ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, December 06, 2012

I'd call that a two-for-one

By voting for independence, Scotland will automatically leave the EU:
Scotland 'would have to apply to EU and lose UK's opt-out after separation' Scotland would have to apply to the EU and lose the UK’s opt-out from the euro if voters back separation in the forthcoming referendum, the European Commission is claimed to have confirmed. In what would be a significant blow to Alex Salmond, the commission is said to have drafted a letter to a Lords committee rejecting his claim that Scotland would automatically inherit the UK’s membership.
Of course, the European Commission is lying, as it usually does.  I guarantee you that if Scotland voted to leave the UK, the EU will claim after the fact that it is still an EU member.  These guys know they didn't get on the fascist gravy train by forcing fewer people pay their economic protection money.

The only reason they are discouraging the Scottish vote for independence from the UK is because without the Scots, the English and Welsh Euroskeptics will have a majority.

Speaking of Scotland, you can get an interesting perspective on secession and Scottish history from my interview with Thom Hartmann yesterday.  I'll be posting a transcript sent in by SL soon.

Labels: ,

72 Comments:

Anonymous Fatso McGraw December 06, 2012 9:17 AM  

I thought Mr. Hartmann was even-handed and reasonably respectful. Good interview all in all. I wish you'd had more time to address the "secessionist states are weak moochers" argument he made.

Anonymous Salt December 06, 2012 9:20 AM  

I'm surprised you didn't do a quick correction on his Vox Day, Voice of God.

Not a bad interview at all.

Anonymous JartStar December 06, 2012 9:25 AM  

He gave the standard arguments against secession, but they mostly amounted to A) you don't have the right to leave B) you are stupid if you leave.

If someone denies 'A' then they quickly out themselves as someone who does not believe in the right to self determination.

Anonymous Heh December 06, 2012 9:28 AM  

VD, what happened to your article refuting the claim that Red states are parasites on Blue states?

The reason this comes to mind is that Scotland is a net beneficiary of wealth transferred from England. Will the parasite vote to leave the host? Austerity, much higher taxes, or bankruptcy are the three choices post-independence.

Blogger Alexander December 06, 2012 9:45 AM  

I am of the opinion that anytime a group wins the right to vote on secession, the rest of the country should be entitled to a followup vote, where they can vote to kick them out anyway in the event the initial vote fails. If nothing else it would cut through the endless cycles we get in places like Scotland and Quebec.

Anonymous Gx1080 December 06, 2012 10:03 AM  

"Scotland will leave the EU"

And that's bad because....?

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 December 06, 2012 10:25 AM  

That interview with Thom Hartman was entertaining. At least he seemed to actually listen to you rather than dismiss you as racist for supporting secession.

The comments are classic neo-Keynesian ignorance. Top comment basically says that without Federal roads, welfare, and military bases, we'd all be a third world hell-hole. Never mind that third world hell holes have roads, welfare, and military bases.

Blogger Joe A. December 06, 2012 10:30 AM  

Yup. The arguments on the comments boil down to bureaucrats knowing and doing what best for you, better than you can do for yourself; thus you cannot be allowed to leave the Union. It's not a leaning that I pretend to quite understand.

Anonymous Stilicho December 06, 2012 10:36 AM  

Scotland is a net beneficiary of wealth transferred from England. Will the parasite vote to leave the host? Austerity, much higher taxes, or bankruptcy are the three choices post-independence.

It would not surprise me to see Scotland leave the UK but join the EU. Just changing hosts and, let's face it, strudel tastes better than figgy pudding. As Vox pointed out, it isn't as if the Eurocrats are going to refuse Scotland entry into the EU, they'd just like to keep England as well.

Anonymous VD December 06, 2012 10:45 AM  

VD, what happened to your article refuting the claim that Red states are parasites on Blue states?

I'm terribly sorry, but I was just a little occupied in getting an 852-page novel out the door to the printers.

Blogger Alexander December 06, 2012 10:50 AM  

I've never concluded that Europe ever figured this out but it's got to be a risky proposition for an EU member to support devolution and secession because they all have this problem at home. If the French or Spanish or Belgians were to be too enthusiastic about Scottish independence maybe someone in England might decide to drum up support for the Basque or Corsica or Flanders.

Anonymous Lysander Spooner December 06, 2012 10:53 AM  

The EU needs its' own "Honest Abe" to fix them Secessionists good.

What, with today's EU population of about 500 million, the "New Abe" might only kill about 13.7 million or so. Imagine the stimulus to the splendid vibrancy.

Anonymous A Visitor December 06, 2012 10:55 AM  

Good interview, Vox. Regarding Cataluña, since I spent a semester in Spain several years back, they've been looking to leave Spain since time immemorial. I remember my Spanish composition professor (who was from Madrid) saying that when a team from Cataluña went to the European junior soccer league national championship (I can't remember exactly what it was called) the team's coach, in catalán of course, said how happy he was to be representing Cataluña, a country between France and Spain. Furthermore, they remained seated for the Spanish national anthem (which interesting has no words, it did under Franco) but stood up for Cataluña's regional hymn. Finally, they waved Cataluña autonomous' community flags.

I agree 100% that Scotland wanting to join the EU post secession is foolish.

Blogger IM2L844 December 06, 2012 10:56 AM  

I'm surprised you didn't do a quick correction on his Vox Day, Voice of God.

Me too since it looked like Hartmann was on the verge of an eye-roll as he was saying it. It was also a little annoying when he would cut Vox off mid-sentence and talk over him, but I expected as much. Liberals generally annoy me.

Anonymous 43rd Virginia Calalry December 06, 2012 11:07 AM  

Very good interview, Thom failed to contain his "Oh sh*t" when you corrected him on the union of England and Scotland.

Anonymous paleopaleo December 06, 2012 11:15 AM  

"It was also a little annoying when he would cut Vox off mid-sentence and talk over him, but I expected as much. Liberals generally annoy me."

This isn't a liberal thing as much as a radio thing. A good radio host understands time constraints. A good host is also a stand in for his listeners who are all saying "ya, but" in their cars. This was a fair interview. nice job VD.

OpenID ZT December 06, 2012 11:18 AM  

"But Vox you don't have a dog in the fight..."

Given what he said about Texas, what does he care about Texas. Does he live there? What dog does he have other than the Fed takes from the productive citizen's of Texas? As for Texas aid from the Fed, that is all welfare money. The various welfare people would probably leave or start becoming productive citizens of Texas.

Texas GDP is 1+ Trillion. I think they will manage. Especially if they are not paying Federal taxes.


Anonymous CunningDove December 06, 2012 11:20 AM  

What would TX do without the Federal Infrastructure? What does Hartman think the Fibbies are going to do, rip out all the Interstates & Rail Roads in the state? Or maybe that the Fibbies are going to disassemble all the ports in Galviston, Baytown, Corpus Christi? While the Fibbies are at it, will they cut all the power lines bringing electricity out of and into the state... ???

Yes, without Social Security or other forms of income derived from the Feds it will be difficult. But, it will also provide for the potential to drop some Federal hindrances also. Like Denninger's pet topic of Monopoly Medical Industry pricing.

Blogger JokersWild December 06, 2012 11:33 AM  

He's definitely not the MSNBC liberal. I liked how at the end he stated something like "I wonder if this is a thing for the Republicans now". I support secession whole heartedly living in Texas and I'm not a Republican. The problem is that no matter how much talk about secession is going on in Texas the state legislature as it currently stands wouldn't dream of voting for secession.

Hell, Gov "pretty hair" Perry talked big about booting the TSA and when leviathan on the Potomac said they'd make us a no fly zone he dropped to his knees and kissed DC's boots.

Anonymous CatDog December 06, 2012 11:40 AM  

The heads of the Scottish Nationalist party are pro-EU (or at very least they say they are) but the Scottish public aren't.

Blogger IM2L844 December 06, 2012 11:40 AM  

This isn't a liberal thing as much as a radio thing.

I concede that confirmation bias probably played a role in my perception of the show, but that is more of an honest concession than you will generally ever get from one of those damned annoying dishonest lying liberal liars that lie a lot. Did I mention that I sometimes find liberals mildly irritating?

Anonymous Loki of Asgard December 06, 2012 11:43 AM  

What would TX do without the Federal Infrastructure? What does Hartman think the Fibbies are going to do, rip out all the Interstates & Rail Roads in the state?

Speaking as an intergalactic conqueror, I can attest that this is not actually feasible. It is possible, but then some fellow with a hammer turns up and...Well, you try maintaining a protonic reversal field while you're flying through the air.

Anonymous Tad December 06, 2012 11:52 AM  

There is not provision in the Constitution for secession. Texas trying to do so on its own would be beaten into submission literally and constitutionally.

However, there is a pretty good argument that secession can occur either my mutual agreement among all the states and/or representatives of the states in Congress or via constitutional amendment.

But again, the secessionist whiners in Texas really among only to that...they are whiners who will have the impact only of exposing themselves as whiners.

Anonymous Snoop December 06, 2012 11:54 AM  

"What would TX do without the Federal Infrastructure? What does Hartman think the Fibbies are going to do, rip out all the Interstates & Rail Roads in the state? Or maybe that the Fibbies are going to disassemble all the ports in Galviston, Baytown, Corpus Christi? While the Fibbies are at it, will they cut all the power lines bringing electricity out of and into the state... ???"

They could require that any state leaving the Union have to pay back all of these expenditures before they recognize the state's independence.

OpenID ZT December 06, 2012 11:59 AM  

@Stilicho - "The comments are classic neo-Keynesian ignorance. Top comment basically says that without Federal roads, welfare, and military bases, we'd all be a third world hell-hole. Never mind that third world hell holes have roads, welfare, and military bases."

Yeah I could only think that if Texas wasn't paying 20 to 40% in taxes to the Fed they would probably have plenty of money to build their own roads. Considering they are a 7.89% of GDP and have roughly ~8% of the total population not sure how this is a bad deal? Frankly they might be able to git rid of some cruft in the population or make them more productive.

NOTE: (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP)
California has 13% of population and 13.1% of GDP
New York has 6.02% of population and 7.68% of GDP


Sources:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP

Anonymous Bones December 06, 2012 12:04 PM  

Only problem I see with Texas is demographics. It is a minority-majority state and will probably turn blue within the next decade:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/30/1114634/-Projecting-Texas-The-Coming-Democratic-Plurality


So, if secession doesn't happen within the next ten years, it probably will never happen.

Anonymous CunningDove December 06, 2012 12:04 PM  

They could require that any state leaving the Union have to pay back all of these expenditures before they recognize the state's independence. - Snoop

Not a problem, we will fix that exchange rate for oil to dollars at the current price for oil & pay you back in oil. Rinse & repeat for coal, electricity, natural gas, beef, cotton, fruits & vegetables.

All that cargo which once came through Texas from Mexico... that will now require a "Transit Toll" or you can just bring it all into CA, AZ, NM & drive around us.

How does that sound? Think we could pay our debts back? Or are you going to "force" us to buy Treasury Notes like China has to do to pay back the "debt" from all those years of mooching we have done since 1845?

Blogger IM2L844 December 06, 2012 12:04 PM  

There is not provision in the Constitution for secession.

Is there a provision in the constitution prohibiting secession?

Anonymous JartStar December 06, 2012 12:06 PM  

There is not provision in the Constitution for secession. Texas trying to do so on its own would be beaten into submission literally and constitutionally.

If there was a majority vote in Texas to leave the union would you support a war rather then letting them go?

Anonymous paradox December 06, 2012 12:07 PM  

snoopy
They could require that any state leaving the Union have to pay back all of these expenditures before they recognize the state's independence.


You mean they couldn't count it as foreign aid?...

Anonymous Bones December 06, 2012 12:08 PM  

"Is there a provision in the constitution prohibiting secession?"

No...but there also isn't a provision in the constitution preventing the USA from declaring war on the newly independent states. See the Civil War.

Blogger A December 06, 2012 12:09 PM  

People who are against secession don't seem to understand that the thirteen colonies didn't overthrow a foreign King George III in order to inherit a domestic King Federal Gov't.

Anonymous CatDog December 06, 2012 12:14 PM  

The often repeated statement that England subsidies Scotland isn't true by the way.

Scots represent 8.4 per cent of the UK's total population, but they generate 9.4 per cent of its annual revenues in tax -- equivalent to £1,000 extra per person.

The three richest cities in Britain are London (which is obviously top) Edinburgh and Glasgow. Two of which are Scottish.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/scotland-12288-union-public

Anonymous Rock Throwing Peasant December 06, 2012 12:15 PM  

Obama: Texas, you want to secede? Well, guess what? If you do, you don't get automatic membership in the UN!

Texas: Promise?

Anonymous WinstonWebb December 06, 2012 12:15 PM  

Tad December 06, 2012 11:52 AM

There is not provision in the Constitution for secession.


You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution. It is a rulebook for the FEDERAL government, not the States.

Be that as it is:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Your turn, sir. Show me where secession is prohibited in the Constitution.

Anonymous WinstonWebb December 06, 2012 12:18 PM  

Bones December 06, 2012 12:08 PM

"Is there a provision in the constitution prohibiting secession?"

No...but there also isn't a provision in the constitution preventing the USA from declaring war on the newly independent states. See the Civil War.


This, Tad, should have been your argument. Your other attempt was a non-starter.

Blogger IM2L844 December 06, 2012 12:21 PM  

No...but there also isn't a provision in the constitution preventing the USA from declaring war on the newly independent states. See the Civil War.

I think that is far less likely in today's information age unless Texans started randomly lobbing rockets into the USA from their occupied territory a la Hamas.

Anonymous CatDog December 06, 2012 12:22 PM  

The often repeated statement that England subsidies Scotland isn't true by the way.

Scots represent 8.4 per cent of the UK's total population, but they generate 9.4 per cent of its annual revenues in tax -- equivalent to £1,000 extra per person.

The three richest cities in Britain are London (which is obviously top) Edinburgh and Glasgow. Two of which are Scottish.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/scotland-12288-union-public

Anonymous Tad December 06, 2012 12:38 PM  

If there was a majority vote in Texas to leave the union would you support a war rather then letting them go?

Of course I would...and not just Texas. I'd support using force even to keep Rhode Island in the Union. I'd have to think about Utah and Mississippi, though.

Anonymous Heh December 06, 2012 12:42 PM  

I'm terribly sorry, but I was just a little occupied in getting an 852-page novel out the door to the printers.

And a fine one it is, too! I just started reading it last night. Finished chapters 1 and 2.

Normally I only read eBooks if they are free, but in this case I made an exception.

Anonymous WinstonWebb December 06, 2012 12:45 PM  

Tad December 06, 2012 12:38 PM
...I'd support using force even to keep [insert state] in the Union.


Please explain your reason why such would be acceptable.

Then explain why Israel should not immediately use force against the newly-separated Palestine to keep that territory for the same reasons you present.

Anonymous Snoop December 06, 2012 12:52 PM  

"I think that is far less likely in today's information age unless Texans started randomly lobbing rockets into the USA from their occupied territory a la Hamas."

I'm not sure what rockets Texas would have since if there ever was a serious push for Texas to become independent, the Feds would pull all of their military hardware out of Texas and close all of their military bases in Texas as well.

Anonymous CunningDove December 06, 2012 12:57 PM  

Snoop, have you ever been to Texas? Did you know that we have an actual State Militia. Not a bunch of nuts running around wearing camo & calling themselves a Militia, but an actual State of Texas Militia?

Blogger ajw308 December 06, 2012 12:58 PM  

There is not provision in the Constitution for secession.

Does the Constitution prohibit states from seceding? That's the real question cause that's how it works.

Anonymous Tad December 06, 2012 1:07 PM  

@Winston

Your turn, sir. Show me where secession is prohibited in the Constitution.

As a preliminary whack at this, I'd note that the constitution does address aspects of the composition of the union. Article IV provides for how states may be admitted to the union. However, it does not provide for how states may exist the union, suggesting that the composition and viability of the union is a one way street.

Second, the language of the Constitution suggests is is more akin to a contract, than a treat, which can be withdrawn from. However, a contract requires mutual dissolution.

I'll stop with that, for now.

Anonymous Snoop December 06, 2012 1:10 PM  

"Snoop, have you ever been to Texas? Did you know that we have an actual State Militia. Not a bunch of nuts running around wearing camo & calling themselves a Militia, but an actual State of Texas Militia?"

Yeah, I've been to Texas.

I am talking about the Fed bases and Fed military hardware:

http://militarybases.com/texas/

^This is the stuff they would take since it is where the serious hardware is located.

Anonymous Tad December 06, 2012 1:10 PM  

@Winston

1. The U.S. is an Union and may not be legally taken apart by the actions of one state (though potentially by the agreement of all states)

2. I know nothing about the political or legal origins of Israel.

Blogger James Dixon December 06, 2012 1:15 PM  

> There is not provision in the Constitution for secession.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

But that's in much too plain a form of English for Tad to be able to grasp it.

Anonymous George of the Hole December 06, 2012 1:22 PM  

Tad: "But again, the secessionist whiners in Texas really among only to that...they are whiners who will have the impact only of exposing themselves as whiners."

Right you are. Small thinkers in a big state.

They should be on their knees asking God to restore the nation and remove the evildoers from power.

Anonymous WinstonWebb December 06, 2012 1:25 PM  

Tad December 06, 2012 1:07 PM
As a preliminary whack at this, I'd note that the constitution does address aspects of the composition of the union. Article IV provides for how states may be admitted to the union. However, it does not provide for how states may exist [sic "exit"?] the union, suggesting that the composition and viability of the union is a one way street.


Article IV does neither thing you describe:
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Clause 2: A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
Clause 3: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due. (See Note 11)
Section. 3.
Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.


Both of your suggestions are patently false. Perhaps you meant to reference a different Article?

Anonymous CunningDove December 06, 2012 1:26 PM  

Snoop,
The totality of all missiles, RPG's, Stingers (anything else that goes "BOOM!") do not belong to the Feds. Some of those things belong to "others". And I'm sure that 100% of the "payload" will be 'accounted for' at that time. And where did those Palestinians get their missiles & bullets?

Now, I am not advocating that we shoot/bomb anyone. Certainly not Oklahoma or Louisiana.. A case could be made for Arkansas, just for general principles. But the point being made when this whole "Texas Lobbing Rockets" was brought up was....
this:
In our current information age, it would take something like "Texas Lobbing Rockets" to justify keeping us in the Union by force. Unless your name is Tad.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard December 06, 2012 1:30 PM  

However, a contract requires mutual dissolution.

This comes, naturally, as a complete surprise to all persons whose employment has been unilaterally terminated. Imagine how low unemployment would be if all of those "laid-off" workers insisted that the dissolution was not mutual and therefore arrived to earn their wages.

Anonymous WinstonWebb December 06, 2012 1:37 PM  

Tad December 06, 2012 1:07 PM
Second, the language of the Constitution suggests is is more akin to a contract, than a treat, which can be withdrawn from. However, a contract requires mutual dissolution.


This is a naked assertion. I'll go so far as to spot you the "contract" reference (though I disagree). Barring some heretofore unknown definition of the term, there is a mechanism with contracts whereby one (or more) parties can unilaterally dissolve same. It's called "breach". Contracts SPECIFICALLY detail penalties for breach. Please provide the Article & Clause detailing the penalty to a State that breaches this "contract" called the Constitution.

Anonymous Snoop December 06, 2012 1:41 PM  

"The totality of all missiles, RPG's, Stingers (anything else that goes "BOOM!") do not belong to the Feds. Some of those things belong to "others". And I'm sure that 100% of the "payload" will be 'accounted for' at that time. And where did those Palestinians get their missiles & bullets?"

I'm not saying there wouldn't be "srinkage" amoung the smaller items, but the major items would be accounted for: jets, tanks, helicopters, etc. since they are very hard to steal and then hide.

I guess Texas could buy weapons on the open market from the Russians since they will sell anything to anybody for the right price, but it would take years to build up an arsenal going that route.

Anyways, all this talk is meaningless unless there actually is a real push among the Texas legislature for independence, which I don't see happening.




Anonymous WinstonWebb December 06, 2012 1:43 PM  

Tad December 06, 2012 1:10 PM

1. The U.S. is an Union and may not be legally taken apart by the actions of one state (though potentially by the agreement of all states)


And you come to this conclusion...how? I've already asked you to quote the section of the Constitution that prohibits secession. You have thus far failed to do so. I ask again: Where is secession prohibited in the Constitution?

2. I know nothing about the political or legal origins of Israel.

You've demonstrated that your knowledge of the United States is equivalent.

Anonymous Feh December 06, 2012 1:57 PM  

the major items would be accounted for: jets, tanks, helicopters, etc. since they are very hard to steal and then hide.

What does Texas need those for? The Feds have all that so they can go meddle overseas, not so they can protect the USA itself. Texas would not need an all-arms Wehrmacht - the main security need would be for an effective border patrol, which is ironically enough the one thing the Feds do NOT provide to Texas.

Anonymous Feh December 06, 2012 2:23 PM  

There is not provision in the Constitution for secession.

There is not a provision in the Constitution for abortion, Obamacare, or all the other crusted mucus associated with the liberal bureaucratic nanny state, so I am not sure why we should give a crap about this.

Anonymous CunningDove December 06, 2012 2:32 PM  

There is not provision in the Constitution for secession.

There is not a provision in the Constitution for abortion, Obamacare, or all the other crusted mucus associated with the liberal bureaucratic nanny state, so I am not sure why we should give a crap about this. - Feh December 06, 2012 2:23 PM


The understanding of that fact is necessary to understand the importance of the "breach" reference from WinstonWebb. Sadly, there are many who do not understand your first sentence.

Anonymous Elmer Fudge (friend of Sexual Chocolate) December 06, 2012 3:09 PM  

Who among here, shall join me?

Anonymous Stilicho December 06, 2012 3:29 PM  

They should be on their knees asking God to restore the nation and remove the evildoers from power.

Which nation? Texas? Virginia? Any blood and soil nation? Or do you refer exclusively to the propositional nation known as the USA? I'm not being facetious; how you define it matters. Why should Texas want the albatross of NY around its neck? If Gommorrah had repented, should it have tied its fate to Sodom?

Anonymous Niall December 06, 2012 3:34 PM  

My father was a staunch Scottish nationalist and I suppose in my hot- headed youth I was one too, but now that I'm middle- aged and cynical I realize that there never can be such a thing as real Scottish independence. Swapping Westminster for Brussels is just a change of master and in any event, Scottish nationalists are committed to the same cult of diversity that is changing the entire Western world out of recognition. Ireland won its independence less than a hundred years ago and yet, through immigration, the native Irish will be a minority in their own country over the next few decades... this is how our history ends.

Anonymous Noah B. December 06, 2012 4:10 PM  

"The U.S. is an Union and may not be legally taken apart by the actions of one state (though potentially by the agreement of all states)"

With the Constitution effectively gutted by the feds, what is the remaining basis for law of any kind? Your statement that the U.S. is a union and that it may not legally be divided by a single state is just a baseless assertion.

Anonymous George of the Hole December 06, 2012 4:44 PM  

Stilicho: If Gommorrah had repented, should it have tied its fate to Sodom?

That's up to God. Your job is to repent and pray.

Zoar was saved not because it repented, but because Lot prayed for it.



Anonymous MendoScot December 06, 2012 5:09 PM  

WRT the EU; you must remember that for a long time relations with continental countries - particularly, but not exclusively, France - helped maintain Scotland against the Sassenach. There are 3 aspects to bear in mind:

(1) There remains a romantic, and largely delusional, memory of these alliances. Put this together with the reflexive "the English hate it, so we like it."

(2) An unfortunate State-handout-dependency has been - perhaps deliberately - inculcated into the majority of Scots, who live in the mostly urban Central Valley.

(3) The Irish did very well as a net receiver (as opposed to the UK) from the EU due to their small economy - a trick that I suspect many Scots believe they can repeat.

Anonymous kh123 December 06, 2012 5:40 PM  

"Clause 3: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

Is probably pointless to point out to Tad that the states which refused to hand over run away slaves in effect breached the "contract" - as well as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and 1850 - well before Texas seceded the first time.

Or would this be a case where individual states had a right to self determination, to pass their own laws contra Federal dictates?

Anonymous CatDog December 06, 2012 6:02 PM  

2(2) An unfortunate State-handout-dependency has been - perhaps deliberately - inculcated into the majority of Scots, who live in the mostly urban Central Valley."

If you look at my post above you'd see the English subsidy argument is in fact false. But the Scottish welfare state will eventually cause problems for them.

People of Irish descent in Scotland could be a severe economic drag as well. They tend to earn less, commit crimes at much higher rates and be more likely to be unemployed and on benefits. They also tend to be more left-wing.

Scotland also has an advantage in that there population is only around 2 percent minorities.

Anonymous Michael Maier December 06, 2012 8:58 PM  

Tad and the other statists cannot refute that the entire Bill of Rights are all restraints on the federal government's power. And that the 9th and 10th spell SHOULD spell the doom of any moron that thinks the states have no right to leave.

But any intelligent person knows that the law only means what SCROTUM says it does and that neither plain 8th grade English nor common sense shall intrude upon their interpretations of "emanations from penumbras", as it were.

Be all that as it may, I wish you all a Happy "We Baited The Japs" Day tomorrow.

Anonymous Van December 06, 2012 9:38 PM  

Statists think the Bill of Rights is a set of rules to be followed by the states, as enforced by the feds.

Anonymous Susan December 06, 2012 10:00 PM  

As far as Texas leaving the union, my understanding of the situation comes from reading somewhere (here maybe?) that Texas had the smarts to include an escape clause in their state constitution when they joined the union. So if that is true, more power to them, and will they allow copperheads like me and my hubby immigrate?

Anonymous FrankNorman December 07, 2012 3:37 AM  

Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.


Bad news for Democrats and illegal aliens?

Blogger LP 999/Eliza December 07, 2012 7:45 AM  

I'm proud of Scotland, I hope this works and proves an effective example to other counties.

Anonymous Anonymous December 07, 2012 1:35 PM  

Your interviewer doesn't seem very bright or well read.

N5

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts