After watching this, there is only one course of action for civilised folks.:
Look, I was all down with Scottish secession, but one thing about the Scottish really annoys me. Why does Scotland have one t but Scottish has two? Maybe their next referendum should be “one t or two.” I’m tired of spell check finger wagging at me.
This is how neocon Lincoln idolaters would respond to Scottish secession if given the chance.
HT: Doug Mataconis
Willie is one of Scotland’s undecided voters.
H/T: SoCal Patriot
In the following speech excerpts, Enoch Powell clearly states he favours secession if the inhabitants of a part of the UK wish to secede. And he favours devolution if it improves the “control and supervision and execution of administration”. However, Powell rejects a course towards the disunity of the United Kingdom, which he views as a single nationality: British. Powell fears devolution will bring the perception that Scotland and Wales are nations distinct from the English nation. This perception could lead 1. to a transformation of the UK from a unitary state into a federal state or 2. to the break-up of the UK. For if Scotland and Wales are distinct nations with some powers, it’s a small step to view them as rightly sovereign nations as opposed to subservient administrative units under the House of Commons and within a greater unified nation of Britain.
Not quoted here, though you can find it in the speech itself: Powell highlights a fear that under a federal “United States of Europe”, Scotland and Wales will perceive themselves as natural members of this new United States of Europe rather than as members of the UK.
Enoch Powell speaks:
If this were an exercise in administrative devolution, we should not be contemplating Assemblies for Wales and Scotland. No one looking for convenient units for devolved administration would hit upon the Principality of Wales and the former Kingdom of Scotland. All sorts of other combinations and regions might be discovered, but not those two.
We are talking about Assemblies for the Principality and for the former Kingdom of Scotland because these purport to be—are widely believed and claimed to be—nations, and because the proposition of Assemblies in which they would be represented by direct election is an acceptance of that claim, or at least corresponds in the minds of those who put it forward to some notion of a nationhood in Scotland and a nationhood in Wales.
Once we concede that point and say that it is right that Scotland should be represented by a directly elected Assembly, we can hardly say that that Assembly should not have legislative powers, or that it should only be able to administer, like a local authority, within exactly the same framework as the rest of the United Kingdom. The whole argument for establishing it is that it will be able to pursue different policies, implying different laws—and presumably also different taxation—from the rest of the realm.
This is a debate not about administrative devolution, but about the establishment of national, directly elected legislative bodies. Having contemplated that for nearly four days, this House has seen the implicit conflict and contradiction that lies in such a proposal within the unitary state of the United Kingdom, namely that it is not possible for the same electorate to be represented directly in two legislative Assemblies unless one of two things occurs: either the unitary State must become federal, with a pre-determined area within which the one set of elected representatives is sovereign and another area in which the representation of the whole realm is to be sovereign; or there must sooner or later as a consequence be separation and the recognition of separate sovereignties. It is not right that we should underestimate the difficulty, once we have conceded that Scotland as a nation should be represented by a directly elected representative Assembly, of setting any logical bounds to the area within which that Assembly should be conceded, under any constitution, the right to legislate.
We have to face the fact that the establishment of directly elected legislative Assemblies will confront us with the choice of separation, of conversion to a federal State with all its implications, or of an attempt to reverse the process and somehow subordinate the new Assemblies to the sovereignty of this House.
I do not believe that the loyalty of those many who over those 270 years, and particularly in this century, worked together and died together as part of the Union under the Crown, was to the Crown quite simply, even though they 1006 wore the Crown on their uniforms and many of them wore it on their hearts. They were not the mercenaries of a Habsburg empire bound together by personal union and dynastic marriages; they were not the servants of a Hohenzollern empire imposed by military force. It was the Crown of the United Kingdom in Parliament which was the centre of loyalty, as it is the essential unifying element of this realm, in the name of which and under the inspiration of which men and women these 270 years have worked and lived and died together.
For myself I cannot imagine how the history of the United Kingdom can be understood apart from this House and apart from its sovereignty. Nor do I see how it can have a future apart from this House and its sovereignty. So I say to devolution—if it means an improvement in the control and supervision and execution of administration, yes; if they can be improved, let us do it. To separation, I say—if it is the settled and determined and preponderant wish of the inhabitants in any part of the United Kingdom no longer to remain part of the United Kingdom, with regret, so be it. But that this House by its own actions, by its own self-deceptions, should set in train a course of constitutional action which must lead either to the conversion of this country into something totally different and unrecognisable or to the destruction of the unity of whatever this realm is to be, the unity brought to a focus in this House—I say “No” to that, whether that sovereignty be seen from inside or from outside.
Source: Speech in the House of Commons against devolution to Scotland and Wales. 19 January 1976.
Also see: The Abolition of Britain: From Winston Churchill to Princess Diana by Peter Hitchens (which I have not yet read).
Separately from Powell, I believe Hitchens wants a breakup, though on amicable terms.
Additionally: “Scotland Should Stay in the Union” by Jared Taylor. AmRen. September 16, 2014.
“Why I Support Scottish Independence” by Greg Johnson. Counter-Currents. September 17, 2014.
Why I Support Scottish Independence—ANY Devolution Better Than Globalist Status Quo by James Kirkpatrick. VDARE. September 17, 2014.
As for myself: I want all perspectives heard and for the British to then decide.
David Frum doesn’t want the Scots to govern themselves. You remember Frum, don’t you? He’s the whiny little Neocon who hates the South and once smeared conservatives who opposed the illegal and counter-productive invasion of Iraq as “unpatriotic.” (Because the definition of “conservatism” is blind obedience to the Commander in chief, you see.)
It’s no surprise this girly-man disapproves of Scottish independence. His rationale? It would harm “American interests” by diminishing Britain’s “contribution to global security.” London has long depended on Scottish pluck to fight its wars, and the Scots have had enough. The union of England and Scotland was the foundation of the British Empire. Well guess what, Frum? That empire is no more. Ceased to be. Changing circumstances require changing political arrangements, and Scottish independence recognizes that the imperial project is shattered and cannot be patched back together.
I hope Frum’s shrill, schoolmarmish sermon to vote “No” incites the thrawn Scots to do the opposite.
We probably haven’t been covering this ISIS situation as much as we should have. Here are a couple of links.
This article by Justin Raimondo demonstrates the foolishness of us supporting any side in this Middle Eastern mess. Beheaded Journalist Steven Sotloff was allegedly sold to ISIS by moderates in Syria that we support. What fools we are.
Here is Raimondo on the President’s less than inspiring ISIS speech.
Here is Andrew Bacevich suggesting that Obama is missing the point. He is right. Read the article. I don’t want to give away the main point because I think it is important and something I want to elaborate on in detail in the future.
Since discovering this world of video game community Social Justice Warriors, I just can’t look away. It’s like a bad train wreck. I can see My Little Pony Social Justice Warriors. Or chick lit Social Justice Warriors. But gamer Social Justice Warriors just seem like such a mismatch. Why don’t all the gamers just tell them to go away.
Anyway, did Anita Sarkeesian, a 4 star general in the SJW army, fake a death threat and then attempt to raise funds off that? If so, that’s kind of a problem.
Apparently there is a law in Florida against “paramilitary training.” That’s absurd and just plain wrong. If this guy is guilty of conspiring to commit a crime, then charge him with that, but to make paramilitary training per se a crime is outrageous. In fact, since we unfortunately no longer have “well regulated” state militias as we should have, responsible upstanding citizens should be encouraged to paramilitary train. I thought Florida was better than this.
I am sad to hear of the passing of Kirk scholar Wesley McDonald. This article explains his life and work. He was my Facebook friend. I wish I had a chance to know him other than virtually. May he R.I.P.
Not only Scottish secession from the UK but UK secession from the EU: George Soros condemns both in the Financial Times.
Resurgent nationalism and illiberal democracy are on the rise within Europe, at its borders and around the globe.
With the Russian invasion of Ukraine, military conflict has spread to Europe. Two radically different forms of government are competing for ascendancy. The EU stands for principles of liberal democracy, international governance and the rule of law. In Russia, President Vladimir Putin maintains the outward appearance of democracy by exploiting a narrative of ethnic and religious nationalism to generate popular support for his corrupt, authoritarian regime.
What this boils down to is: The financial pirate needs an open international system to maximise and retain his obscene profits. In his 2003 book, Soros writes repeatedly of his concerns with nativism. And Soros has long funded a more international society with his Faithful America, Open Society Institute, Center for American Progress, and similar organisations.
More recently, Soros-funded FEMEN mocked Dominique Vesser’s suicide.
It’s billionaire capitalists leading this wider charge for globalism.
I propose a new term: PC peacock. A PC peacock is someone who very publicly and loudly beats his chest and wails and gnashes his teeth about some alleged transgression against rightthink. The ostensible reason for this display is to bemoan the existence somewhere, anywhere, of the slightest expression of wrongthink. The real reason, however, for this preening and posturing is, like the peacock, to draw attention to the protestor and make it clear that he is not one of those evil wrongthinkers. That he is, in fact, an enlightened pristine rightthinker. That these expressions of outrage are feigned and these PC peacocks are insincere should be the default assumption because no one with any experience in the real world could actually be that shocked by what are often commonplaces. The verb form of this activity is PC peacocking. PC Peacocking should generally be met with sighs and eye-rolls. If you are the target of PC peacocking for alleged wrongthink, the reaction should be combative defense and calling out the peacocker for his outrageous silliness, not acquiescence, and certainly not abject apology.
I been really worked up over this Ray Rice hysteria. I like to call incidents like these “public PC moral panics.” I don’t have time to write a long post now, so here are two recent Facebook posts I wrote, both of which generated several comments, not all favorable.
Hey, I know how we can punish Ray Rice for hitting his wife. Let’s fire him so he can no longer support said wife. The PC lynch mob mentality makes people idiots.
Yesterday I asked if anyone had bothered to ask Ray Rice’s wife if she wanted her husband fired and suspended. Well, apparently no one did because she is now on record condemning it in no uncertain terms. I hope you PC hiveminders feel good about yourselves. You just ruined three peoples’ lives (Ray Rice, his wife and their kid) but at least you get to morally preen and feign outrage so everyone will know you are enlightened rightthinkers. Good grief! This PC hivemind absurdity must end!
*I plan to modify this post with links once I’m at a computer that allows me to cut and paste. For now if you are not familiar with the story just Google it.*
This is a very interesting story. Jack the Ripper has reportedly been identified using DNA from one of the victims’ scarves. The DNA matches a female descendant of Aaron Kosminski, one of the primary suspects. The results have yet to be peer reviewed and many suggest that over the years the scarf has been contaminated, but unless these results are just a fraudulent efforts to sell a book (which comes out tomorrow), it’s hard to believe that the scarf would just coincidently contain the DNA of one of the major suspects.
I’m not a huge Ripper enthusiast, but I have followed the issue with some interest over the years. When I visited London, going to the Ripper Museum was on my must see tourist list, if that gives you any indication.
The interesting thing about “Ripperologists” is that they tend to group into partisan factions each heavily invested in their own candidate. I’m very interested to see how this plays out. Will the other partisans concede the mystery solved or will they fault find the results in an effort to keep their candidate alive. Modifications to the Jack the Ripper Wiki entry are on hold for now if that is any indication.
For what its worth, Kominski always struck me as a highly plausible candidate. He was committed to an insane asylum after the “canonical” murders stopped. (Yes there are canonical murders that are universally agreed upon as the Ripper’s handiwork, and some that are speculative.)
What I suspect will disappoint many Ripperologists is that Jack the Ripper really was just a crazy but pedestrian guy and not someone more exotic.
I am very curious if there is any record of what symptoms Kominsky had that warranted commitment to an insane asylum. (I doubt there are.) Serial killers are often people in that gray area between outright crazy and just really screwed up pathological personalities. Serial killers aren’t often outright schizophrenics for example. It is tempting to believe that the police at the time were pretty sure Kominski was the culprit (he had been detained and questioned at one point) but didn’t have the evidence so they went the mental health route to get him off the street.
Sorry, this is a bit late, but I’m still having computer access issues.
Recently I left a comment on a Jack Hunter Facebook thread. Jack responded in a rather irritated manner. As I have said before, I like Jack Hunter, but he is really starting to trend PC. My theory is that this trend is insincere. I think he is just posturing to rid himself of the taint of the Southern Avenger. That is essentially the comment I left, and that is what irritated Jack.
I’m currently searching for the thread without any luck. I’ll post a link if I ever find it. But in it, Jack says he really does believe all the PC foolishness he is spouting these days.
(Maybe someone can help me with my search. When I click on my notifications icon, at the bottom I can click see all, but it only takes me as far back as 31 Aug. Is there a way to go back further to find the thread I’m referring to?)
Prime Minister David Cameron must REALLY be afraid the Scots will vote for self-determination. Not only is he resorting to scare tactics, but he’s spouting pure nonsense in a clumsy attempt to frighten Scots into rejecting self-rule:
David Cameron today warned that Scotland would be more at risk from terrorism if it votes for independence.
The Prime Minister said the United Kingdom had the best security and intelligence services in the world to keep people safe.
He said the safety of staying together in a ‘very dangerous and insecure world’ was one of the ‘strongest arguments’ against separation.
Boy, is Cameron desperate! Where was the “best security and intelligence services in the world” when Muslim terrorists bombed the London subway, killing 52 and wounding 700? And don’t forget – it was the British government that imported those murderers and then ignited their anger by invading Iraq.
And speaking of importing Muslim terrorists, let’s not overlook small-scale terror committed by Muslim immigrants, who not only recently beheaded an elderly lady, but managed to murder a British soldier in broad daylight. Anyone who doesn’t believe Muslim immigrants are a hostile and alien population should ask one of the 1,400 girls brutalized and exploited by Pakistani immigrants in Rotherham.
Scots should vote for independence just to separate themselves from lunatics like David Cameron.
I received the following news in an e-mail. It is worth passing on regardless of what one may think of Steele and his situation. For those who don’t know of him, Edgar Steele was a racialist of some renown. In 2011, he was convicted of hiring someone to kill his wife. Many racialists maintained that the charges against him were trumped up by the government in an effort to shut Steele up. I make no claim as to his guilt or innocence, although they reportedly had him on tape. We do know for a fact that he was actively soliciting women on the internet, which was alleged to be his motive for wanting to get rid of his wife. His wife stood by him through the trial and afterwards, however. Read the Wiki entry to get some idea of where Steele stands in the grand scheme of things.
GOVERNMENT MURDERS EDGAR STEELE – CAN THEY GET AWAY WITH IT?
Today, September 4, 2014, early afternoon, a California mortuary notified Mrs. Cyndi Steele that her husband Edgar was dead. At this time, specific circumstances regarding Mr. Steele’s death are being confirmed. The Free Edgar Steele web site and the Edgar Steele Defense Fund (ESDF) will release more information when available.
Mrs. Steele contacted the ESDF Board, saying she was utterly devastated by this information, and is furious that no Victorville representative contacted her in the last few days regarding his failing health and did not even call her regarding the death of her husband. It was cruel to allow the mortuary to make the call.
Based on the best knowledge at hand, the following are the most likely causes of death: drug overdoses, persistently delayed, insufficient, improper medical treatment and medical neglect. The federal government and Victorville Penitentiary bears responsibility for the lives of the inmates who reside there and has refused to be accountable for the decline in Edgar Steele’s health.
Some hours before Mrs. Steele was contacted by the mortuary, ESDF President Robert Magnuson received an email corroborating Ms. Steele’s concern for her husband’s health and safety that showed Mr. Steele’s health has been in a sharp decline for the past month, which fact was obscured, if not hidden by the federal government.
First, Mr. Steele was the victim of a false prosecution, then he was imprisoned in the most dangerous prison health in America. Then his wife was never allowed to visit him despite a court order allowing visitation. Then, his health was compromised because of neglect, and finally, the reports came in that he had been drugged out of his mind earlier this week, which was the final blow that killed him. Call it anything else you like, but it is murder.
The facts of this tragic situation will be disclosed as the information is gathered.
Rand assures us, in Time no less, that he’s not one of those awful isolationists.
Yes Rand, we get it. You are not your daddy, which is why I’m still looking for a candidate to support in 2016.
Ron Paul was a great Congressman, but I’m beginning to doubt his parenting skills. He obviously didn’t spank Rand enough.
I don’t know. When he’s not featuring R-rated porn to boost his numbers on what he imagines is a “serious” political site, Donald Douglas is cheering on yet another war that he doesn’t have to fight. Clearly desperate to get a job with a Neocon think tank, he eagerly smears those who oppose DC’s agenda of perpetual war or who question US taxpayer subsidies to the Israeli government.
But Douglas’ hit piece on William Lind is pure slime scraped from the bottom of a third-world sewer. Douglas not only maligns Lind, but tosses in links to other hit pieces that slander the South and Jefferson Davis.
And notice that those pieces he links to favorably mention the Southern Poverty Law Center and the ADL, two leftist hit squads. You know a man by the company he keeps.