It was predictable. The SNP is a total jew shill party, so the Scottish were never presented a Vision, what woulf be if Scotland became independent.
BTW if you secede and leave the economic system just as it was (usurious fractional-reserve banking with “free trade”), everything will remain the same.
Therefore the actual YES vote was 37.8% (44.7% of 84.6%) of the registered electorate.
Therefore “Scottish separatism” is a dead letter. so Brits can start improving Britain instead of wasting time on distractions. For a start they can put the SNP in their place (and not let them claim they got some sort of mandate, which is how they are now trying to spin everything), and give Con-Lab-Lib-Dem the boot ASAP (and not let them falsely claim they “saved the union”, since they were the main driving force making Britons despair of ever changing the UK with these parasites in power).
From that article: “Denny, a Republican, had cheered on the Scottish independence movement. ‘I have totally, completely lost faith in the federal government, the people running it, whether Republican, Democrat, independent, whatever,’ he said.” — That is really pathetic. He probably knows nothing about Scotalnd, but wants them to split so he can enjoy some sort of vicarious relief, because he is too lazy/dumb/brainwashed/clueless/whatever to do the same thing to escape from his DC/ZOG tyranny.
Why are you opposed to Scotland seceding? Will the UK as a whole be better off with another Labour government run by someone like Tony Blair or Gordon Brown?
“Why haven’t they released Highland’s results yet?” — Well, of course they have now — but the reason it took longer is because it’s the largest council area, with many small isolated town and villages.
THEY REALLY ARE “EVERYWHERE”
From the Reuters Sesh article:
“…self-proclaimed militia members…driving up interest in secession, experts said. ‘It seems to have heated up, especially since the election of President Obama,’ said Mordecai Lee, a professor of governmental affairs at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, who has studied secessionist movements.”
Lee was named Executive Director of the Milwaukee Jewish Council for Community Relations. Before being elected to public office himself, Lee was a legislative assistant for U.S. Representative Henry Schoellkopf Reuss. Lee was elected to the Assembly in 1976 and was elected to the Senate in 1982 and served from 1983 until 1989. He was succeeded in his Senate seat by future U.S. Representative Tom Barrett. Lee is a Democrat.
[Reuss: He left the Republican party in 1950 due to antipathy for Senator Joseph McCarthy. His wife served mayor Marion Barry in several capacities, supported the Community for Creative Non-Violence, Emily’s List, and various Democrats. He was an unsuccessful candidate for mayor of Milwaukee in 1948 and 1960, losing to Frank Zeidler and Henry Maier, respectively. Oy vey! His name graces the Reuss Plaza Federal Office Building in Milwaukee, and the National Park Service’s Henry Reuss Ice Age Center near Dundee, Wisconsin. And on and on it goes.]
Re: “Why are you opposed to Scotland seceding?”
Who is “you”?
Briefly you, I am about to get on the road.
1. I think it was just a matter of just enough voters in Scotland getting cold feet at the last moment.
2. Even so, secession is a serious matter and I think there are better ways of bringing it about than public votes where 50.1% approve and 49.9% do not.
I never said I oppose Scotland seceding from the United Kingdom.
I am not opposed to Scotland seceding from the United Kingdom.
I think it will come in time. I would like to see a political devolution of Europe whereby ethnic and cultural entities take the place of current nation-states as a prerequisite of a more viable European Union based on race and culture instead of economics, although economics will be a part, but not the end all to be all.
Example include independence for Scotland, England Wales,Northern Italy, Flanders, Wallons, basically any region that desires independence and greater autonomy within a United Europa. This philosophy will be very conducive to the Ethno-State concept in North America. Of course, liberal-modernity will have to collapse first, but that to is coming as history is cyclical.
Our philosophy should be; Self-determination for all and enforced diversity, or inclusion, for none!
Consequently I also envision Native-American, Hispanic, and Black Ethno-States also. There is no reason why we should have only one white Ethno-State in North America. (I envision several) and there is no reason why non-whites could not adopt this method.
But where? Where?
If you actually read the whole article it says rural areas especially in the Western States.
“rural areas especially in the Western States” is rather vague.
It was rigged.
25% feels realistic. Although intensity of commitment is probably about 5 to 10%, the type of folks that go in for fringe right causes like Ron Paul etc.
I dont think it would take much to double both numbers. Once the Limbaugh generation realizes that their is no electoral way to “take back America” we might start seeing them get some balls.
Secessionism is a multi-faceted subject.
On one hand, the right to self-government can be seen as good.
On the other hand though, smaller coutries are easier to crack. Smaller countries are more vulnerable agains financial manipulation, immigration, political blackmailing and so on.
When it is about totally different people living in one state, with different religion, different language, different history etc, secession is self-evident. However, whan the ‘seceders’ speak the same language and havin roughly the same culture, it is difficult.
In Scotland’s case: The SNP, being hard-core leftist and led by a Jew, lacked a Vision for Scotland, basically they wanted to keep everything as it was (The Queen, the pound, Nato etc).
What is the point of having home rule, when all the important aspects of a nation stay the same?
If the Scots had seceded, they would have created “little England” in a Scottish version, meaning more impoverished and with more weakened economy than before.
One has to adress the economic issues, namely the modern predatory capitalism, “free trade”, and the usurious fractonal reserve private banking. Without a strong nationalist protectionist economy, one is doomed to fail.
Scottland was just too similar to England in a number of ways, for secession to be succesful.
Next case: Us Southern secession.
The Southern secessionist movement wants to keep “free trade” as its economic policy.
Everybody saw what NAFTA and GATT did to the American economy, but still, Southerners are for free trade, for historical reasons. (The Confederacy exported cotton worldwide.)
The Southern secessionists want to keep fractional-reserve private banking as the default lending and borrowing system.
Fractional reserve banking and charging interests on loans are those things that we got into this mess at the first place. It enabled the jewish moneylenders to create huge amounts of money out of nothing, and control the nations with it.
The Southern secessionists want to go back to the gold and silver standard. There is simply not enough gold and silver on the world to satisfy even one country’s economic needs. Furthermore, gold and silver can be hoarded, shipped overseas etc, resulting in disastrous deflation, hurting everyone.
Unless and until the southrons do a One-Eighty on all of these subjects, they remain just as much slaves as they were before the secession.
If the South could institute segregation and pass socially conservative rules that countered BRA and yet keep the seats in the Senate, Congress and be under the defence Umrella of DC, most Dixie people would be okay with that.
The Scots get to double dip in their political representation. Why rock the boat?
I’d like to hear what Southern Nationalists think about these issues.
The article adresses some important and equally interesting questions. Let’s see them through.
What Mr Wallace referred to:
“1 in 4 Americans are open to a secession”
…it doesnt mean that does people actually want to secede. It means that they “dont mind” seceding so to speak. Those who actively support secession, are 17%.
The next graph shows that the percentage of Americans favoring a decreased immigration has dropped from 65% to 35% from 1992 to 2014. that is quite telling, even when we discount the the immigrants who are obviously in favor of immigration.
Another problem I see is the question of white Southern identity.
Ultimately, every national identity comes from a religious identity. In the South’s case, this is the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).
Data from church sources and independent surveys indicate that since 1990 membership of SBC churches has declined as a proportion of the American population. Historically, the Convention grew throughout its history until 2007, when membership decreased by a net figure of nearly 40,000 members. The total membership, of about 16.2 million, was flat over the same period, falling by 38,482, or 0.2 percent. An important indicator for the health of the denomination is new baptisms, which have decreased every year for seven of the last eight years. As of 2008, they had reached their lowest levels since 1987. Membership continued to decline from 2008 to 2012.
This decline in membership and baptisms has prompted some SBC researchers to describe the Convention as a “denomination in decline”. Former SBC president Frank Page declared that if current conditions continue, half of all SBC churches will close their doors permanently by the year 2030. This assessment is supported by a recent survey of SBC churches which indicated that 70 percent of all SBC churches are declining or are plateaued with regards to their membership.
This comes hardly as a surprise, since all the other major denominations (Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists etc) are decining as well. Only the non-denominational churches are growing, but that can be explained with the fact that believers are simply re-aligning their loyalty from the major churches to the smaller ones, that require less dedication and offer more show.
Furthermore, the SBC – as baptists traditionally do- , doesnt engage in political organizing. Of course black Christian and muslim churces regularly do it, and they are highly succeful in doing it. With this “separation of church and the state” gibberish, the southern Baptists shoot themselves in the foot.
As a final act of betrayal, some of the US evangelicals including baptists are for immigration.
Russell D. Moore, President, Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
Bryant Wright, Former President, Southern Baptist Convention
Ronnie Floyd, acting President, Southern Baptist Convention
Danny Akin, President, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Richard Land, President Emeritus, Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission
This is how the leaders of SBC stabbed their believers in the back, by selling their souls to the devil.
There we have the root of all our problems:
A spiritually ineffective church with declining membership;
a weak church, unable to organize;
a traitorous church, that is for immigration.
We see, how the traditional church of the Southerners sold them out.
Why is it important, again? Because national/cultural identity comes from religious identity. If you have declining religious identity, then what gives cultural identity is Talmudvision, consumerism, belief in the Almighty Dollar (materialism), etc.
The South needs a religious renaissance, followed by a cultural one. I have no idea how that might come about. Maybe I’m to perfectionist/idealist on this one, but it’s important to point out the idealtype sometimes. It can work without a religio-cultural renaissance as well, but with significantly lesser efficiency.
Next, I’d like to draw the outlines of a functioning and succesful political movement, but first, I’d like to hear some observations on my thoughts.
I want to see a detailed analysis of the jig/pak SNP alliance.
Darkies who are more Scot than Scot. Truer Scots than Tony Blair or Eric Blair for that matter.
I think most of us secessionists are for protectorate trade ( I am, at least). NAFTA is the reason most of our jobs were shipped over seas, and why the Central Americans are flooding our lands.
I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but there are currently two trolls on this thread, the kind that do nothing but bash any and every thing constructive that anyone does, because it’s not their time honored oh so successful strategy of sitting on the internet all day and bitching about Jews.
Perhaps the British can now figure out a way to expel the enrichers from the Island.
Why would anyone give up on the greatest political double dip in history:
“For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate … at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on English politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?”
If only Southerners had it so good…
“The Southern Poverty Law Center designates the League of the South as a neo-Confederate hate group.”
Why do they always feel the need to point this out?
I’m glad they voted no. The far-left SNP are anti-nationalism “nationalists” and their plans to create an anti-nation in Scotland have been temporarily thwarted. This ‘no’ vote will mean fewer non-white immigrants coming to Scotland than would have been the case under an open-borders SNP regime. It’s a minor victory for the white man.
Maybe a post-Salmond SNP could be purged of most of its radical leftist elements and brought at least into the political centre, particularly with regards to immigration restriction. Then in another 20-30 years hold another referendum, rinse and repeat to desired effect.
It’s ironic that just as Scotland and other regions in Europe are taking serious steps towards achieving independence, separatism is dying in its North American hotbeds, Quebec and Puerto Rico. In PR even the quasi-nationalism of Commonwealth status has been rejected in favour of applying for statehood. Outright independence is a dead letter; unfortunately for the US it will never happen.
In Quebec the PQ just lost an election (which they should have won) by merely speculating about a future independent Quebec. The PQ’s federal counterparts, the once-dominant BQ, are down to 2 seats and may be completely wiped out at the next election. Separatism is weaker today than it has been in more than 40 years and is now on a sharp downward trajectory, especially among the young.
Great Britain, so the elites have divined, will now partially devolve into an asymmetric federation to try to appease the Scots (and the Welsh and Northern Irish). Whether this will work to hold the UK together in the long run is an open question. But any move towards political decentralization should be welcomed as a good thing anywhere, any time. Next stop: Catalonia.
QD, I am actually quite thankful for the insights from European Light and from Logan Smith’s You Tube link. So, I don’t care if there are ‘trolls’ here, or not. The Jews ARE to blame for very very much of the entire world’s problems, but you can pretend that isn’t the case, while every reporter on NPR (National Propaganda Radio) is a Jew, and the last six or seven FED RES. chairmen have been of the ‘tribe.’
What EL said is true. If you don’t have a viable, unified field theory of God, the universe, and who is the Elect, you cannot win. Pretending religion and race don’t matter, is the same as being a multicultural race traitor. There is no difference. You can blather on about being ‘inclusive’ and ‘tolerant’ while the genocide continues on apace.
I remember naively writing in a Scottish online site, back when the first steps were being considered for Scottish independence. As my ancestry is Celtic, I congratulated them, and suggested that, if they wanted true independence, they should institute a ‘Celtic Aliyah’ allowing all white Scots to emigrate back to Scotland, and that, if they allowed white racially aware members who were Celtic genetically, and Christian religiously, they would have a true “Celtic Tiger” that would take over the world (thinking of the books like “How the Irish saved Civilization, etc., and how many of the great geniuses in the USA were Celtic/Scottish) … and you know what? All the response I got for my pipe dream was cries of ‘racism’ and ‘keep your Appalachian inbred self in the US, because Scotland doesn’t want that sort of ‘independence.”
So, let the effing Scots genocide themselves out of existence, at the hands of their betters, the English, who are as duped as any white nation, as to who rules their minds, hearts, and souls. The more I live, the more I realize Hitler was right, Cornelius Codreneau was a saint, the Jews ARE to blame, and Fr. Seraphim Rose was prescient, when he wrote: “In the end, ALL the Churches will serve Antichrist.” Because all nations will have miscegeneated themselves into subservience to those Deicides, whom Christ called, ‘Sons of their Father, the Devil.” Misericordie, Domine.
Huge takeaway points: it was the old wot did it guv’: below 54 years of age, the Yes won. Translated into American, fears about social security and medicare influenced voting, not to mention nostalgia for a long dead patriotism.
Tories were overwhelmingly for Union. 95% to 5%. This would be your typical Limbaugh Chamber of Commerce type who wants to “take back America”. Labour and the Lib Dems were also solidly for No at about 2/3rds each. It was the Scottish Nationalist Party (obviously) that was the largest Yes proponent at 86%. This speaks to the question of whether to work within the GOP or to scuttle it with a third party and move on.
There were reasonable arguments that an independent Scotland would be an EU foothold, and a leftist laboratory (as if the UK isn’t). I would actually argue the exact opposite. It is union that pushes Scots to the left, much like if negroes and mexicans had their own carve outs of America, they would be ultra-patriarchal and authoritarian, not UC Berkeley writ large. Look at Jews in Israel vs the International Jew: “this country belongs to the white man” to quote an Israeli Interior Minster.
All in all, the effort yielded results. That is the big lesson.
Actually, I think Scotland pushes the rest of the UK to the Left, not the other way around. Though the Scottish are not necessarily Leftists, they vote for Leftist parties to spite England.
“Actually, I think Scotland pushes the rest of the UK to the Left, not the other way around. Though the Scottish are not necessarily Leftists, they vote for Leftist parties to spite England.”
Too complicated thinking. If they wanna “spite” England so much, they would have voted for secession. Additionally, there would be a huge anti-Brit sentiment, which is just simply not there.
You also wrote
“I think most of us secessionists are for protectorate trade ( I am, at least).”
Well, it would be useful to know the party line on this, I suppose if the Southern secessionist are so much for “small government” that “leaves people and businesses alone” then it logically follows that the trade will be as free as possible, to foster export.
Of course the solution would is a strong nationalist protectionist economy, but that just won’t happen. The Southerners dont seem to have the mindset. They are stuck with jew shill libertardian talking points: government = tyranny, tax=tribute , only gold is good money (“hard currency”) etc etc…
Well, good luck with that. We’ll see how far that gets you all.
“QD, I am actually quite thankful for the insights from European Light and from Logan Smith’s You Tube link.”