Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8470 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 6379 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
Probably a bad idea, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Scotland's independence, if it happens, is probably a bad idea. It'll cause all manner of short-term problems, and the long-term repercussions are hard to predict worldwide.
That said, I'm strongly in favor, for a simple reason. The Scottish people, like people everywhere, have the right to self-governance. Right now they don't have that, and even if they destroy their country in the process of gaining independence, they'll at least be free to choose their own destiny.
Re: (Score:2)
I am pleased that Scotland has the opportunity to vote for independence, but believe it would be a stupid decision. The UK is a large, important country in Europe. They have the ability to influence world decisions with an infrastructure built up across two world wars and the cold war. Should Scotland spin off, the Scots themselves will lose world influence.
No vote likely best long term result (Score:5, Insightful)
So the end result of a 'no' vote would the UK establishing strong regional governments just like every other modern, western democracy. This is something that is sorely lacking at the moment and, I believe, one of the reasons Westminster is so out of control: they lack any strong regional governments to hold them to account and force them to consider what is best for the whole country and not just the south of England.
If Scotland vote yes then expect Wales and northern England to start considering their options while Scotland will run into real trouble with the EU because certain members, like Spain, with their own regional independence concerns, are not going to look happily on admitting Scotland. This is not going to lead to much happiness and stability.
Re: (Score:2)
Well unfortunately, these last-minute promises to Scotland to bribe them into staying with the union seem to many to be too little, too late. After so many problems for so many years, why should Scotland believe these new promises? They've been promised things before, and the fact this vote is now so close is proof those other promises haven't been delivered on.
If the vote does end up going No, there's still going to be a lot of serious repercussions, and I would expect another vote in another 5-10 years th
Re: (Score:2)
The UK parties have promised considerable additional powers for Scotland in the event of a 'no' vote
The UK parties have promised vague and unnamed considerable additional powers for Scotland in the event of a 'no' vote.
The UK Government saw the early polls, thought "well, this will never happen," and then didn't give it a second thought.
The vague, last minute promises reflect a screaming lack of contingency planning.
I mean, this vote has been years in the making and AFAICT, the UK Government never seriously sat down and negotiated "considerable additional powers" in an attempt to head off the vote.
David [telegraph.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
"So we voted No. Where are our additional new powers?"
"Yeah well, we introduced the legislation but, you know... Parliament..."
Re: (Score:2)
The sun is setting in the British Empire's back yard.
That has been happening for 100 years now, this isn't new...
Re: (Score:2)
The sun is setting in the British Empire's back yard.
But will anyone notice through the clouds?
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that they had to promise additional powers at the last minute, when it looked like the vote might be a yes, makes a no vote very unsatisfactory for the rUK. I expect that the politicians who made those promises will renege on them anyway, but Scotland is likely to get something out of it anyway.
Personally I think a yes vote would have been good for the whole UK. We are far too ultra-conservative and scared of change. Look at the AV referendum. I'd like to hope that most people could have understood
Re:So influence is the most important? (Score:5, Insightful)
Joining the EU again will not be as easy as many may think. The EU still has to welcome them in, and not every EU power may be that eager to reward an independence movement like Scotland's. Spain in particular won't want to encourage Catalonia to do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Joining the EU again will not be as easy as many may think. The EU still has to welcome them in, and not every EU power may be that eager to reward an independence movement like Scotland's. Spain in particular won't want to encourage Catalonia to do the same.
Yeah, they'd need full negotiations of course, but being denied EU membership is, to me, unthinkable. It's a western country with laws already aligned with EU, and economy tightly tied with that of EU. Just because for example Spain might not be happy about it, vetoing them from joining would be a step towards breaking the whole EU.
Re: (Score:2)
With the UK likely going to pull out of the EU, anyway (one of the issues talked about by the Yes voters in Scotland is that the UK is leaning that way), I don't imagine the EU will be all that long-lived, regardless of how Scotland votes tonight and the consequences of that vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Joining the EU again will not be as easy as many may think. The EU still has to welcome them in, and not every EU power may be that eager to reward an independence movement like Scotland's. Spain in particular won't want to encourage Catalonia to do the same.
Yeah, they'd need full negotiations of course, but being denied EU membership is, to me, unthinkable. It's a western country with laws already aligned with EU, and economy tightly tied with that of EU. Just because for example Spain might not be happy about it, vetoing them from joining would be a step towards breaking the whole EU.
And to my grandmother, who was raised in Arbroath, breaking up the Union would have been unthinkable. Have you ever heard of Norway? It's not in the EU.
That said, the problem with EU membership is likely going to be that the English have to agree everything's finalized before the EU will accept Scotland as a member. Which means Salmond has to deal with the new Tory majority in London.
NATO membership will be highly difficult. Every NATO member depends on three country's nuclear weapons to protect it from the
Re: (Score:2)
Joining the EU again will not be as easy as many may think. The EU still has to welcome them in, and not every EU power may be that eager to reward an independence movement like Scotland's. Spain in particular won't want to encourage Catalonia to do the same.
Not true, we already have precedence. New independent territories remain part of EU after seceding. Don't believe the UK and Spanish FUD on the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Scotland has significant industry and significant natural resources.
And haggis! Di'nae forget the haggis!
Re: (Score:2)
Not Really (Score:5, Informative)
Ireland is a complicated situation. In 1918, Sinn Fein (the political party in favor of a separate republican Ireland) won 90% of the parliamentary seats in 22 out of 28 counties (although they only received 46% of the total votes cast in those counties). British loyalists won in the remaining 6 counties and eventually these counties formed Northern Ireland and the other 22 counties formed the Irish Free State.
In Northern Ireland around 70% of the population are loyalists (usually Protestant). The republicans (usually Catholics) in Northern Ireland want to join the rest of Ireland, but they don't have the votes. Until the ceasefire, the Irish Republican Army was trying to force Britain to transfer Northern Ireland to Ireland by conducting a campaign of terror financed by Irish Catholics in the USA. In return for Britain's support against Iraq, the USA turned off the flow of money to the IRA, which is why the IRA eventually agreed to a truce.
A referendum in Northern Ireland wouldn't help the situation much - the loyalists would win. If Britain handed over Northern Ireland to Ireland against the wishes of the loyalists then the IRA would simply be replaced by the Ulster Volunteer Force - a similar paramilitary organization as the IRA but with the opposite aim of preventing unity with Ireland.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that there's a scenario in which Little Green Men [bbc.com] lay the groundwork for a successful independence vote and subsequent Irish annexation.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
>They could have saved a lot of time and harsh words if they let Northern Ireland vote on independence!
They did. Northern Ireland voted to stay in the UK, almost immediately upon the Irish winning their independence from the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
fishing contributes maybe 1 percent of Spain's gdp; Catalonia's gdp is 20 percent of Spain's.
Re: (Score:2)
That's one possibility.
The other possibility is that the Torys declare themselves the majority government (because Scotland is, after all, an independent country and they don;t care about the 50-odd MPs from north of the Tweed anymore), and then insist on lengthy negotiations with significant Scots concessions before they make it official in the UN.
If that happens they can't enter the EU, or NATO, or really do anything until the Tories are appeased.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to make it worthwhile is if they end up controlling their own currency. If they remain dependent on the Pound or the Euro, what would be the point?
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately many voting Yes today in Scotland are doing so with the understanding that they can still use the same currency (controlled by others) as they do now, and that is far from certain, and you and I would both argue it's far from desirable. The future is far less certain than many Scots think, if they do win their independence today. I wouldn't discourage these people from voting Yes, despite their idealism, but there does seem to be a lot of politicians saying "don't worry about it." Reality is a
Re: (Score:2)
many voting Yes today in Scotland are doing so with the understanding that they can still use the same currency
And with good reason... After all, it would take a while to come up with their own currency, so people would just continue using whatever they have. This vote is just a simple yes/no on independence; all those pesky details like currency and Trident submarines will have to be dealt with in the aftermath.
As for the currency, I think the real test will be the degree of "buy-in" among the Scots population. If a majority of Scots "invest" the majority of their savings in the new currency, it will succeed in the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody's said that Scotland can't use the pound.
What's been said is that they can't have currency union. So the pound will be controlled by the UK government and Scotland would be hostage to UK whims, interest rates, quantitative easing and politics.
That's worse than the current state, where Scotland is part of the UK and has an equal (actually more than equal) say in how its run.
Re: (Score:2)
So the pound will be controlled by the UK government and Scotland would be hostage to UK whims, interest rates, quantitative easing and politics.
And how is that any different than what Scotland would experience if they used the Euro?
Re: (Score:2)
Depends. If they're in the EU then they get a (small) say on how the Euro is managed.
If they don't, they're even more fucked than Greece.
I didn't say adopting the Euro was better, just that retaining use of Pounds Sterling without currency union is pretty farcical if they actually want independence.
Re: (Score:2)
The irony being that the Scots seem to believe the lies that Labour come out with.
Not quite as ironic as the fuckwits going, "We need to be independent so that we don't have a Tory government we didn't vote for imposed on us" when it's Scottish Labour votes that imposed Gordon Twatface Brown on the rest of the country.
Shit, it's not as though the majority of Scots voted for the SNP - yet more blinkered bullshit from the nationalists.
Whatever the outcome I just Alex Salmond doesn't get any actual power. His
Re: (Score:2)
Holding a referendum is a "refusal to allow democracy"?
Where's my fucking vote?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh? I have no right to vote for the future of my own nation?
I have no right to vote on my future nationality?
I have no right to vote on my own future?
As I said, fuck Salmond and his view of "democracy".
Re: (Score:2)
Which is the problem.
If you were born in Scotland, lived in Scotland your whole life until last week you don't get a vote.
Also they decided to widen the voting age down to 16 where ever other voting age is 18. And they actually came out and said it is because young people are more happy to change.
What about citizenship if they do separate? You weren't Scottish enough to vote cause you weren't living there but you want your Scottish passport?
Finally Scotland will become crazy broke if they do separate. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I've heard of it, but I thought it would be clear enough that I was talking about the British Pound (since the Scots Pund and the Irish Punt are no longer in use).
Anyway, it doesn't matter what name you call it, as long as the currency is controlled by Scotland, and not by some other entity.
Re:Probably a bad idea, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an issue that I've had to think about a lot being a Canadian, and Quebec constantly talking about separating. There doesn't seem to be a real consensus in the citizens that they want to separate. And I can only see things going downhill financially for them if they choose to separate.
Re: (Score:2)
It's close to 50-50 now, but the younger generations are far more in favor of independence than the older generations. This is one problem that will be solved by the swift march of time.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily.
As people age their politics tends to become more conservative. They have more to lose and more invested in the status quo. If you have a house currently worth 200k pound and you have paid a huge amount of that off then scottish independence represents a huge risk to that store of wealth. If your biggest asset is an old car then there is no risk.
Assuming they do achieve independence then they will have to have their own currency. They will have to offer to swap that currency for your exi
Re: (Score:2)
As people age their politics tends to become more conservative.
Yes, conservative, but in relationship to what? If you're conservative relative to average late 21st century values, you'll be awfully progressive in the early 21st century. What do you think, does this shift to conservatism include actual regressing in values, or is it simply staying in place?
Re:Probably a bad idea, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think I would use the term regressing. People's values change dependent on their own circumstances. If your lifestyle and assets are put at risk by a change then often you will oppose that change. If you have nothing at risk then the change is easy.
When you are 18, you have the vast bulk of your life to live and you have accumulated very little. You will most likely have very few commitments and demands placed upon you. At this stage in your life taking a chance on an ideological principal has little chance of being overly negative.
When you are mid 30s and you have made a solid start to your career, have purchased a house and have a young family of dependants, the risk quantum that you are willing to accept will be dramatically lower. The ideology of being independent is now being tempered by the fear of the unknown. Also you have seen people hurt through mistakes they have made and know you could lose what you have built. You are not totally risk averse but compared to when you are 18 you are.
When you are in your 60s you are at the end of your working life. You have done your work and built your asset pool, but you know you have 30 more years potentially to live that you have to fund. Now you are looking at minimising risks in order to live the rest of your life in relative comfort. You do not have the capability to make up for losing it all now, there is no longer any time left to build your asset base. So when a decision could be made that has the potential to destroy that base you will fight to keep the status quo.
Please note I am separating fiscal conservatism from social conservatism. They are not one and the same. Just because your parents are anti gay marriage for example doesn't mean you will become that way when you are older. But naturally as you age you are more likely to have things that you can lose, and less time to make up for it. Meaning you will become more conservative in the financial risks you take and the political ones as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they have a right to self governance, but with the country being so split, it's hard to make such a case.
The Scots are not ruled from Westminster, since 1997 they've had their own elected parliament making their own laws in Scotland apart from a few reserved laws. Even before then they weren't ruled from England, they were part of the union and got an equal say (as in a vote per person) same with the Welsh and Northern Ireland.
The Scots already have self governance, the vote is about leaving the union which is mainly an economic and military co-operation. The Union Flag is a combination of the Scottish flag
Re: (Score:2)
That's not all correct. Scotland is definitely governed from Westminster, however there are certain issues (running of the NHS, education etc.) that are devolved to the Scottish parliament in Holyrood (since 1997). Westminster can revoke devolved powers, and can therefore overrule Holyrood. There have been many occasions when Scotland has been forced to comply with things it strongly disagreed with (e.g. recent foreign wars, the bedroom tax). Also, all tax raised in Scotland is sent to Westminster, and we a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be a disaster short-term, mainly because of hurt feelings on both sides getting in the way of logical business and political decisions. Medium-term, it'll be more a disaster for the remaining UK than Scotland. Long-term, I think everyone will muddle through and figure out how to make things work. Scotland and the UK will not be as strong on the international stage separated from each other than they were together, but that was the trend all throughout Europe anyway, wasn't it?
Certainly Scotland wil
Re: (Score:2)
Also, with regards to corruption and such, isn't that sort of why Scotland wants to dump Westminster?
Re: (Score:2)
Scotland's independence, if it happens, is probably a bad idea. It'll cause all manner of short-term problems, and the long-term repercussions are hard to predict worldwide.
That said, I'm strongly in favor, for a simple reason. The Scottish people, like people everywhere, have the right to self-governance. Right now they don't have that, and even if they destroy their country in the process of gaining independence, they'll at least be free to choose their own destiny.
Scottish people is not one entity, it is composed of individuals. There are many of them who would really like to choose their own destiny to be part of GB still.
Anyway, for a major change like this, if it is tight vote, and not everybody votes, then actually it'll be that actually a minority of the people decide to change the destiny for everyone. I think for a big thing like this, the change should require at least like 3/5 or 2/3 of the total votes cast.
Re: (Score:2)
Scotland's independence, if it happens, is probably a bad idea. It'll cause all manner of short-term problems, and the long-term repercussions are hard to predict worldwide.
Get over yourself. This is Scotland, not the Soviet Union were talking about. Greece, Yugoslavia, hell half of Europe split off parts left and right, over the last couple decades and we survived. Just because they speak English suddenly it's a big deal. Macedonia? I guess no one cares if they speak Greek.
Re: (Score:2)
False equivalence. Scotland is a country governed by another country.
Re: (Score:3)
Scotland is not governed by another country. Scotland is in a union with other countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I've always sorta liked the Scottish historians' observation that, strictly speaking, it was Scotland that took over England, not the other way around. That was after the first Queen Liz died, back in 1703. The new king was the fellow who was already King James VI of Scotland, and became King James I of the United Kingdom of Scotland and England; uh, I mean of England and Scotland.
Of course, a more accurate description wouldn't interpret this as either country taking over the other. It was reall
Re: (Score:2)
>> The Scottish people, like people everywhere, have the right to self-governance. Right now they don't have that, and even if they destroy their country in the process of gaining independence, they'll at least be free to choose their own destiny.
>
> Please, stop trying to make it look like the Scots are somehow shackled and oppressed by the English.
Your remarks are entirely irrelevant to the original point.
Re: (Score:2)
Scotland won't be losing their queen by breaking away from the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
I would personally love to see them tell the queen to stick it, but unfortunately even if the Scottish vote to be independent of the UK, they'll still have a monarch.
Whether they eventually choose to ditch the old leech is an entirely different issue, though I personally hope they'll be emboldened by a Yes vote today and end up with a nice constitutional republic.
A better solution (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course this isn't true. They will still enjoy the same protections from the armed forces of the U.K. and other allies.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not actually that clear. The UK is a member of NATO, for example, not Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. If Scotland leaves the UK, it's no longer part of NATO.
Of course, the day after the vote, Scotland doesn't just become a separate country. It's going to be quite some time before Scotland actually becomes independent. The intervening months/years will give Scotland time to form alliances and establish its own separate defenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, as a non-NATO member with oil reserves, no nuclear weapons and socialist tendencies I'd give an independent Scotland well under a decade before America invades.
Re: (Score:2)
UK nuclear weapons are on submarines that are based in Scotland. So theres probably only one or two boats there at any one time, the other two are at sea. ready to nuke Russia, China, Iran or Pakistan or Korea if any of them attack NATO with WMDs
Re: (Score:2)
^ This...
All talk aside, Scotland would clearly join NATO, it only makes sense.
Re: (Score:3)
Is there oil underneath them? Yes? No worries -- the U.S. will intercede.
Shetland and Orkney (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Shetland and Orkney (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
what happens to the Atlantic provinces (PEI, NB, NS, NFLD)? What happens to the people in Quebec who voted against it?
That is trouble with democracy sometimes your side looses. The good news is free societies also let people move. That was not true of like the Soviet Union for example.
I highly doubt Scotland or Quebec will bar folks from leaving especially to return to their former Canada or UK nations.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is if you own property, you are your kids are part way through an education etc. Depending on how good of terms they leave on you might need a travel visa to go back and forth (say the FLQ started up again we we had some "troubles"). If you have a criminal record often presto you can't travel internationally and often if you are on the wrong side of a revolution you are a criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
Life isn't always fair...
If someone lives in Scotland right now and they don't want it to leave the UK... well, I'd suggest making plans to move sooner rather than later.
The vote may pass or fail now, but either way it is likely to happen in our lifetimes.
Besides, both sides are modern reasonable nations, it will get worked out, war isn't going to break out over this, neither side is that interested.
Re: (Score:2)
often if you are on the wrong side of a revolution you are a criminal.
That might be true but that isn't really what we are talking about here. A peaceful succession following a vote is not a revolution.
If you have a criminal record often presto you can't travel internationally
Yes if you have demonstrated you are unable to follow the rules of your society you loose rights in that society. No shock there and unless we are talking about specific laws that were decidedly unjust its hard to get morally outraged. I am not an expert on the UK or Canada; but neither are exactly known for examples such as systemic institutionalized, racism, religious
Re: (Score:2)
Just look over the channel at places where countries meet. People move quite freely between Belgium and France, for example, with relatives in both countries not being a problem at all.
It's not like they would have put up a fence and installed passport controls at the border. Even on the Irish border you can drive right in and not even realize you did until you see the first metric road sign,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same difference I think. It didn't make sense for Newfoundland to stay independent so they confederated. If Quebec separated they'd likely chose either to stay part of Canada, join Quebec, from an Atlantic trade club etc. They'd find someone to trade with. I'm guessing a lot of the coastal provinces do a lot of their trade with Quebec so maybe they'd still pal around. Problem is always the people that don't want to separate. If 100% of Quebecers wanted to separate I'd be all for it. No more mandatory/priori
Re:Shetland and Orkney (Score:4, Informative)
Shetland is *not* closer to Norway than to Scotland. Check on Google Earth. It's true, as is often said, that it's closer to Norway than to Edinburgh, but then San Francisco is closer to Mexico than to Washington, and Canterbury is closer to France than to London.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is correct, and my bad for perpetuating the myth. I read once that Shetland was closer to Oslo than Edinburgh, but that's also blatantly false. ...
More accurately, I've seen it stated as "closer to Bergen than Edinburgh". Or course, some people might not know where Bergen is. In any case, Shetland historically has always been rather remote from either "mainland", and they've pretty much been on their own all along. If they have problems in the middle of their winter, they can't much rely on help from anyone in the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
"Canterbury is closer to France than to London."
Canterbury is nearly halfway around the world from both France and England and although there have been earthquakes in Christchurch in recent years, it hasn't moved very far.
Of course there is the small town of Akaroa on Banks Peninsular that used to be a French settlement in the early 1800s - the street names are French
Re: (Score:2)
It is slightly closer to Scotland (but you're right, they do tend to *feel* closer to Norway). I've got relatives on Shetland, and they don't seem that bothered by it all.
That said, I voted Yes for independence today, and I have no problem with Shetland leaving to join Norway if that's what they want. I don't really see how they'll be able to lay claim to all (or any) of the oil though, that really is just Scotland's.
Re: (Score:2)
Wins the Internets
Wrong Proposal (Score:5, Interesting)
A much better idea than Scotland becomming independant would be for the UK to boot out London.
Achieves pretty much everything the pro-independance Scots are after, but for the rest of us too.
Re: (Score:2)
Do it by stealth.
2016 Scotland becomes independent
2020 Wales follows and forms a federal state with Scotland
2025 Cornwall joins them
2030 The north of England
2035 The Midlands
2040 The south of England
Leaving London and it's loyal province of Northern Ireland as the UK.
How about independence for England ? (Score:2, Interesting)
On the day of the Act of Union in 1707 both the Scottish parliament and the English parliament passed acts basically dissolving them both and creating the "Parliament of Great Britain".
Fine.
So now I want that if Scotland want's to undo that deal so should England. Reinstating the Parliament of England. And the country of England.
I want England to exist as a country. I want my passport to be a passport of England (The words "England" or "English" do not appear in my passport at all).
It's time for England to
Never mind the Slashdot poll (Score:2)
For those who don't trust Slashdot and are too impatient to wait for the official result, there's a poll from a source of unimpeachable virtue - Grindr [tumblr.com].
Results suggest 54% no, 46% yes, with a small minority for "fancy a shag".
Re: (Score:2)
The BBC is reporting [bbc.com] about the same result. Well except for the "fancy a shag" minority.
Cheers,
Dave
Oh please let this be an example for Texas (Score:2)
Missing Option: (Score:2)
It's really up to the citizens to decide how they want to be governed.
monarch/aristocracy/corporations (Score:3)
who would want a monarch?
a monarchy is like the Koch Brothers only they have a legal charter for their family in perpetuity
every American and French person should by default be in favor of any movement towards liberal democracy and away from aristocracy
example: Canada is a monarchy ruled by the Queen of England [wikipedia.org], who has final say on all major government decisions.
it's not "symbolic"...the power is real...but it is usually weilded through corporate power not legal power
Also, Monarchies invented the multinational corporation to hide/maintain their power as democracy grew throughout the world....the Dutch Monarchy formed the first multinational corporation the Dutch East India Company: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
example: Canada is a monarchy ruled by the Queen of England [wikipedia.org], who has final say on all major government decisions.
You left out the important word "constitutional".
Canada is a constitutional monarchy that holds it's own parliament and elects its own leaders. The main power of Canada is in the Parliament of Canada. Not even the Prime Minister can rule by fiat. everything they do needs to pass through parliament, not sure about Canada but Australia has dismissed Prime Ministers before for trying to force their acts through. The Queen's representative in our respective nations, the Governor General (GG) does not hold an
look at the facts (Score:2)
I strongly doubt that anyone reading this was previously unaware that Canada had a Parliament, etc.
I invite people to *look at the facts* and ignore statements like "They're really just a figurehead" or "It's limited by a Constitution"
We have to look at policy, not an unfalsifiable statement like "they're limited in power"...let's get past platitudes...there's obviously more to the story
From the same wiki you quoted from...note the list of powers:
more on the Queen of Canada (Score:2)
the more you study it, the more you see that blatantly the Queen has vast powers
again, from the above linked wiki:
Re: (Score:2)
Just a nit - the monarch of Canada is, in fact, the Queen of Canada, who just happens to *also* be the Queen of England. Multiple jobs, same person. It's a subtle but important distinction. Canada no longer is 'ruled' by England, and in fact the article you linked to makes that important distinction.
It only concerns me in one way (Score:2)
It only concerns me in that a separation of Scotland would likely give the Quebec Separatists a second wind and we'd have to put up with their fantasies of keeping Quebec as it is now, keeping the Canadian dollar, and not taking on their share of the national debt. The Quebec separatists have always been in la-la land compared to the rational approach Scotland is following.
Canada has put up with enough nonsense from the separatists in Quebec. Personally I think if they try it again we should just fence
No vote (Score:2)
It looks like the vote is going to be 'No'
Which is a pity. If Scotland had voted for independence we (USA) could have sent them some of our Scots
Scott Brown
Scott Walker
Rick Scott
Re:A miracle of modern diplomacy (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A miracle of modern diplomacy (Score:5, Informative)
Norway separating from Sweden in 1905 was also completely peaceful.
Re:A miracle of modern diplomacy (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Many former British colonies attained independence peacefully around the mid-20th century.
Re: (Score:3)
If Scotland votes to go independent, and England allows it, this would be the first peaceful independence movement in the history of mankind.
Apart from you know, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and pretty much every other former British Colony, apart from the 13 crazies of course.
Hell, even India got its independence peacefully, though the peace ended moments after independence.
Ireland left somewhat less gracefully, though it was separated after almost a millennium (rather than 307 years) of common rule.
Re:A miracle of modern diplomacy (Score:4, Informative)
You have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
The west idolizes Gandhi and completely ignores historical truths in the process. Gandhi waged a political war of attrition on the British, and a weakened Britain from WW2 caved in. But the truth is, Gandhi's role was the proverbial straw -- violent protests against the British were underway long before he was even born.
The first Indian battle of independence was in 1857, and was violent. There have been many, many violent conflicts with the British, up until the point of independence. In 1919, the British massacred thousands of non-violent protestors in Jhalianwala Bagh.
And from the hanging of the likes of Bhagat Singh (who was a socialist revolutionary) in 1931 to Subhas Chandra Bose's alliance with the Japanese and the Germans to fight the British, there were many militant freedom fighters who caused tangible hardship on the British.
Only someone ignorant of history would call the Indian independence movement peaceful. There's a reason Gandhi was shot dead -- he may have been a martyr in his death, but he waged a political battle with bitter consequences whose effects continue to be felt to this day.
Re: (Score:2)