A successful "YES" vote will also set a precedent for the rest of the world. Areas where there is a significant majority locally, but are a minority nationally, now gain leverage in being treated more equally, less they too decide to leave peacefully from their unions. In this modern age, how can it be justifiable to use force on a population that wished to remain peaceful, remain connected, but allowed to control their own region. The Scots have some facts going for their vote as well.
Look at the history -The Scots were essentially forced to fall under the British Crown, or else war would continue until the Brits won. Yes, the lords of Scotland did to to save their asses, but is not what happened with the North American Native Tribes in the United States? Those that resisted were destroyed, those that gave it got some shitty land (Looking at the ones from the East Coast moving West: Trail of Tears anyone?)
If we accept that governments derive their authority from the people (which any Constitutionalist should believe) is it not reasonable that the Scottish people should be able to vote if they believe the government currently over them is in fact legitimate?
Or, do we believe that governments own people, and that we are simply subjects to be rules by those in power?
There are many unanswered questions should the Scots break free. What about their share of debt, what about military bases, what about (a million other things). All of this can be negotiated, and more importantly, when the negotiations occur, it will the the Free Scots negotiating with the Free Brits, as equals, as independent governments! If the Scots wish to remain allies and friends with Britain, it will be in the Scots best interests to be good and fair during such negotiations. The same goes for Britain. If either side tries to abuse the other, the international community will be watching closely; they will not forget should one side or the other act in a manner unfitting for civilized states.
Finally, the most important question is this: Will the United States Government recognize Scotland? If so, the table is open to suggestions, but this would be a de facto admission and acceptance by the Federal Government that secession through voting is completely legal. That is a big bargaining chip. Opponents will say that those who want to succeed are simply "sore losers" or are "taking their ball and going home." Well, how would you handle a party where people treated you rudely and demanded you do things you did not want to do? What if they were bullies, forcing you to act in a way you opposed? Is in not most civil to leave the party and say ,"thank you, but I will see myself out."? Or is it more proper to punch the host and their supporters and demand your way?
What say you?
I am pretty sure that the "sorry this isn't working for us so we are leaving" was voted on already and tried in the US. On December 20, 1860 the South Carolina convention declares "that the Union now subsisting between South Carolina and other states under the name of the 'United States of America' is hereby dissolved."
ReplyDeleteThis was before any shots fired... You can only peacefully leave if you are not forced back. Now this was 150 years ago, would it spark a civil war if attempted today, in an "age of the internet". I don't know. But I do know that it will not always be easy. Look at the Palestinians in Israel, do you not think they would like a chance to vote on leaving? The Kurds in Iraq? We would split the world into so many factions if it were free reign. But is that not liberty?