Perhaps it's from watching Braveheart too many times. Probably not, since I only watched it once, and found the beginning and the end depressing enough to bum me out for a week.
Perhaps it's living in a place called Glasgow, where the high school mascot is the Scottie and the police cars are painted tartan.
Perhaps it's a friend getting accepted to Edinburgh.
Perhaps it's because Amy Pond--arguably the hottest companion to the Doctor to date--is Scottish.
Perhaps it's from her saying "Good for them," when she finds out Scotland loaded up onto a different spaceship than England, which is probably her best line from the first season.
Or perhaps it's the rebellious streak inherent in all Americans.
At any rate, I am sitting here, in Glasgow, MT, throwing down whiskey from Glasgow, Scotland, in an attempt to drown my sorrows that it appears Scottish Independence is not going to happen. Currently, it's 58%-42%, and I just don't see that changing.
So why do I support the break-up of a 300-year old country? Because I agree with several outspoken no-ers that Scottish Independence could have lead to a "Balkanization of Europe." Unlike those opposition campaigners, though, I think it would have been a good thing.
Currently, there are about a dozen major secessionist movements in Europe. I support them all inasmuch as they remain peaceable. An amicable Scottish departure from the UK would prove that people can withdraw without bloodshed. And the fact is, Balkanization works.
A case study: Yugoslavia. After the First World War, the victors came together to redraw the map of Europe. They decided to put about half a dozen different ethnic groups in the same country. How well did this work out? Well, for the next seventy-ish years, the ethnic groups tried to kill the ever-loving [redacted] out of each other. They all wanted a country in which they had autonomy. And since no one would recognize them as separate, they had to try to take power of their one country.
As one person noted, "The majority of life for many people is the quest to be the perpetrator instead of the victim." The Yugoslavians lived this. If the Croats won an election, it was a bad time to be a Serb; if the Serbs won, woe betide Bosnians; if the Bosnians won...well, you get the point.
Eventually, the groups all got their own countries. And ever since, there's not been a whole lot of wholesale slaughter over there. Sure, there's now six countries to remember for geography tests, but on the whole, I call thousands of people not dying a net win.
I'm pretty sure the Tutsis would have loved to get their own country around, say, 1994. Sure Don Cheadle gave an awesome performance, but that was a bit too late to save almost a million people from getting their heads macheted off.
But what if one country decides to pick off one of the new smaller countries?
Next case study: Kurdistan. Wonderfully bland name for a country...that doesn't truly exist. Instead, the Kurds are split among Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Turkey. The Kurds have long desired to secede from all four and make their own country.
Between 1986 and 1989, Saddam Hussein waged a war of genocide against Iraqi Kurds. One of my former coworkers was sent in when the US decided to protect the Kurds. And then they left. And more Kurds got killed. The fact is, if you punch out an abusive boyfriend, he just takes it out on his girlfriend when you aren't looking. And as long as the guy does it in his own home, the world does not give three [redacted]s, two [redacted]s or a [redacted]. Unless there's cameras rolling, in which case, the world cares until the cameras leave. Just ask the Tiananmen demonstrators.
Then, in 1990, Saddam went too far. He stepped over a line, known as an international border. Thirty-nine countries showed up (another two contributed guns and money...although probably not lawyers) to descend on him like the veritable Hammer of God. Sure, the US sent 700,000 of the nearly a million troops, but that still leaves about 300,000 troops that others were willing to pony up to show that the world will not tolerate invasions.
Perhaps if the Kurds had had their own border, they wouldn't have been gassed. Well, they probably would have, but the lesson learned from the 40 countries putting a stop to that would have saved some Kuwaiti lives.
I realize, of course, that some geographical locations have religious significance and will always be fought over. I also realize that there are certain ideologies that will not be satisfied until the whole world subscribes to them. But while Balkanization could never bring world peace, at least some places might cool down.
Beyond preventing bloodshed, a peaceful secession might also be good economically. Besides the fact that you can now build a factory in Croatia without it getting blown to hell and gone, there may be other positive economic outcomes.
France. The Amiens Goodyear plant closed because the managers could not make money with the French worker's work ethic and demands. This, obviously, hurt the French economy. But let's look at who the French economy includes. There are currently two major separatist parties in France, the Basques and the Corsicans. Obviously, the damage to the French economy by Goodyear and a whole bunch of other international corporations over the last few years has hurt them.
Thought experiment: What if there was Basqueland and Corsica? They could put in bids for Goodyear's business. Goodyear wouldn't have to move as far, and there would be an influx in the economy of the winning nation. Perhaps the competition might drive the French to rethink their policies in an attempt to get Goodyear, et al to stay. Sure, California may not have put two and two together over worker's rights and business relocation, but I have no doubt the French are smarter than Californians. Of course, I'm pretty sure I've cultured a fungus or two that were smarter than California's leadership.
There is also the fact that fragmented economies survive better. Part of the problem late last decade was that the EU meant that Germany and other productive countries were on the hook for Greece and other unproductive countries' bills. Had Greece been allowed to fail, the European recession would not have been as extreme.
Here's what I would like to see happen: Scotland secedes, the UKIP would get a huge boost, possibly pulling the UK out of the EU. With the first major political seat calling it quits, Germany would finally have its excuse to leave. It's not like they haven't been looking for one for the last five years. Once the first major economic seat left, there really wouldn't be any reason for any more countries to keep hauling around over-extended countries bad debt. Meanwhile, other secessionist movements get a boost from Scotland's independence and Europe turns into a hundred interdependent yet independent economies. No one has the clout to bring the rest down, and all have a shot at improving themselves.
And finally, on a personal note, while Cutty Sark may claim to be "the original easy-drinking Scotch," it's really pretty harsh. I mean, Bushmills is smoother, and it's Irish.
So why do I support the break-up of a 300-year old country? Because I agree with several outspoken no-ers that Scottish Independence could have lead to a "Balkanization of Europe." Unlike those opposition campaigners, though, I think it would have been a good thing.
Currently, there are about a dozen major secessionist movements in Europe. I support them all inasmuch as they remain peaceable. An amicable Scottish departure from the UK would prove that people can withdraw without bloodshed. And the fact is, Balkanization works.
A case study: Yugoslavia. After the First World War, the victors came together to redraw the map of Europe. They decided to put about half a dozen different ethnic groups in the same country. How well did this work out? Well, for the next seventy-ish years, the ethnic groups tried to kill the ever-loving [redacted] out of each other. They all wanted a country in which they had autonomy. And since no one would recognize them as separate, they had to try to take power of their one country.
As one person noted, "The majority of life for many people is the quest to be the perpetrator instead of the victim." The Yugoslavians lived this. If the Croats won an election, it was a bad time to be a Serb; if the Serbs won, woe betide Bosnians; if the Bosnians won...well, you get the point.
Eventually, the groups all got their own countries. And ever since, there's not been a whole lot of wholesale slaughter over there. Sure, there's now six countries to remember for geography tests, but on the whole, I call thousands of people not dying a net win.
I'm pretty sure the Tutsis would have loved to get their own country around, say, 1994. Sure Don Cheadle gave an awesome performance, but that was a bit too late to save almost a million people from getting their heads macheted off.
But what if one country decides to pick off one of the new smaller countries?
Next case study: Kurdistan. Wonderfully bland name for a country...that doesn't truly exist. Instead, the Kurds are split among Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Turkey. The Kurds have long desired to secede from all four and make their own country.
Between 1986 and 1989, Saddam Hussein waged a war of genocide against Iraqi Kurds. One of my former coworkers was sent in when the US decided to protect the Kurds. And then they left. And more Kurds got killed. The fact is, if you punch out an abusive boyfriend, he just takes it out on his girlfriend when you aren't looking. And as long as the guy does it in his own home, the world does not give three [redacted]s, two [redacted]s or a [redacted]. Unless there's cameras rolling, in which case, the world cares until the cameras leave. Just ask the Tiananmen demonstrators.
Then, in 1990, Saddam went too far. He stepped over a line, known as an international border. Thirty-nine countries showed up (another two contributed guns and money...although probably not lawyers) to descend on him like the veritable Hammer of God. Sure, the US sent 700,000 of the nearly a million troops, but that still leaves about 300,000 troops that others were willing to pony up to show that the world will not tolerate invasions.
Perhaps if the Kurds had had their own border, they wouldn't have been gassed. Well, they probably would have, but the lesson learned from the 40 countries putting a stop to that would have saved some Kuwaiti lives.
I realize, of course, that some geographical locations have religious significance and will always be fought over. I also realize that there are certain ideologies that will not be satisfied until the whole world subscribes to them. But while Balkanization could never bring world peace, at least some places might cool down.
Beyond preventing bloodshed, a peaceful secession might also be good economically. Besides the fact that you can now build a factory in Croatia without it getting blown to hell and gone, there may be other positive economic outcomes.
France. The Amiens Goodyear plant closed because the managers could not make money with the French worker's work ethic and demands. This, obviously, hurt the French economy. But let's look at who the French economy includes. There are currently two major separatist parties in France, the Basques and the Corsicans. Obviously, the damage to the French economy by Goodyear and a whole bunch of other international corporations over the last few years has hurt them.
Thought experiment: What if there was Basqueland and Corsica? They could put in bids for Goodyear's business. Goodyear wouldn't have to move as far, and there would be an influx in the economy of the winning nation. Perhaps the competition might drive the French to rethink their policies in an attempt to get Goodyear, et al to stay. Sure, California may not have put two and two together over worker's rights and business relocation, but I have no doubt the French are smarter than Californians. Of course, I'm pretty sure I've cultured a fungus or two that were smarter than California's leadership.
There is also the fact that fragmented economies survive better. Part of the problem late last decade was that the EU meant that Germany and other productive countries were on the hook for Greece and other unproductive countries' bills. Had Greece been allowed to fail, the European recession would not have been as extreme.
Here's what I would like to see happen: Scotland secedes, the UKIP would get a huge boost, possibly pulling the UK out of the EU. With the first major political seat calling it quits, Germany would finally have its excuse to leave. It's not like they haven't been looking for one for the last five years. Once the first major economic seat left, there really wouldn't be any reason for any more countries to keep hauling around over-extended countries bad debt. Meanwhile, other secessionist movements get a boost from Scotland's independence and Europe turns into a hundred interdependent yet independent economies. No one has the clout to bring the rest down, and all have a shot at improving themselves.
And finally, on a personal note, while Cutty Sark may claim to be "the original easy-drinking Scotch," it's really pretty harsh. I mean, Bushmills is smoother, and it's Irish.
