Associated Press is reporting Scots voted 55 percent to 45 percent against independence in a vote that saw an unprecedented turnout.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
not sure what point youre making here.
the Yes side were keeping the Queen, the No side were keeping the Queen
God was saving the Queen, regardless of the vote
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
not sure what point youre making here.
the Yes side were keeping the Queen, the No side were keeping the Queen
God was saving the Queen, regardless of the vote [/quote]
The national anthem of Britain. My “point” is merely that I’m glad Scotland didn’t leave the union. In my country(Australia) you can sing God Save the Queen and you don’t even get arrested and put in prison.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
“Making secession sexy in the West is fantastic. If the Scots do vote to secede, it proves that some Western nation under the yoke of empire can exercise its sovereignty and choose to leave.”
Sums up the imbecilic school of thought of American successionists.
[/quote]
Aww, I was hoping to ruffle some feathers with this. Especially of the Texan variety.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
“Making secession sexy in the West is fantastic. If the Scots do vote to secede, it proves that some Western nation under the yoke of empire can exercise its sovereignty and choose to leave.”
Sums up the imbecilic school of thought of American successionists.
[/quote]
Aww, I was hoping to ruffle some feathers with this. Especially of the Texan variety.[/quote]
What Texan apostles were you thinking of?
You are one odd duck, Bistro.[/quote]
Separatists, or those sympathetic toward secession.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m sympathetic toward secession and I used to live in TX. Do I thus possess imbecilic thoughts?
[/quote]
Assuming that we were to take a very broad interpretation of the Tenth Amendment, in conjunction with some verbiage from the Texas v. White case, partially dealing with the issue of unilateral state secession, whereby the court noted a possible pathway for secession could exist via “revolution or through consent of the states,” would it honestly be in the best interest of a state to secede and undergo the process of becoming its own sovereign entity?
There are a lot of underlying issues that need to be taken into consideration when pursuing political, economic and military sovereignty. Any such “revolution” would likely invoke a military redux of 1861, and I’m not sure what kind of legitimate political support you’d get to move forward an agreement that would constitute the “consent of the states,” whatever that actually constitutes, let alone any sortof legislative agreement among the majority of voters within the state itself.
As a libertarian, I am certainly sympathetic to the concerns of those who fear an overbearing statist, central government, but I’m not convinced that the secessionist ramblings are the most optimal resolution for what’s essentially been a battle as old as the republic itself.