With the Scottish vote to secede coming up this week, the American media has been plastered with various polls and speeches about the pros and cons of Scotland secession. Over in the U.K. (Or, what WAS the U.K. at the time of writing this article), David Cameron's desperately rallying for Scotland to remain a part of the U.K. " So let no one in Scotland be in any doubt: we desperately want you to stay; we do not want this family of nations to be ripped apart.". Cameron also indicated that the U.K. had always been at the forefront of history, and that they were there 'together'.
Together isn't exactly the word I'd use. Together tends to have the implication that all parties are there willingly. This isn't so much the case for the U.K. Britain, by all measures, is the most colonial state in pretty much all of history, brutally controlling a large portion of the globe at one point in time. Despite their various underhanded economic tactics used in Asia (Like that time they got China addicted to opium), and their navy used to strong-arm other countries into submission throughout the world, I'm going to focus closer to home. Britain is not a good neighbor. They routinely exploit and straight up shank those nearby them (Remember that whole great potato famine thing in Ireland? Yeah, the British caused that.). Their violent history gives Scotland nothing but justification for seceding from their union. Hopefully, a successful secession establishes a foothold for Northern Ireland to secede as well.
I agree with your view Cameron. However, as we now know, the potential succession lost in the voting booths, quite badly, because, as I understand it, Scotland had a poor plan of action for how they would survive without the help of the current United Kingdom.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Scotland's succession may have failed this time, some argue that it will surely pass in future votes (David Callaway, Editor in Chief of USA Today). According to Callaway, this succession could potentially serve as a stepping stone for other regions of Europe to succeed from their respective nations, such at Catalan in Spain and Veneto in Italy.
This would be a drastic change for Europe. To me, it sounds a lot like the beginning of a movement of independence across Europe. And as I know from the history of the 19th and 20th centuries, movements like this in Europe usually do not end with out some type of conflict.