Scotland the Brave

[Guest Warwick Green]

SCOTLAND'S national orchestra has appealed for Scots to vote for the song which should be adopted as the country's national anthem.

The five songs:

Flower of Scotland, written by Roy Williamson, of The Corries, more than 30 years ago and sung primarily at rugby and football matches.

A Man's a Man for a' That, song by Robert Burns extolling the common man.

Scotland the Brave, traditional bagpipe tune with stirring words written in the 1950s.

Highland Cathedral, written in 1982 by two German musicians and chosen by Madonna as her wedding march at her marriage in Dornoch to Guy Ritchie, the film director.

Scots Wha Ha'e, another Burns song written in the form of a speech by Robert the Bruce before he defeated an English army at Bannockburn in 1314.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/63784.html

[Charles Anthony]

Some of these songs have clear anti-English themes and whereas some do not.

I can not wait to learn which song is finally chosen.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Some of these songs have clear anti-English themes and whereas some do not.

I can not wait to learn which song is finally chosen.

Welcome to Scottish politics. Since 1601 - the "uniting" of Scotland and England - the Scots have been p***ing on the Sassenachs. And it goes both ways. Some Englishmen are now complaining about "too many" Scots in the British government - PM, Deputy PM, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Minister of Work, Minister of Transport, Chief Justice.

[Charles Anthony]

Some Englishmen are now complaining about "too many" Scots in the British government - PM, Deputy PM, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Minister of Work, Minister of Transport, Chief Justice.

Maybe the English need something from Scotland?

I mentioned Scottish secession to a kid who is visiting from England. Without hesitation, he shook his head and said: "We need oil from the North."

I like this:

If Scotland wants partition, the British cannot deny it

Many nations have prospered after gaining independence from their neighbours. Why should the Scots be different?

I would not lose any sleep if the Scots voted to repeal the 1707 act. Independence need not end the United Kingdom: Scotland and England shared a monarch before 1707, as Britain and Canada do today. Separation need be no more radical than the partial autonomy of a dozen European countries from their neighbours. Borders were not sealed or passports cancelled under the Government of Ireland Act 1920. If eastern Europe can handle partition, so can Britain.

The phased withdrawal of the subvention would be traumatic, but it would do Scotland nothing but good to learn that public money does not grow on English trees. If economic history teaches anything, it is that huge inflows of aid rot an economy, while "unearned" wealth, as from oil, is usually wasted. The phased end of the subsidy would be thoroughly good for Scotland, not bad.

Partition is the new politics, despite being the hobgoblin of centralism. It is through partition that Ireland is booming, Slovakia reviving and the Baltic states prospering. The British government is in favour of it for everyone else, even forcing it on the former Yugoslavia and Iraq/Kurdistan. This year it welcomed Montenegro to Europe's community. By what hypocrisy do Westminster grandees ridicule Scotland's ambition?

The Guardian

This is the political paradox: We need to erect more borders to increase our freedom. It is by building fences that we achieve mutual cooperation. The world needs many small governments and less big governments.

[Riverwind]

Partition is the new politics, despite being the hobgoblin of centralism. It is through partition that Ireland is booming, Slovakia reviving and the Baltic states prospering. The British government is in favour of it for everyone else, even forcing it on the former Yugoslavia and Iraq/Kurdistan.

Separatist movements everywhere are rooted in greed, xenophobia, racism or a combination of all three. All of the examples he cites are countries where the people would be infinitely better off today if had spent their energies co-operating within the states that existed instead of creating chaos fighting with their neighbors over largely irrelevant differences. People who say that the countries like the Baltic states are better off today as separate states are basically saying that ethnocentrism and racism are good things that should be encouraged.

[Charles Anthony]

All of the examples he cites are countries where the people would be infinitely better off today if had spent their energies co-operating within the states that existed instead of creating chaos fighting with their neighbors over largely irrelevant differences.

Those people should choose their own destiny.

People who say that the countries like the Baltic states are better off today as separate states are basically saying that ethnocentrism and racism are good things that should be encouraged.

No, they are admitting that some people want freedom and more direct control over government.

Racism is real. Do you think the coersive state can stop racism?

I will tell you what can stop racism: an incentive to trade peacefully without coersion.

[Shakeyhands]

It will be O Flower of Scotland.... despite the anti English/Protestant lyrics

[Riverwind]

Those people should choose their own destiny.

There are numerous institutional structures within states that can be used to ensure people have "control over the own destiny". Every self-identified ethnic group does not need a sovereign state.

Racism is real. Do you think the coersive state can stop racism?

I will tell you what can stop racism: an incentive to trade peacefully without coersion.

Racism exists - but I also know that politicans that seek to break up existing states by fanning the flames of racism are the lowest form of scum on the planet. Supporting the objectives of such people is no different from supporting people who favour segregation of races.

There are some countries where the ethnic divisions have go on too long and the hatreds run too deep. In those cases it probably makes sense to break the state up. However, accepting the break up of a state under those considitions still represents a failure that should not be repeated elsewhere. That is why I object so much to the comments you posted: the writer points to human societies where racism and xenophobia triumphed over common sense and tried to claim that they represent successes. I argue that any success that exists is insignificant compared to the loses created by the conflict in the first place. If we want find a model for human society worth emulating we should be looking at societies where different groups of people have figured out how to get a long without wasting energy or blood trying to divide the land into ever smaller peices.

[Charles Anthony]

There are numerous institutional structures within states that can be used to ensure people have "control over the own destiny".

How do you propose people reach such a utopia when they are poor or under tyrannical rule?

Racism exists - but I also know that politicans that seek to break up existing states by fanning the flames of racism are the lowest form of scum on the planet.

I agree that it is foul politics. However, racism is just a cover. The despotism of those states is the root of the problem.

There are some countries where the ethnic divisions have go on too long and the hatreds run too deep. In those cases it probably makes sense to break the state up.

Take a look at the histories of France and Germany. Independence and commerce made them best friends in a very, very short period of time.

That is why I object so much to the comments you posted: the writer points to human societies where racism and xenophobia triumphed over common sense and tried to claim that they represent successes.

Are you open to the possibility that overbearing government tyranny contributed to the flames?

I argue that any success that exists is insignificant compared to the loses created by the conflict in the first place.

Under what basis do you argue that?

If we want find a model for human society worth emulating we should be looking at societies where different groups of people have figured out how to get a long without wasting energy or blood trying to divide the land into ever smaller peices.

Yes. I believe that France and Germany are the best examples.

[Riverwind]

How do you propose people reach such a utopia when they are poor or under tyrannical rule?

That might be an issue in some states, however, it most definitely does not apply to any modern democratic state such as the UK or Canada. There is absolutely no justification for secession from a democratic state with a federal system.

Take a look at the histories of France and Germany. Independence and commerce made them best friends in a very, very short period of time.

A bad choice for an example. France and Germany are the leading advocates of the European super-state because they believe it is in their best interests.

Are you open to the possibility that overbearing government tyranny contributed to the flames?

I would say that racism and intolerance lead to tyrannies - not the other way around. States that accommodate diverse groups of people can end up being more free than states that are a mono-culture since allowing freedom is one of easiest ways to accommodate diversity. Tyranny requires the consent of the people and it is a lot easier to get that consent when the people share a similar cultural background.

I argue that any success that exists is insignificant compared to the loses created by the conflict in the first place.

Under what basis do you argue that?

Can you seriously argue that the Balkans would be worse off today if they had avoided going to war with each other by creating a single federal state that accommodated the needs of the different groups?

[Charles Anthony]

There is absolutely no justification for secession from a democratic state with a federal system.

Of course there is: cronyism.

Even if you reject that justification, the point is moot. There is absolutely no justification for opposing peaceful secession.

A bad choice for an example. France and Germany are the leading advocates of the European super-state because they believe it is in their best interests.

I disagree.

They share a common currency but they do not share government. Neither country tries to rule over the other anymore.

It is a good example because come hell or high water, France and Germany would create the European Union even if they were the only member countries involved. The dependence on international trade made the other countries want to join.

I would say that racism and intolerance lead to tyrannies - not the other way around.

Tell that to the people who live under Robert Mugabe's charming rule.

States that accommodate diverse groups of people can end up being more free than states that are a mono-culture since allowing freedom is one of easiest ways to accommodate diversity.

In young countries: I agree. In old countries: I doubt it.

Tyranny requires the consent of the people and it is a lot easier to get that consent when the people share a similar cultural background.

Consent of the people?

The Russian Czar and the French nobility had the consent of the people.

Can you seriously argue that the Balkans would be worse off today if they had avoided going to war with each other by creating a single federal state that accommodated the needs of the different groups?

No, I can not. Nobody can.

However, I would postulate that the Balkan war was a direct result of a tyrannical state which pretended to accomodate diverse groups of people.

More importantly, can you seriously argue that the Balkans could have avoided going to war with each other?

If so, I want to hear it.

[PolyNewbie]

It would be good if they chose A Man's a Man for a' That, song by Robert Burns extolling the common man.

Our society has lost all respect for common people. They are daily victims of the graft and corruption used by politicians, central bankers and the courts to further their own twisted views of superiority.

[Riverwind]

There is absolutely no justification for opposing peaceful secession.

Secession , even when peaceful, will come with a huge economic cost. The division of debt and assets would take a decade or more as would the arguments over boundaries as minority groups living within the wannabe states realize that they have an equal right to secede. That is why secession from a democratic state is a morally bankrupt exercise in narcissism that has no justification.

They share a common currency but they do not share government. Neither country tries to rule over the other anymore.

Tell that to the EU gov't in Brussels. When a nation joins the EU they give up much of their sovereignty and agree to allow the EU gov't to set policy in a wide range of fields. IOW - EU countries do share a government. It is a different kind of gov't than what we are used to but it is still a gov't with all of the 'coercive' powers that go with it.

Incidently, Ireland - one of those 'seperation successes' has a net recipiant of funds from other EU countries for many years. It is not really possible to talk about the success of the Irish state without talking about the success of the EU superstate.

Tell that to the people who live under Robert Mugabe's charming rule.

I don't see how examples of 3rd world thugs can be used to justify policies in 1st democracies.

The Russian Czar and the French nobility had the consent of the people.

Absolutely. They lost their power the day that the people realized that they had the power to withdraw their consent.

More importantly, can you seriously argue that the Balkans could have avoided going to war with each other?

If so, I want to hear it.

War is always a choice. They could have worked things out if the leaders had been willing to do so. That said, it was probably unlikely given the history of the area. The bottom line - the division of Balkans represents a failure that should be avoided. It is not a success that should be emulated.

[Charles Anthony]

They could have worked things out if the leaders had been willing to do so. That said, it was probably unlikely given the history of the area. The bottom line - the division of Balkans represents a failure that should be avoided. It is not a success that should be emulated.

You may be looking at the Balkans the wrong way.

Why not say: "The bottom line - the coerced formation of the Balkans represents a failure that should be avoided." ?

Secession , even when peaceful, will come with a huge economic cost. The division of debt and assets would take a decade or more

It may not. Who is to say?

Furthermore, who (other than the people involved) should make that choice?

as would the arguments over boundaries as minority groups living within the wannabe states realize that they have an equal right to secede.

That is not peaceful secession.

Furthermore, in Scotland, the number of secessionists is rising. What will you say when every single Scot wants to secede and take on the transition costs?

That is why secession from a democratic state is a morally bankrupt exercise in narcissism that has no justification.

I disagree. If secession can be peaceful and freely chosen, it is morally bankrupt to think a bigger government is better in a democracy. The smaller the government, the closer it will be to the people it serves.

Tell that to the EU gov't in Brussels.

I will: "Hey! Brussels! If you do not like the European Union, nobody is forcing you to join!!!"

When a nation joins the EU they give up their sovereignty and agree to allow the EU gov't to set policy in a wide range of fields. IOW - EU countries do share a government. It is a different kind of gov't than what we are used to but it is still a gov't with all of the 'coercive' powers that go with it.

How is it coercive?

I don't see how examples of 3rd world thugs can be used to justify policies in 1st democracies.

My point is that tyranny and racism and mono-culture do not automatically go hand in hand.

Tyrannies can exist with or without racism.

Absolutely. They lost their power the day that the people realized that they had the power to withdraw their consent.

Was there racial tension?

[PocketRocket]

Scotland searching for a national anthem???

And no one has suggested "99 Bottles Of Beer on the Wall"???

Mystifying!!!

[Riverwind]

You may be looking at the Balkans the wrong way. Why not say: "The bottom line - the coerced formation of the Balkans represents a failure that should be avoided." ?

Regardless of how the Yugoslav state was formed it did exist and people did move around within it. By the time the Yugoslav gov't collapsed it was not practical to carve the country into ethnically pure enclaves. This inconvenient distribution of the population is what led to the war. So I would say the blame for the war rests entirely with people who believe that people with the same ethnic background should have a state to themselves.

It may not. Who is to say?

Furthermore, who (other than the people involved) should make that choice?

If Quebec secedes then everyone is Canada is involved. That is why I call secessistist narcissists. They are people so obsessed with themselves that they are no longer capable of looking at the bigger picture.

as would the arguments over boundaries as minority groups living within the wannabe states realize that they have an equal right to secede.

That is not peaceful secession.

News flash. There are very few examples where peaceful secession is possible because the distribution of populations almost never create geographically practical states with an ethnically pure population. That means that the only way to stop a new state from fragmenting is to use the power of the state to coerce minorities into joining the new state or to expel them. I am sure you see the hypocrisy in advocating 'democratic' secession that denies the same democratic rights to minority groups.

The smaller the government, the closer it will be to the people it serves.

The best forms of gov't are those with multiple tiers that ensure powers are exercised at the most appropriate level. It does not make sense to have a large national gov't in charge of city roads and sewers. Similarly it does not make sense to have local gov'ts in change of monetary policy. That is why the EU was created. Europeans realized that certain powers such as monetary policy were best exercised at higher level than the current national gov'ts.

Tell that to the EU gov't in Brussels.

I will: "Hey! Brussels! If you do not like the European Union, nobody is forcing you to join!!!"

But once you join it will be nearly impossible to leave. In 50 years the EU will be indistinguishable from the US or Canada in all practical purposes. The only difference will be the set of powers that each level of gov't will exercice.

How is it coercive?

It has the power to pass laws and compel all member states to conform to those laws. In the future the EU will likely have the power to levy direct taxes.

[Wilber]

It's interesting how some countries or regions look for reasons to move closer and others look to move farther apart. The EU being an example of the former and Canada the latter. The EU as a legacy of the two most disastrous wars in history and a desire not to repeat, as well as economics and the Balkans as legacy of centuries of warfare between competing empires and an example of what not to do.

California has a population as large as Canada and its economy ranks in the worlds top ten but never a whisper of going on its own. It would seem that some see working together in a common interest is to all their advantage and others have priorities which lie elsewhere.

[Charles Anthony]

Regardless of how the Yugoslav state was formed it did exist

Sorry. I am not accepting such a dismissal.

On the one hand, you say that a great big imposed state should be maintained. That same state fails to a chaotic horror but you refuse to consider the most likely cause: the foreign imposition of said state.

By the time the Yugoslav gov't collapsed it was not practical to carve the country into ethnically pure enclaves.

Unfortunately, people had the power of a coercive state to do so -- without which they probably would have lived in peace.

Now that each of those republics are independent states -- without the central government. You know what is happening?? They are starting to trade again.

This inconvenient distribution of the population is what led to the war.

Yes and the most likely cause was the artificial imposition of a state -- sort of like Iraq.

So I would say the blame for the war rests entirely with people who believe that people with the same ethnic background should have a state to themselves.

I would not.

I would say that the blame rests entirely with evil people who believed they deserved the power of an artificial state to control their neighbors -- they also wanted access to the Adriatic Sea.

If Quebec secedes then everyone is Canada is involved. That is why I call secessistist narcissists. They are people so obsessed with themselves that they are no longer capable of looking at the bigger picture.

I say: If people oppose self-government, they are entirely obsessed with controlling other people.

The world would be a much better place if fewer people took it upon themselves to control their fellow man.

There are very few examples where peaceful secession is possible because the distribution of populations almost never create geographically practical states with an ethnically pure population.

I agree. Ethnic pure populations is not what I advocate.

I advocate the right to self-determination regardless of the demographics. If people are being ignored by a great big government, that how jurisdiction is too big. Time to secede.

That means that the only way to stop a new state from fragmenting is to use the power of the state to coerce minorities into joining the new state or to expel them. I am sure you see the hypocrisy in advocating 'democratic' secession that denies the same democratic rights to minority groups.

I do.

The only fair solution when government gets too big is secession.

The best forms of gov't are those with multiple tiers that ensure powers are exercised at the most appropriate level.

Only when everybody can not the bureaucracy to support great big multi-layered government.

It does not make sense to have a large national gov't in charge of city roads and sewers. Similarly it does not make sense to have local gov'ts in change of monetary policy.

Interesting. I challenge you to explain why that might be the case.

But once you join it will be nearly impossible to leave.

Of course -- because it is financially better to stay.

That is like saying: once a business pays off all of its huge overhead expenses and turns multiple profits upon profits, it will be nearly impossible to leave the business.

In 50 years the EU will be indistinguishable from the US or Canada in all practical purposes. The only difference will be the set of powers that each level of gov't will exercice.

We agree. I would say that with enough time, I would say that the U.S.A. and Canada will lag behind because our federal governments have longer reaches into regional affairs.

It has the power to pass laws and compel all member states to conform to those laws. In the future the EU will likely have the power to levy direct taxes.

That is not coersion by the European Union. So long as member states are still able to quit, the people are only being coerced by their own country not by the European Union.