Many of my ancestors were Scottish, which is more than a point of historical interest for me. It's a fundamental part of who I am: independent, frugal, stern, Protestant, and slow to anger but implacable when sufficiently provoked (Irish and Latin Americans are often quite the opposite, not merely with regard to their Catholicism, but especially in that they are quick to anger yet can laugh things off the next day -- wrong an Irishman or Latino and you may still wind up friends after swapping a few punches; wrong a Scotsman and you are dead, either in fact or in effect). My people played a major role in the settlement and eventual independence of America, not to mention the South's heroic attempt to remain independent when beset by an industrialized, vulgar, and soulless behemoth that declared jihad against the private slavery of some in order to establish public slavery of all. It's no accident that the St. Andrew's cross adorning the Scottish flag made its mark on behalf of the C.S.A.; the cross is a universal symbol for the uncompromising spirit of independence.
Scotland has been fused with the United Kingdom since 1707 -- longer than the United States has existed -- yet Scotland now is deciding whether to go its own way. Such deliberation is heroic even if it does not produce independence, for the message is that the Scots (and the rest of us) have an undeniable right to make this choice. As the United States and the European Union continue their obscene power-grabbing, more and more people will rightfully consider whether they want to remain a party to it. There is no patriotic duty for Scotland to meekly obey the smug elitists gathered in London or Brussels, who (along with their crony-capitalist friends) are all rather perturbed that a people would dare to consider ruling itself rather than answer to outsiders. Just the same, there is no patriotic duty for Americans to meekly obey the smug elitists gathered in Washington, D.C., whose reign is shorter than the U.K.'s and is now in flagrant violation of the very document (the Constitution) that created it.
As I've said before, the mega-state is lashing out and growing more brazen precisely because it senses its legitimacy slipping away. Finding itself ever more deprived of oxygen, it scrambles wildly to breathe. For this reason things are poised to become even more repressive and violent in the near future, but this likely signals the grand finale of the nation-state that debuted at Westphalia in 1648. The age of centralization is drawing to a close. The age of decentralization -- with multiple, small, responsive, and humble governments that serve their societies rather than try to rule or transform them -- draws near.
Scotland is on the cutting edge of this revolution, and I hope it follows through. Even if it does not, we should thank Scotland for setting an example and devote ourselves more seriously to asking these questions for ourselves. Waving the Union Jack or the Stars and Stripes around just doesn't cut it anymore and will not shame everyone into silence.
UPDATE:
I've been following some of the debates surrounding the Scottish vote, and one argument against independence I keep running into is this: an independent Scotland would be even further to the left (i.e., less free) than if it remained in the UK. This argument is insidious, for independence and national self-determination are fundamental rights regardless of how wisely or unwisely a people chooses to govern itself. Gandhi smacked down the imperial argument in similar terms when struggling to liberate India from the Raj, explaining that whatever problems India had were for India alone to resolve. To assert that independence is warranted only for people who would govern themselves "properly" is a contradiction in terms, a denial of independence all together. Moreover, it repeats the rationalizations for centralized power that have plagued the United States since the Civil War. Following that massive deprivation of life and liberty in the name of freedom, federal courts have systematically interfered in local matters under the same pretense, destroying our sovereignty while claiming to do us a favor. I hasten to add that both "liberals" and "conservatives" have perpetrated these outrages against independence, running to federal court whenever a local rule or regulation displeases them.
If I had to choose between living in a world with a single libertarian government versus a world with hundreds of non-libertarian ones, I would choose the latter every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Why, especially considering that I prefer a libertarian government to a non-libertarian one? Because when the global libertarian government goes sour -- as it inevitably will -- there is nowhere to run. At least with multiple governments we have options, and the severity of harm any one such government could inflict pales in comparison to what a global government might do to us.
Bottom line, there can be no true or lasting freedom without independence.
SECOND UPDATE:
It appears Scotland has chosen not to be independent for now, which is fine. What matters is that Scotland's and other nations' choices be honored either way, rather than held up as a casus belli to invade and repress. We have some experience with that here in the U.S., as do the Crimeans who wish to leave the Ukraine.
I should note in passing that America never would have gained independence from Great Britain had the matter been put to a popular vote, since the majority (as always) didn't want to upset the applecart. Even if a majority of Americans had voted to leave, it's unlikely that the Crown would complacently have accepted that outcome. When push comes to shove, independence is something that must be taken rather than requested.
No comments:
Post a Comment