Random Thoughts Thread

[BoringSupreez]

The independence movement in Scotland is gaining momentum, the polls are swinging into our favour and by September there is a possibility that we will win independence. I am optimistic and excited. We cannot afford to lose this referendum; otherwise we will face yet more decades of austerity and misery under Westminster.

I can't stop thinking about what will happen on September 18th. It has got to the point where I can't focus well on my daily routine. My future is hanging in the balance.

The world may see a massive political earthquake later this year.

I hope you guys get it.

[RCBH928]

I was watching Gone With The Wind, and even though I researched this I wanted to make double sure, North Americans killed South Americans just to free the slaves? I find that hard to believe.

If so why would the slaves fight on the side of South America? We all know that America was built around the idea of slavery so why all of a sudden North America is so upset about slavery that they are willing to kill themselves and south Americans over it?

[SirGawain]

I was watching Gone With The Wind, and even though I researched this I wanted to make double sure, North Americans killed South Americans just to free the slaves? I find that hard to believe.

If so why would the slaves fight on the side of South America? We all know that America was built around the idea of slavery so why all of a sudden North America is so upset about slavery that they are willing to kill themselves and south Americans over it?

First off let me say that I do not agree with slavery in any way whatsoever. When a new state was admitted to the US, it was either a slave state or a free state. In the 1860's, more non slave states were added, so the slave states were not equally represented in the government. That is what led to the Civil War and the majority of slave states forming the Confederacy. In saying that, slaves were not looked at like people. They were viewed as a piece of farm equipment. Again, this is not my view, just the mentality of the time. Just like farm equipment, they had to be kept in good working order. Many slave owners did not have hundreds of slaves, only a few and many had decent lives when compared with slavery in South American countries like Brazil, where the life expectancy of a slave was 7 years because of the dangers of growing and processing sugar. In the US, a slave could live a full life and have children, but not in South American countries.
Many had no idea of what they were fighting for, just that they were doing what their masters wanted them to do. In fact, many slaves had a harder time after slavery ended. They became sharecroppers. The land owner did not care about the wellbeing of the family, just that they got their share. If they did not, another family was brought in to tend the land
On another side note, not all states lost their slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves from states that left the Union. Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware and Maryland kept their slaves for another 10+ years. Sorry for being a little long winded, but it is a very in depth subject.

[Flake]

The independence movement in Scotland is gaining momentum, the polls are swinging into our favour and by September there is a possibility that we will win independence. I am optimistic and excited. We cannot afford to lose this referendum; otherwise we will face yet more decades of austerity and misery under Westminster.

I can't stop thinking about what will happen on September 18th. It has got to the point where I can't focus well on my daily routine. My future is hanging in the balance.

The world may see a massive political earthquake later this year.

So that you can face decades of austerity and misery under Edinburgh? Propaganda and patriotic fervor aside, Scotland getting independence would be a really, really awful thing to have happen. Modern infrastructure like roads, communication networks, police and fire services, etc cost gobs of money and require a huge tax base - one that I guarantee Scotland doesn't have. Hell, even if both Scotland and Wales were to go off and form a country together, without England the money just isn't there.

So yeah, you guys would be "free". Free from what? The BBC? Or having the government costs of Scotlands smaller towns subsidized? What's Scotland going to do for money besides tourism? Can you sell that many bagpipes, kilts, and plates of hagis? The oil industry in the waters north of Scotland are owned primarily by BP so I wouldn't count on getting any of that action.

So here's what's going to happen: A) The referendum will fail but let's pretend that it has a chance at all B) Scotland will do something similar to what my beloved (but misguided) Texas did: Become its own country...just long enough to rack up so much debt that it sells itself right back to London only this time there won't be any talk of pseudo-autonomy for the Scots.

But hey, it's a free country. Have fun!

[SirGawain]

Become its own country...just long enough to rack up so much debt that it sells itself right back

I think a lot of people forget this part when they talk about an independent Texas.

[Flake]

Become its own country...just long enough to rack up so much debt that it sells itself right back

I think a lot of people forget this part when they talk about an independent Texas.

No kidding and that's what drives me nuts. I love Texas but I could do without most of my fellow Texans. Too many people forget that we have a comparative advantage in our economy for most things, not an absolute. If we lost federal funding for roads, defense, border security, and (most importantly) protected access to the lower-Colorado river, we'd be doomed. If Texas went independent, all that would vanish over night.

So I cringe to see well meaning, patriotic but naive Scots talk about Scottish independence as if the English and Welsh aren't going to lean back and have a good laugh the moment it all falls apart.

[SirGawain]

^+1000

That is right on so many levels. The idea of a free Scotland, and Texas for that matter, is a very romantic notion that cannot be attained at this point in time. I guess a bunch of people think that America and England would keep the same relationship/protection policy/footing the bill with a newly independent country .

[Jmustang1968]

Some is right but not all. Texas would then have a federal income tax for its own infrastructure. The state is also has some natural resources to export. The biggest issue would still be what to do with what is already established.

[SirGawain]

True, but you would run into some problems with exporting goods. The easiest countries to export to would be America and Mexico, obviously, but America probably would carry a big chip on their shoulder for a while and charge a huge import/export tax. And I can tell you from experience that using trucks to go into another country is extremely expensive, if not fiscally impossible for a budding nation. Some people would also resent Texas for leaving and possibly boycott their products. The federal government has a lot of fingers in every state, especially one as largely populated as Texas. Somebody somewhere would have a bad taste in their mouth from settling the already established government holdings. I'm not saying it is impossible, but very close to it.

[Cronozilla]

I was watching Gone With The Wind, and even though I researched this I wanted to make double sure, North Americans killed South Americans just to free the slaves? I find that hard to believe.

If so why would the slaves fight on the side of South America? We all know that America was built around the idea of slavery so why all of a sudden North America is so upset about slavery that they are willing to kill themselves and south Americans over it?

Well, to be clear, North America and South America have never gone to war with each other. That sounds like a World War 3 almost.

Yanks and Rebs had some fighting words for one another, and at the end of the day, slavery wouldn't have been abolished if there was another foreseeable way to keep the union intact. There wasn't ... so they went to war over it to keep the union together ... otherwise the United States would be two countries (at least).

People fought for various reasons, you have to understand this meant soldiers were marching through your town and burning the place down. It didn't matter if you were fighting or not, they would do horrible things on both sides. People found a lot of reasons to fight for different things.

Thinking about it in the manner of organized armies going to battle with clearly defined agendas is a mistake, even if everything talks about it that way, it's just not accurate.

The United States was also not built around the idea of Slavery, there was a hard campaign to abolish slavery when the constitution was being written as well, but it failed. That doesn't mean that the country is based on having slaves, though.

Like every war or fight, it was about control and fear of the unknown.