Scotland had the right to secede? Interesting
A Belle’s Eye View
Monday, September 22, 2014
One interesting angle on the recent vote in Scotland, which has been largely ignored by the mainstream media, is the utter absence of analysis of the issue involving secession.
Even those who were most adamantly urging a “no” vote did not deny Scotland the right to decide its own fate.
What a contrast to strident Unionists in this country, who vehemently deny that the South, or Vermont, or any of the many factions in this country seeking independence, past or present, have the right to determine their governmental fate.
England didn’t threaten to send troops, or state that having in 1707 agreed to the complete joining of the two countries, Scotland had lost its right to autonomy.
No, while they were certainly anxious about the election, there were no military threats or cries of treason. What a contrast to the handling of our Late Unpleasantness.
It is interesting to note the arguments against independence, and who made them.
George Soros said it would be a blow “to the prevailing international order.” Well, that makes one wonder: Is the current international order something worth preserving?
Dan E. Phillips in an Abbeville Institute Press article notes approvingly that Soros states it would be a “retrograde” step.
True conservatives agree — although they would argue that is a positive development.
Phillips ably argues, “The clear demonstration that territorial secession can happen without bloodshed will serve as a stark reminder to modern-day Unionists that our own bloody clash didn’t have to be that way.”
For the past half century, we’ve seen an increasing move towards smaller countries.
While there is a general belief that bigger is better, smaller countries like Iceland, Switzerland, Norway and Denmark show that it is possible to be a small, secure country.
Scotland has oil, although the naysayers have tried to downplay the natural resource. It has a fiercely held cultural identity, and I doubt that you’ve seen the last of the call for independence.
Here in the States, there is some fear that it might inspire various secessionist groups, who have suddenly garnered attention after years of being treated as tin-foil-hatted nut cases.
In 2012, 80,000 of my fellow Texans signed a petition urging secession. The groups themselves are not necessarily more optimistic in the wake of the Scottish vote.
“If the condition of this country as it is today is not enough to make people want to leave it, I cannot tell you what would.
“If you have no faith in your central government, if Congress has the support of 10 to 12 percent of the public, if the president’s approval numbers are close to 30 percent in some states;
“I don’t know why this resentment doesn’t translate into secession, which is the only reliable peaceful way to make change,” opined Kirkpatrick Sale, whose Middlebury Institute has held seminars and published books on the topic of secession.
The Texas Nationalist group, the League of the South, Cascadia Now, the Alaskan Independence Party, numerous Hawaiian independence groups, the Second Vermont Republic — they all hold fast to the dream of independence.
It is a new day for secessionists. Even though the Scots themselves voted against independence, I have faith that all is not lost.
Just the acceptance of the idea, and the playing out of the vote on the international stage, gives me hope that one day I, like my forebearers, may choosed to live in an independent Texas or South.
It’s difficult to look at the current political landscape and say, “Yep. This is great. Give me more!”
So, my beloved Scotland, whose valleys, lochs and mountains I’ve spent weeks and weeks exploring, I’m sorry you didn’t finally finish was William Wallace and Robert the Bruce started.
And I fear Robert Burns was right and, “We’re bought and sold for English gold — such a parcel of rogues in a nation.”
© Copyright 2014, parispi.net, Paris, TN.