1) Its not independence exactly since Scotland isnt some subjugated colony of England; its part of a real legal union with England. While smaller Scotland used to be unable as a voting block to prevent England from imposing its will from Parliament, now, if anything Scotland can influence England-only policies through its MPs in Westminster even though England cant do the same in Scotlands devolved parliament. (If the majority of English so wanted, they could of course get rid of Scotlands parliament since Scotland has no sovereignty--shared, popular, or otherwise--separate from Englands--remember union.) It seems to work quite a bit better than 18th centurys Great Compromise that created the US House & Senate that sought--only somewhat successfully then--to balance small states and big states concerns as they agreed to give up bits of their original sovereignty to the united government. 2) Just like Quebec souverainistes who insist on keeping the Canadian dollar, pooling defense under the umbrella of a combined Canadian-Quebec Defense force, NAFTA, NORAD, and NATO, and continuing a shared hydroelectric policy with the rest of the North America, what material, practical differences is all this sill money and time being spent on arguing for independence going to accomplish if Scotland is to share a Queen, a currency, its defense forces, economic policy, and at least a good chunk of its energy reserves with England the rest of Europe just like it already does? Will the average Scot notice any changes in his or her daily life besides some silly sense of national pride thats already evident everywhere Ive ever been in Britain? Independence is just an emotional appeal to instill some sort of imaginary lost pride for a large region of Britain that has been almost monolithic in its opposition to the neo-liberalism of New Labour and the austerity of never-new Conservative for the last 30 years. There are surely parts of Northern and Eastern England that feel just as detached from London and Brussels, but without some sort of Jungian hidden memory of independence, theyre not spending lots of time and money on a silly emotional appeal that wont change anyones lives all that much. Similarly social democrats all across the northern swath of the United States feel similarly, but we arent talking secession...interestingly theyre talking about that down South where theyre living high on the hog of northern money while still infecting our policy with their nonsense. You have it good in comparison, Scotland! 3) Scotland was, as the article mentions, prosperous and innovative before the Act of Union, and it flourished even more as part of a united Great Britain in the industrial revolution and when the Age of Enlightenment began in Britain at Edinburgh and St. Andrews. Now though we need, though, fewer countries that can pool their diverse citizenrys talents and ideas, not more countries carved out of old maps living off ancient myths who dont seem to want to create any new ones. We need stronger (more democratic) political unions and (fairer) trade alliances to bind those fewer, larger countries together. Forces that are strong enough in will, resolve, population, legal authority, and resources, to keep the Londons, New Yorks, and Singapores of the world--the financial centers whose powers can lead to shared or separate prosperity the article alludes to--from exercising too large or too negative an influence on the worlds citizens outside their city limits as our 20th-century economic resources continue to dwindle and as we try to find a smarter, healthier, and more equal path for peace and prosperity for the 21st century. Dont go your own way Scotland--youre already there--and this is a big waste of time. Plus, they might take away your BBC soaps, and then what? Then what?!? nytimes/2014/04/01/opinion/cohen-the-case-for-scotland.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0
Posted on: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 14:25:28 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015