Free Republic

Just FYI HK wants to rejoin the UK (they didn’t become independent, they became a colony of China instead)

It was yes 53%. My ex-boss is from Glasgow and he said many of his own friends his generation (mid 30s) are the bedrock independentists. But that was it plus perhaps Dundee. Edinburgh is definitely unionist though.

My ex-boss is a Scot and lived in Scotland until 12 years ago when in his mid 20s. He told me beforehand that Edinburgh would be heavily against independence - most are unionists there. Glasgow is different and has majority for independence.

I think both Aberdeen and Edinburgh was 60% No.

In fact it is the “older young” urban working class people who are independentists.

I don’t think even 1 out of 100 FRers got British politics right.

I was in a discussion with an ex-boss and his friends back home. My ex-boss is Scottish migrant and supports Scotland staying in the UK. While many of his friends don’t. I listed what happened to Ireland.

It turns out that as terrible Ireland was and despite it’s at peace at last and as sort of a Celtic tiger for some years until 2009, Ireland has kind of been an impoverished Switzerland on the edge of Europe. Dublin was the second largest city of the British Empire in the 18th and 19tg centuries, they produced illustrious writers like Oscar Wilde and Uliness (sp?). Trinity College of Dublin was one of the most prestigious universities in those days.

And now in 2014, Trinity College and the University College Ireland are languishing at about 200th in terms of best a academia in the world. Modern Ireland is only famous for U2, Ryanair, and US software industry outsourcing destination. But otherwise Ireland is as inconsequential to the world as Switzerland (really the Swiss are there to host the UN and it’s banks).

The best, and I think it’s wildly optimistic, scenario of an independent Scotland will be it becomes the Switzerland of northwestern Europe, probably a neutral country like Switzerland and Ireland. But the price is that it, just as Switzerland and Ireland do, will be independent by pleasure of greater powers, but will not be able to withstand any pressure exerted by the bigger powers’ bullying. And just like Switzerland and Ireland, they won’t amount to much or even anything and will no longer be able to contribute immensely for the good of human race in a substabtial way like it is as part of the UK. It will be a boring far away small country you think of for 2 minutes every year.

The more likely scenario will be endless disputes with what’s left of the UK and Norway over intellectual property rights, inheriting national debts, pressure to join EU and renew the Auld Alliance with France and because of the modern Franco-German core in the EU, Angela Merkel or whoever succeeds her as the German Chancellor will become the real person pulling the levers in Edinburgh. You then have disputes in EEZ (economic zones) in the North Sea. I note that Croatia still hasn’t resolved the EEZ with Slovenia and Italy more than 22 years after independent. Who says that Scotland won’t suffer suits filed by The UK and Noraay at the ICJ in The Hague? Also you get the issue of economic policy. This article shows that nationalisation and confiscation by thugs will be the rule of Scotland under Salmond. They will follow Hogo chavez’s or Eva peron’s economic policies. I think this means that this Scotland will increasingly become like a Belarus or Moldova basket case.

Either way independence will aid the EU as well. I thought creepers are against it?

Oh, it’s so nice to meet you at last, Mr Fisk. I didn’t realise you were presenting such fine arguments on this thread:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/scottish-independence-ireland-since-1919-is-a-lesson-for-scotland-in-what-a-yes-vote-means-9727596.html

The best alternative without war would be all the micro states have becom confederations so you get little Switzerlands. Rich, inventive and self governing, but can hardly even control it’s own destiny on the international and are on the fringe in geopolitics.

I still stand by my assertions that significant nation states from cultures not subject to local separatism ideology, such as France and Germany, will be able to exert the most influence out wards, and pick up leadership of the West by default just because they will be the “biggest dogs” left after the Anglo-Saxon world decided to commit national suicide by dividing it’s four of existence.

Just like during the 8th century when Charlemagne as the King of Frank.

There won’t be a US or Australia or for that matter New Zealand left by then. The English speaking world will have the state of New York, the state of Chicago, the states of London, Edinburgh, Sydney, Christchurch etc. But yes, I don’t see why will be any English-speaking nation state left by the time my toddler nephew is in his last years, if Scotland does become independent after the referendum next year. And before you cheer for all the technology advances, have a read at Italy during the Middle Ages. Constant wars, strifes, shifting alliances, France and Germany and Russia meddling and interfering and often being invited by some alliances of English-speaking City States against another alliance.

And oh, BTW yes, the English-speaking world will produce many 21st century machiavellis.

This article from the Claremont Institute explains perfectly why “we like self determination” to the nth degree is a dumb idea, justified from their own nation’s founding era. And it was written back in the1780s!

It applies equally to modern Britain as the US:

http://www.claremont.org/basicpage/sewards-folly-or-farsightedness/#.VBDEztkazCQ

“During the crisis of the 1780s, some Americans went so far as to question the viability of a geographically expansive Union. They pointed to the difficulty of governing such a massive territory without a despotic central government, and to the distinct interests that seemed to mark particular sections. Some in the West explored the idea of reaching an arrangement with Spain to separate from the United States. Others entertained the possibility of allowing three or four separate confederacies to emerge. Because each would have a republican form of government, they presumably could inhabit peacefully the same geopolitical space and trade to their mutual advantage. (It is difficult to find any important American political figure who explicitly made this case, but had efforts at constitutional reform failed, this might well have been the default outcome.)

The Constitution of 1787 offered an alternative—a large, commercial and federal republic—based on the assumption that nature and the American experiment in self-government could be aligned perfectly. Anything less would be disastrous. As Publius put it:

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.

The relations among these independent sovereignties, Publius insisted, would not be characterized by peace and commerce but by unceasing conflicts of interests and war. The struggle to control an unnaturally divided geopolitical space would override the republican instincts of the people. North America would be racked with wars, just as Europe had been for centuries.

- See more at: http://www.claremont.org/basicpage/sewards-folly-or-farsightedness/#.VBDEztkazCQ";

This article from the Claremont Institute explains perfectly why “we like self determination” to the nth degree is a dumb idea, justified from their own nation’s founding era. And it was written back in the1780s!

It applies equally to modern Britain as the US:

http://www.claremont.org/basicpage/sewards-folly-or-farsightedness/#.VBDEztkazCQ

“During the crisis of the 1780s, some Americans went so far as to question the viability of a geographically expansive Union. They pointed to the difficulty of governing such a massive territory without a despotic central government, and to the distinct interests that seemed to mark particular sections. Some in the West explored the idea of reaching an arrangement with Spain to separate from the United States. Others entertained the possibility of allowing three or four separate confederacies to emerge. Because each would have a republican form of government, they presumably could inhabit peacefully the same geopolitical space and trade to their mutual advantage. (It is difficult to find any important American political figure who explicitly made this case, but had efforts at constitutional reform failed, this might well have been the default outcome.)

The Constitution of 1787 offered an alternative—a large, commercial and federal republic—based on the assumption that nature and the American experiment in self-government could be aligned perfectly. Anything less would be disastrous. As Publius put it:

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.

The relations among these independent sovereignties, Publius insisted, would not be characterized by peace and commerce but by unceasing conflicts of interests and war. The struggle to control an unnaturally divided geopolitical space would override the republican instincts of the people. North America would be racked with wars, just as Europe had been for centuries.

- See more at: http://www.claremont.org/basicpage/sewards-folly-or-farsightedness/#.VBDEztkazCQ";

I’m with you on that one. I’m neither young nor retired, but I suspect my 2 year old youngest nephew may end his days seeing the entire English-speaking world reduced to nothing but a patchwork of micro city states, all plying one against each other. Sure philosophies and technology will grow, but they will all be pawns of the greater powers. At beast they may confederate into multiple Switzerlands - prosperous yes, and self-governing yes, but very inconsequential and at the mercy of the dominant powers of the day.

I have resolved now to encourage my nephew and any kids I may have to start learning German. kind of expect the West to be led by some Franco-German combination. We will be back to the early Middle Ages with the Frankish Empire leading the “West” and Charlemagne etc., and Britain was just a patchwork of micro fiefdoms constantly at war.

Unfortunately the scotsman, facts don’t matter here, only feelings. “ I have my great-great-great grandfather from SCOTLAND! Plus I watched Bravwheart so my guy feeling must be true!”

Don’t think you have presented an argument at all, just an empty emotional plea.

I guess I better go learning German now. As the English-speaking world gets embroiled in self destruction, session ism, wars, and putting against one another, what happens next is that Germany will become the undisputed leader from the West.

(disclaimer: I have no ties with Scitland in family at all, but worked for a guy who is a scot, and what he told me about his beliefs etc would make me believe what the American conservative sympathisers of Scottish session ism on this board are engaging in wishful thinking and got the politics wrong by 250 years)

My former boss at work is a migrant from Scotland. He is in his mid to late 30s now, and lived and grew up in Scotland until 25. His verdict on your analysis ConservativeMind is:

“fantasic fantasy and full of wishful thinking”

He said that you have conveniently ignored that nationalists in Scotland have nothing in common with historic William Wallace and Scottish Enlighenment. The last person the modern day Scottish nationalists like is Adam Smith. You will find, he says, they are a combination between leftism and nationalism. And my ex-boss is someone who’s probably more on the RINO scale than bona fide conservative.

I don’t really have any personal interest in this debate, but your claim that:

“The socialist Scotland would quickly turn more conservative, having run out of Other People’s Money (OPM).”

you are basing this on your American assumption. The Scottish people never thinks like that. What will happen is that they will beg the IMF and Brussels (the EU) to bail them out. The consequence is that Angela Merkel will be the unofficial boss of Alex Salmond in no time.

“Especially since your name implies you enjoy thinking strategically.”

Strategically what happens is that the UKIP will quick point their energy in devouring the independent Scotland, and likewise Alex Salmond will spend his time warring with England. With that prospect I can tell you that it is time to learn German if you are aiming to be a “somebody” in international business and global leadership, because the English-speaking world’s dominant influence will want quickly, and the baton of the entire West’s leadership will pass on to Germany unoppoosed.

Guten Tag. Sprechen Sie Deutsche?

Oh, we do say soccer is “un-kiwi” and doesn’t fit the rugged Kiwi outdoor rugged national characters.

I have known New Zealand anti-American leftists make the same comments that soccer is boring, and “in-Kiwi”, so well you are siding with the anti-American leftists on this. ;-)

See my post 133, I thought Coulter is being tongue in cheek. I have read exactly same thing from John Roughan at the NewZealand Herald and tran Kiwi for Anerican specifics is the same article. Except a rough an doesn’t like the US and doesn’t particularly care for Americans, particularly American conservatives.

I don’t know anything about American soccer fans’ culture or soccer mums, but British soccer fans make American American football fans in the States look like primary school boy choirs in comparison.

Anyway, I thought from my British-influenced habit of reading between the lines, that Coulter is.being tongue in cheek and baiting her political opponents here. It’s not an article to be taken seriously at face value.

Well it sounds exactly the same reasons I have heard from Other New Zealanders who don’t care for soccer. This is from John Roughan:

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11273595

“Football (still doesn’t sound right) is not a New Zealand game. It doesn’t suit us. We don’t do delicate footwork. We don’t kick the ball back to our own goal if we can help it. We don’t drop to the grass and writhe in agony at the slightest bodily contact, and we certainly don’t run about with our shirt raised to expose a sparrow chest in ecstasy that we have scored.”

Except that 1. Rough an is about as far from Ann Coulter’s politics as you get, I know a few guys who adore Obama and are Green Party supporters, 2. Rough an doesn’t like or particularly care about the Yanks, and 3. Roughan especially doesn’t care about American conservatives in particular.

Either Ann Coulter is really ranting, but more likely with my British-like habit of reading between the lines she was being tongue in cheek in writing this. The English love writing this type of stuff just to bait their political opponents. Just like John Roughan.

I disagree. My experience with British migrants in NZ whether they are evangelical Christians of various stripes, social activists of the leftist stripe, or non-political work contacts, all have a rather unfavourable opinion of Jews in general and the State of Israel in particular. The only exception is a couple in their 70s who would have had memories of the 1940s and the Holocaust. The majority people come from all walks if life everywhere in the British Isles, and only a minority are from Fleet Street like circles, and have views from the Greens to the right-wing of the Tories.

I can’t remember how many times I’ve heard from these guys the Jews control the US foreign policies, how powerful the Jews are, how Americans in general bend over backwards towards their own Jews, how the Jews are rather still looking their eyes towards Israel, how poor those Palestinians suffered at the hands if the Israeli Jews. Even many Kiwis find their rhetoric excessive.

Sorry to bump an ancient thread, but it is an interesting thread. I believe there is also a Low Church Evangelical wing that is typified by:

1. Calvinist (4- or 5-point) theology
2. Minimal liturgy because most of these liturgies are unhelpful in believers growing in relationship in Christ. It is virtually identical to Reformed Baptist or modern Presbyterian service.
3. The clergy wears casual dress (not even suits)
4. They look to John Piper, John MacArthur in teachings.
5. The key to define being Anglican is the 39 Articles, which is decidedly Reformed in teachings.
6. Ethos: To Make Christ Known, Bible studies, Christianity Explored, Sovereign Grace Music, Stuart Townend and Kristyn Getty.
7. Shrine Church: Sydney Diocese, where Philip Jensen or John Stott or J.I. Packer, All Souls Church London, Oak Hill College, Reformed movement in the Church of England.
8. Non-charismatic and against the seeker sensitive/Purpose Driven/Emergent movements.