If it happens, I suspect that if they become independent, Scotland will become Albania with kilts, but we'll see. Other groups are watching this vote with great interest, however. As someone with a smidge of Flemish ancestry, I'm amused to see that they're getting riled up in Flanders, too. And I don't mean Ned Flanders.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
A Probative View on Scotland
The Scots are going to decide if they want to be independent from the rest of the United Kingdom today. I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I do think you should ask an expert:
If it happens, I suspect that if they become independent, Scotland will become Albania with kilts, but we'll see. Other groups are watching this vote with great interest, however. As someone with a smidge of Flemish ancestry, I'm amused to see that they're getting riled up in Flanders, too. And I don't mean Ned Flanders.
If it happens, I suspect that if they become independent, Scotland will become Albania with kilts, but we'll see. Other groups are watching this vote with great interest, however. As someone with a smidge of Flemish ancestry, I'm amused to see that they're getting riled up in Flanders, too. And I don't mean Ned Flanders.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I do love how the Scots think they'll get to keep their oil reserves if they become independent.
More likely, the Brits will keep the majority of the oil and/or have to at least split the revenue.
Not keeping the oil would probably be best for Scotland's long-term viability, as they wouldn't be able to rely on being an oil-backed welfare state.
If the Scots do go independent, I'll be curious how many businesses and individuals go south - especially if the vote is very, very close. Why such a vote can be determined with a simple majority, instead of super majority of say, 60%, confounds me. Why set the stage for internal conflict if you can't get a clear majority to agree to go independent?
Why such a vote can be determined with a simple majority, instead of super majority of say, 60%, confounds me. Why set the stage for internal conflict if you can't get a clear majority to agree to go independent?
If I remember correctly, there was a similar dynamic when Quebec almost left Canada some years back. I agree -- it's confounding at best.
I'm with First Ringer on the 50% vote. Say what? At least our country was only a third Tories.
But that said, it would be good for the Scots to be independent, if only for the wake-up call that would occur when they realized that the world was not lining up to lend them money to buttress the welfare state.
the vote has been extended to 16yr olds.
when an entire block of voters possess an intellect that can be swayed by a mel gibson movie, i'd say the vote nullifies itself.
i suggest the vote should only matter if its restricted to those over the age of 25, and not living off govt assistence.
(we should do that here, too)
And in the end it's all academic - Scotland votes to stay in the Union, 55-45%.
I know David Cameron has received tremendous criticism for his handling of the independence vote, including some suggesting he'd have lost his job as PM if Scotland broke free. I find that a little odd, given that if Scotland had gone independent, we likely wouldn't have seen (to use Cameron's quote today about the indie vote), a Labor coalition in "a generation, maybe a lifetime."
Maybe those analysts were suggesting Cameron would be ousted because Britain would swing much further to the right.
Post a Comment