The World as I See It: Scottish Independence

By Rich Kozlovich

Recently Antonia Colibasanu published what I think was a very well done article on a site to which I encourage all to subscribe, Geopolitical Futures, entitled, Scotland's complicated Quest for Independence.  I've not linked it because it's a subscription article. However, while this is a complicated issue, Colibasanu breaks this down into three components I will share with you:

• The first is unionism. Since the late 18th century, unionists have argued that Scotland is better off in a union with England than on its own. They supported the merger of the United Kingdom’s constituent parts – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – and the establishment of a unitary parliament at Westminster.

Among them all, they're the only ones who know exactly what they want.  Everything to stay the same.  Now it gets a bit more convoluted, as does the reasoning.  We'll come back to that.

• The second concept is devolution, also referred to as “home rule.” It emerged in Scotland in the late 19th century, when the Scottish Liberal Party adopted the demands of the Irish home rule movement. Under a devolved system, the U.K.’s constituent parts would be given authority over certain areas of governance. In Scotland, devolution has enjoyed wide public support since the 1960s, when calls for more autonomy grew.
• The third concept is independence – i.e., the creation of a separate Scottish state. Its rise coincided with the fall of the British Empire. So long as the empire remained intact, Scotland was able to preserve its unique identity and traditions. It didn’t fear being overtaken by England because the empire was big and global enough to allow room for multiple entities, each of which was distinct from the others. With the empire’s collapse, however, Scotland feared that the interests of England, which had a substantially larger population, would dominate the union.

Knowing the history of Scotland it's understandable that for a great many years there's been a movement in Scotland to separate from England and be independent, or not, or maybe, or....well....they can't really define what they want, or how to implement what they want or think they want, or....well....what ever.   It’s like that idiot who Biden wanted as the head of the AFT who went before Congress adamantly opposed to assault weapons but was unable to define what an assault weapon is.  

 

His answer? 

"The bill to ban assault weapons is thousands of pages. There's no way I could define an assault weapon in 35 seconds.”

He couldn't have defined it if he had 135 seconds, or 1135 seconds, in fact those thousands of pages make it indefinable, or, unendingly re-definable to fit whatever narrative they're pushing.

I’ve followed this Scotland issue for some time and written about it.  First, I stopped trusting polls decades ago and stopped believing in polls in a general way entirely 25 years go, even when they agree with my positions.  My view is simple.  Don’t tell me what people are saying, show me the crowds and what people are doing.   If the polls are inharmonious with that foundational concept, I ignore them because they're probably fake.  There's a reason why political movements go to the expense of having their own in house pollsters.  

A few years ago I likened this Scotland situation to the Quebec independence movement.  In 1980 polls showed overwhelming support for independence from Canada, and unless memory fails me the polls showed 90% in favor of independence.  The vote went substantially in the other direction.   They lost by almost 60%.  While the 95 vote was much closer, both "countries" have many of the same issues. 

• First, neither of them speak English. In Quebec it’s a second language and so many Scots speak such a heavily accented version many in the rest of the English speaking world can't understand them. 
• Secondly, neither can exist economically and militarily on their own.  They both need a “host” country.
• Third, in no way can they define what they mean by any of the positions they’re taking.  
• Fourth, they both have big egos and bad attitudes, neither of which can pay the bills, but can cause unending dissent.   
  
• Fifth, they’re both delusional in their belief of their importance.   
• Sixth, they're both suffering from socialist cultural paradigms. 
• Seventh, they both think they can have independence and still have someone else pay for it.  

Well, I think both England and Canada are making the same mistake.  Instead of giving them the choice to stay or to go, they should ask the rest of the nation whether or not to kick them out.  Since both of them are enormous pains in the butt, kicking them out would probably end up being a net positive for both England and Canada.