Posted on 09/08/2014 3:33:46 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
To contest the legality of their own referendum.
Contingency Plan:
Wall them off and leave them alone.
Worked for the Romans.
Except this time it’ll be the Scots building a wall to keep the Jamaicans, Pakistanis, and British refugees from the English Caliphate from flooding into Scotland!
This is an interesting debate on both sides. From the Scottish perspective, it would seem wise to stay with the UK in order to have some way to curb the socialist influence in Scotland. From the UK perspective, giving socialists less control over the UK government is a good thing, although it would probably be best for it to invade Scotland in order to retain control of its northern oil fields.
From the American perspective, I’m not sure on what the best outcome is. Scottish independence seems like it would put the Euro into further crisis, and the destruction of the EU would probably benefit America (along with specific European states). On the other hand, an independent Scotland may not wish to ally militarily with America, and may refuse to trade with us.
Whatever the outcome, I hope that Cameron loses the prime ministry to someone in his party who is actually conservative. The Tories, stupid as they are, seem to be England’s best hope.
Most of all, a simple majority should never, never be allowed to impose unacceptable change on a large minority. The last Quebec referendum is a good example. Staying in Canada won by about 0.5%. Suppose it had gone the other way? You would have a situation where millions and millions of Canadians could be alienated from their homeland, and the homeland of their ancestors, by a couple of thousand votes. The very idea is absurd.
Does this mean Great Britain would resist Scottish secession?
If you belonged to a club you should never be allowed to leave without majority approval. The U.S. Should not to be allowed to quit the UN without majority approval.
Scotland is a majority of Scotland. If they don’t want a part of some abstraction called Great Britain or UK, that’s their right.
MeganC you are sorely mistaken. Salmond’s policy is to liberalise immigration in order to, as he sees it, compensate for Scotland’s aging population. Scotland’s ethnic minority population is 2%. That will rocket in the event of a yes vote, and rUK will be the one imposing border checks in order to protect itself from illegal immigrants coming from Scotland.
... sounds like fertile legal ground.
I assume that means the parts of Scotland that want to remain part of Great Britain would have the right to secede from Scotland and then rejoin Great Britain.
Define “unacceptable change”. Unacceptable to whom, exactly?
I guess the contingency plan is to have what’s left of the British navy secure the North Sea drilling platforms. That place is a virtual goldmine!
The United States is the largest export market for scotch whisky, both the common blends and single-malts. Scotland would find it difficult to walk away from that revenue stream.
Well, if that happens then I hope the Brits tell the Scots to sod off when they try to flee to Britain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.