Charles Stross’ essay about his support for Scottish independence illustrates a view of geopolitics which seems entirely sensible, and which accords with my feelings about Cascadian independence.
My feeling is that we’d be better served by a group of much smaller nations working in a loose confederation or treaty structure. Their job should be to handle local issues (yes, this is localism) while compartmentalizing failure modes: the failure modes of a gigantic imperial power are almost always far worse than those of a smaller nation (compare the disintegration of the Soviet Union with that of Czecheslovakia). Rather than large monolithic states run by people at the top who are so remote from their constituents that they set policy to please lobbyists rather than their electors, I’d prefer to see treaty organizations like NATO and the EU emerging at consensus after discussions among numerous smaller stakeholder entities, where representatives are actually accountable to their electors. (Call me a utopian, if you will.)
That isn’t what the independence campaign wants though.
They want 100% independence, yet want to keep our currency, rates etc. They want independence, yet remain part of the UK when it comes to dealing with the EU. They want it all their own way and each time they’re told “sorry, that’s not the way it will work”, they scream and shout louder “you’re bullies”, “you’re running scared” etc etc.
Alex Salmond is amongst the most untrustworthy politicians I have ever had the displeasure of listening to. His isn’t a campaign to benefit the Scottish people, his is a personal campaign. He wants the glory of being the man who liberated Scotland, regardless of the consequences / implications.
His policies / plans are ill thought out and are largely based upon promises and hopes that the rest of the UK have said “no” to. He’s a bloody idiot.
Comment by Andy — September 11, 2014 @ 10:58 pm