remains to be seen.

[Regulator]

I know!!!

Let’s have a Federal Republic where the individual states essentially rule themselves but have a Federation government which negotiates international issues, interstate issues, and basically takes care of the general borders repelling invasions and regulating immigration!

Whatta concept! Beats an empire run out of one place thousands of miles from where people live, huh?

Oh wait.....that was the United States...of America....before it became just the UnitedStates.

Silly me.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Blame the E.U. — or in Quebec’s case, the NAFTA.

When you add a supra-national organization (E.U. NAFTA, etc.) to the mix, sub-national organizations have less affinity to the nation. For instance, Quebec separatists argued that being in NAFTA gave them access to a continental market (and the attendant economies of scale), and thus diminished the importance of having access to the Canadian internal market. Scottish independentistas argue the same about belonging to the E.U. They have a point. The supra-national organization could indeed provide market economies that make independence economically feasible. What they forget to mention though, is that they might actually be less free culturally, politically, and socially, without the buffer of the nation they want to separate from.

Ironically, while independentistas value freedom over economics; if “independence” leaves them subject to the rule of a “supra-national” body, their economy might flourish, while their liberty is diminished.

[mac_truck]

The odds favor independence.

[P-Marlowe]

Honestly if just having a referendum on secession is all it takes to break away from Great Britain, then that gives me hope that the Red States can break away from the USSA.

When the Southern States tried this all Hell broke loose. Can’t the Brits just tell Scotland that they won’t recognize their independence and then flood the country with Lobster Backs like they did in 1775?