If a state wanted to leave the United States...

[Noir]

What exactly would happen?

Like, Say Hawaii decided that it would be better off without federal funding, and taxes, and would be able to support itself through tourism alone, and their was a popular political movement to separate from the USA and set itself up as a small country, would they be allowed to? How would they be stopped?

Justa wee ponder that came to mind.

[ConHog]

What exactly would happen?

Like, Say Hawaii decided that it would be better off without federal funding, and taxes, and would be able to support itself through tourism alone, and their was a popular political movement to separate from the USA and set itself up as a small country, would they be allowed to? How would they be stopped?

Justa wee ponder that came to mind.

If Hawaii attempted to secede The Chosen One would federalize the Hawaiin National Guard and stomp that shit out.

[Noir]

If Hawaii attempted to secede The Chosen One would federalize the Hawaiin National Guard and stomp that shit out.

And do what? Imprision those who want to seperate? Dismiss the local governments and rule from Washinton? What exactly?

[revelarts]

If Hawaii attempted to secede The Chosen One would federalize the Hawaiin National Guard and stomp that shit out.
your probably right.
that's how it became a state in the first place.

But I dunno more than a few states are collecting people with that mind set in that direction.

"The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property. The success of the Project would likely entail reductions in taxation and regulation, reforms at all levels of government, to expand individual rights and free markets, and a restoration of constitutional federalism, demonstrating the benefits of liberty to the rest of the nation and the world. "

But real Seccesion


from wikiState secession Some states have movements which see secession from the United States itself and the formation of a nation from one or more states.


Alaska (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Alaska): In November 2006, the Alaska Supreme Court (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Alaska_Supreme_Court) held in the case Kohlhaas v. State (http://touchngo.com/sp/html/sp-6072.htm) that secession was illegal, and refused to permit an initiative to be presented to the people of Alaska for a vote. The Alaskan Independence Party (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Alaskan_Independence_Party) remains a factor in state politics.[citation needed (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]



Florida (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Florida): The mock 1982 secessionist protest[citation needed (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] by the Conch Republic (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Conch_Republic) in the Florida Keys resulted in an ongoing source of local pride and tourist amusement.



Georgia (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Georgia_%28U.S._state%29): On April 1, 2009, the Georgia State Senate (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Georgia_State_Senate) passed a resolution 43-1 that affirmed the right of states to nullify federal laws. The resolution also included the assertion that if Congress took certain steps, including restricting firearms or ammunition, the United States government would cease to exist.[80] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-79)



Hawaii (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hawaii): The Hawaiian sovereignty movement (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hawaiian_sovereignty_movement) has a number of active groups that have won some concessions from the state of Hawaii, including the offering of H.R. 258 in March 2011 which removes the words "Treaty of Annexation" from a statue. It has passed a committee recommendation 6-0 thus far.[81] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-80)



League of the South (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/League_of_the_South): The group seeks "a free and independent Southern republic"[82] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-81) made up of the former Confederacy (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America).[83] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-82) It operated a short lived Southern Party (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Southern_Party) supporting the right of states to secede from the Union or to legally nullify federal laws.[84] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-83) Some describe these movements as neo-confederate (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Neo-confederate).



With the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) to hear District of Columbia v. Heller (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) in late 2007, an early 2008 movement began in Montana (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Montana) involving at least 60 elected officials addressing potential secession if the Second Amendment (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) were interpreted not to grant an individual right, citing its compact with the United States of America.[85] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-84)



South Carolina (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/South_Carolina): In May 2010 a group was formed calling itself the Third Palmetto Republic (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Third_Palmetto_Republic&action=edit&redlink=1), a reference to the fact that the state claimed to be an independent republic twice before in its history: Once in 1776 and again in 1860. The group was modeled after the Second Vermont Republic and says its aims are for a free and independent South Carolina, and to abstain from any further federations.



Texas Secession Movement (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Texas_Secession_Movement): The group Republic of Texas (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Republic_of_Texas_%28group%29) generated national publicity for its controversial actions in the late 1990s.[86] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-85) A small group still meets.[87] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-86) In April 2009, Rick Perry (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Rick_Perry), the Governor of Texas, raised the issue of secession in disputed comments during a speech at a Tea Party protest (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Tea_Party_protests) saying "Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that...My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that."[88] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-87)[89] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-88)[90] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-89)[91] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-90)



Vermont (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Vermont): The Second Vermont Republic (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Second_Vermont_Republic), founded in 2003, is a loose network of several groups which describes itself as "a nonviolent citizens' network and think tank opposed to the tyranny of Corporate America and the U.S. government, and committed to the peaceful return of Vermont to its status as an independent republic and more broadly the dissolution of the Union."[92] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-91)[93] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-92) Its "primary objective is to extricate Vermont peacefully from the United States as soon as possible.”[94] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Kauffman-93) They have worked closely with the Middlebury Institute (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Middlebury_Institute) created from a meeting sponsored in Vermont in 2004.[95] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-94)[96] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-95) On October 28, 2005, activists held the Vermont Independence Conference, “the first statewide convention on secession in the United States since North Carolina voted to secede from the Union on May 20, 1861.”[94] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Kauffman-93) They also participated in the 2006 and 2007 Middlebury-organized national secessionist meetings which brought delegates from over a dozen groups.[97] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-96)[98] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-97)[99] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-98)



Republic of Lakotah (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Republic_of_Lakotah): Some members of the Lakota people of Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota created the Republic to assert the independence of a nation that was always sovereign and did not willingly join the United States; therefore they do not consider themselves technically to be secessionists.[100] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-99)



Pacific Northwest (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Pacific_Northwest): There have been repeated attempts to form a Republic of Cascadia (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Cascadia_%28independence_movement%29) in the northwest.[101] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-100)[102] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-101)[103] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-102)[104] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-103)[105] (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-104)....


https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#State_secession

[NightTrain]

There are always a few nutjobs running around Alaska saying we need to secede... it never goes anywhere. It's loony enough that it picks up media attention, probably only locally but every couple of years you'll see a "new movement" (read, new spokesman) trying to sell the idea.

Noir, look up the American Civil War - the South tried to secede from the Union and failed. The only way something like that would fly is military defeat, because the Federal Government would move against the rebels and it just isn't plausible that enough States would sign on to an idea like that. Even now with Obama actively trying to wreck the country.

I'm not saying it's impossible; only very unlikely. It would come to combat.

[DragonStryk72]

What exactly would happen?

Like, Say Hawaii decided that it would be better off without federal funding, and taxes, and would be able to support itself through tourism alone, and their was a popular political movement to separate from the USA and set itself up as a small country, would they be allowed to? How would they be stopped?

Justa wee ponder that came to mind.

Actually, a better example for possible success would be Texas. It has the largest landmass of any state, more military facilities, and enough firearms in the hands of ordinary citizenry to hold their own.

Actually, Because of how thinly we've strung our military, it would be a hard fight, depending upon the will of the people involved. If the state were truly united behind the secession, there's really very little the government could do short of genocide. It would get pretty bloody though before the end.

[Noir]

I'm not saying it's impossible; only very unlikely. It would come to combat.


Actually, Because of how thinly we've strung our military, it would be a hard fight, depending upon the will of the people involved. If the state were truly united behind the secession, there's really very little the government could do short of genocide. It would get pretty bloody though before the end.

But what if the movement for seperation isn't a violent one? Would you have the military shooting dead peaceful protestors?

Ther are quite a few ex-military on the board, would they be happy to kill unarmed persons because of political difference?

[KarlMarx]

But what if the movement for seperation isn't a violent one? Would you have the military shooting dead peaceful protestors?

Ther are quite a few ex-military on the board, would they be happy to kill unarmed persons because of political difference?

That's what the American Civil War was all about. Many believe it was over the issue of slavery, but the real issue was to preserve the union. The reason that the Southern States seceded was the issue of slavery. The result was truly violent. In all of American history no war equals in number of casualties and deaths the American Civil War (that's because Americans made up both sides. Also, the bloodiest battles in American history were fought during the American Civil War (Antietam and Gettysburg were the two bloodiest, the number of dead during the battle of Gettysburg in just 3 days of fighting equaled all American deaths during the entire Vietnam war)

[DragonStryk72]

But what if the movement for seperation isn't a violent one? Would you have the military shooting dead peaceful protestors?

Ther are quite a few ex-military on the board, would they be happy to kill unarmed persons because of political difference?

Even if it were non-violent, and honestly, it would be non-violent, it would still lead to violence. Just like in 1776, all we did was send a document to England declaring our secession, and we see how well that went...

See, the thing is that the country being seceded from can't allow the secession, or else it looks like they cannot rule their own lands, and other secession attempts follow.

Just like the Civil War, many soldier would be torn, and you would see a lot switch sides at some point, as well as family being on opposing sides of the war. As to genocide, no, that's pretty much where the US would stop, because despite it all, we just aren't those kind of people. Just as at some point England realized that the fighters in America were never going to stop, that they could send 10s of thousands more units, and we would still keep fighting down to our last, and it would go on, there would be no end. Even if they had killed the Founders, it would have made them martyrs, and rallied more to the cause. No secession could possibly succeed without the unwavering support of the people.

[Noir]

That's what the American Civil War was all about. Many believe it was over the issue of slavery, but the real issue was to preserve the union. The reason that the Southern States seceded was the issue of slavery. The result was truly violent. In all of American history no war equals in number of casualties and deaths the American Civil War (that's because Americans made up both sides. Also, the bloodiest battles in American history were fought during the American Civil War (Antietam and Gettysburg were the two bloodiest, the number of dead during the battle of Gettysburg in just 3 days of fighting equaled all American deaths during the entire Vietnam war)

Will that's kinda relevant I don't think you can directly port what happened then to now, would Americans will fully kill other Americns, who are peaceful in their political ambitions?

[DragonStryk72]

Will that's kinda relevant I don't think you can directly port what happened then to now, would Americans will fully kill other Americns, who are peaceful in their political ambitions?

From the Nation's standpoint, the state is leaving the union, taking US property with it. It wouldn't matter that's it's the US, Noir. England, France, Spain, China, they have all had secession movements that they stamped out at some point along the line. Any country, at any time will move to protect its lands. And yes, you can port that directly to today, in a context of secession, the Revolutionary War is exactly what you're talking about. A state (or colony in this case) takes a vote, decides to declare its independence, and send a letter stating such intent to England. England pretty much respond with, "you're out of your bloody minds," and the ball gets rolling from there. Even if the main movement is peaceful, there will be extremists on both sides who ramp it up, either by accident or design. reference the "shot heard round the world" or the Boston Tea Party.

If I peacefully steal your car, you are still going to call the cops, and the cops are still going to arrest me and recover the car that was not my property, and if I resist arrest, there is a good chance I will get hit with a nightstick, maced, or even shot depending on how I go about it.

[ConHog]

But what if the movement for seperation isn't a violent one? Would you have the military shooting dead peaceful protestors?

Ther are quite a few ex-military on the board, would they be happy to kill unarmed persons because of political difference?

Absolutely not, In fact I honestly retired from the military because I believed there is a chance Obama would call on the military to put down Americans who oppose his ideas. He's that egotistical.

But actual secession, that's a different matter.

[Trigg]

But what if the movement for seperation isn't a violent one? Would you have the military shooting dead peaceful protestors?

Ther are quite a few ex-military on the board, would they be happy to kill unarmed persons because of political difference?

Do you honestly think it could stay non-violent?? I doubt it.

Look how many peaceful protests turn into riots because of a few people, and YES the police do start to fire into the protestors. They are using non-lethal weapons, but I guarantee they'd start using guns if the protestors brought theirs out.

I don't think the federal gov. would allow a seperation, which is a shame because I truely believe that if a state wants to leave the union they should be allowed to, if the electorate wants it.

[Noir]

Do you honestly think it could stay non-violent?? I doubt it.

Look how many peaceful protests turn into riots because of a few people, and YES the police do start to fire into the protestors. They are using non-lethal weapons, but I guarantee they'd start using guns if the protestors brought theirs out.

I don't think the federal gov. would allow a seperation, which is a shame because I truely believe that if a state wants to leave the union they should be allowed to, if the electorate wants it.

I honestly think it could...i mean, in the UK we've had a popular (and getting more popular) movement for Scotland to become an independent nation. I've never seen a shred of violence about it, and the Scottish independent party are now have a Majority in the Local Government Parliament so its likely in the next decade they will make a bid for independence in the next decade or two.

I was duly wondering what the implications would be if a US state tried the same, somewhat bizarrely IMO you guys all seem to look at it in terms of violence.

[jimnyc]

I honestly think it could...i mean, in the UK we've had a popular (and getting more popular) movement for Scotland to become an independent nation. I've never seen a shred of violence about it, and the Scottish independent party are now have a Majority in the Local Government Parliament so its likely in the next decade they will make a bid for independence in the next decade or two.

I was duly wondering what the implications would be if a US state tried the same, somewhat bizarrely IMO you guys all seem to look at it in terms of violence.

Because most here are talking about if it actually reached the point that they were in fact going to secede, that the nation wouldn't allow it. We're not talking about a "movement" to get to a vote. If Scotland does that, and actually gets to the point that they vote and determine to secede, do you think it''l remain totally peaceful and no one would step in and try to stop it from happening? Then what do you think Scotland residents will do when they are told they ain't going nowhere?

[Gaffer]

Whether there is violence depends on the reason for succession. And depends on how determined the federal govt is on keeping the country whole. The loss of revenue alone would be enough to force the feds to take action. And if one state does it, others are likely to follow. And just like 1860 there would be a military confrontation. And just like then the military would divide.

There's not likely to be any succession in this country but next year watch the riots break out and the voter intimidation. I do expect some sort of govt crackdown.

[Noir]

Because most here are talking about if it actually reached the point that they were in fact going to secede, that the nation wouldn't allow it. We're not talking about a "movement" to get to a vote. If Scotland does that, and actually gets to the point that they vote and determine to secede, do you think it''l remain totally peaceful and no one would step in and try to stop it from happening? Then what do you think Scotland residents will do when they are told they ain't going nowhere?

I have no doubt it will remain peaceful, no doubt at all.

Maybes in the same way i can't see how it would be violent in the US you guys can't see how it would be peaceful in the UK, idk, but Scottish Independence is all but inevitable, and ware it not for the whole financial meltdown it probably would be now.

[jimnyc]

I have no doubt it will remain peaceful, no doubt at all.

Maybes in the same way i can't see how it would be violent in the US you guys can't see how it would be peaceful in the UK, idk, but Scottish Independence is all but inevitable, and ware it not for the whole financial meltdown it probably would be now.

I have doubts that it would remain peaceful. It wasn't more than a few years back that Scotland rated as one of the most violent countries in the world. I doubt the hellraisers would change their ways in what would likely be one of the hottest political issues of their lives.

[DragonStryk72]

I honestly think it could...i mean, in the UK we've had a popular (and getting more popular) movement for Scotland to become an independent nation. I've never seen a shred of violence about it, and the Scottish independent party are now have a Majority in the Local Government Parliament so its likely in the next decade they will make a bid for independence in the next decade or two.

I was duly wondering what the implications would be if a US state tried the same, somewhat bizarrely IMO you guys all seem to look at it in terms of violence.

Name one, just one, non-violent secession that actually succeeded anywhere in history.

[Trigg]

I honestly think it could...i mean, in the UK we've had a popular (and getting more popular) movement for Scotland to become an independent nation. I've never seen a shred of violence about it, and the Scottish independent party are now have a Majority in the Local Government Parliament so its likely in the next decade they will make a bid for independence in the next decade or two.

I was duly wondering what the implications would be if a US state tried the same, somewhat bizarrely IMO you guys all seem to look at it in terms of violence.

I'm not really sure, without doing a fair amount of research, how close Scotland and England are. So here are a few questions. Is England to Scotland like the US is to Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands and Guam?

If so, than I can see Scotland leaving England. I don't think anyone would care if the places I mentioned became completely independent of the US and violence wouldn't come into play because it would be purely political.

The mainland US is completely different and I don't think the feds would let a state leave.

[Noir]

I'm not really sure, without doing a fair amount of research, how close Scotland and England are. So here are a few questions. Is England to Scotland like the US is to Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands and Guam?

If so, than I can see Scotland leaving England. I don't think anyone would care if the places I mentioned became completely independent of the US and violence wouldn't come into play because it would be purely political.

The mainland US is completely different and I don't think the feds would let a state leave.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j176/jonathan-mcc/mapofgreatbritain.jpg

[Noir]

Name one, just one, non-violent secession that actually succeeded anywhere in history.

Then Scottlands may be the first ever idk, its times like this when i wish there were a few more Brits on the board rather that it just be I saying it. But the movement for scottish independence is both a very real force and a totally non-violent one.

[Gaffer]

Then Scottlands may be the first ever idk, its times like this when i wish there were a few more Brits on the board rather that it just be I saying it. But the movement for scottish independence is both a very real force and a totally non-violent one.

It's likely Scotland will go the same way Canada and Australia did it. They will be independent but remain as part of the commonwealth.

[Noir]

It's likely Scotland will go the same way Canada and Australia did it. They will be independent but remain as part of the commonwealth.

Maybe, who knows, all i do know is it'll be peaceful.

[jimnyc]

Maybe, who knows, all i do know is it'll be peaceful.

How are you so confident in peace over this when, as I stated earlier, just a short time ago Scotland was listed as perhaps one of, if not the, most violent country by the UN? Why would so many violent people remain civil and calm over such a monumental change in their country? Are you saying that the polls reflect 75-100% of the country wanting this?

[logroller]

Maybe, who knows, all i do know is it'll be peaceful.

I would imagine it would be; they need not repeat the mistakes of the past. In the late 18th century, there was a ragtag group of yanks who demanded independence from despotism, fought for and won it-- subsequent grants of independent charter are, no doubt, deemed more preferable to bloodshed.


Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America.
—Thomas Jefferson, November 29, 1775

Currently the UK is a rich commonwealth of nation states who, though sovereign in their own affairs, still afford Her Majesty a constitutional role, i.e. a connection. There are different types of secession with different conditions-- I suspect Scotland seeks NOT to dissolve ALL political ties; hence, violent opposition is less likely.:thumb:

[logroller]

How are you so confident in peace over this when, as I stated earlier, just a short time ago Scotland was listed as perhaps one of, if not the, most violent country by the UN? Why would so many violent people remain civil and calm over such a monumental change in their country? Are you saying that the polls reflect 75-100% of the country wanting this?

Apparently it depends on the wording of the poll question. There is no longer a majority opposed though. wikilink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence)

[Noir]

How are you so confident in peace over this when, as I stated earlier, just a short time ago Scotland was listed as perhaps one of, if not the, most violent country by the UN? Why would so many violent people remain civil and calm over such a monumental change in their country? Are you saying that the polls reflect 75-100% of the country wanting this?

You are equating violence with politically motivated violence. The Scots are well known for being violent (Esp in areas like Glasgow) Because of Alcohol and drug problems (Heroin is a *huge* problem in area like glasgow) but i have never once heard of anyone ever saying they wanted independence by force, or that there is any implication that there is any threat of violence.

It will happen, and it won't be violent.

[logroller]

You are equating violence with politically motivated violence. The Scots are well known for being violent (Esp in areas like Glasgow) Because of Alcohol and drug problems (Heroin is a *huge* problem in area like glasgow) but i have never once heard of anyone ever saying they wanted independence by force, or that there is any implication that there is any threat of violence.

It will happen, and it won't be violent.
Nor will it be a complete dissolution of political ties. Independence isn't just about a flag and government-- its about an system of ideals and their protection-- to completely break away, i.e. revolt, from those entrenched values of a mother country, there is always violence. The degree of violence varies with how extreme the proposed changes are. As the proposed/eventual change is quite mild -- little violence is to be expected.

[Noir]

Nor will it be a complete dissolution of political ties. Independence isn't just about a flag and government-- its about an system of ideals and their protection-- to completely break away, i.e. revolt, from those entrenched values of a mother country, there is always violence. The degree of violence varies with how extreme the proposed changes are. As the proposed/eventual change is quite mild -- little violence is to be expected.

We'll see (:

[logroller]

We'll see (:

--Not exactly a revolutionary position Noir.

[Trigg]

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j176/jonathan-mcc/mapofgreatbritain.jpg

Lol, that's not what I meant. Maybe I should have been more clear.

I meant how close are they politically. Is Scotland considered a protectorate like Puerto Rico or Guam is to us.

[DragonStryk72]

I have no doubt it will remain peaceful, no doubt at all.y
Maybes in the same way i can't see how it would be violent in the US you guys can't see how it would be peaceful in the UK, idk, but Scottish Independence is all but inevitable, and ware it not for the whole financial meltdown it probably would be now.

Um, Noir, name one instance where Scottish attempts at independence didn't turn violent. I want you to think of the most extreme, stupidest Scottish nationalist you can think of, and understand this: Even if every single other person in the movement is completely peaceful, that asshole, and those like him are the ones who will get shit started. Now imagine the people most rabidly opposed to Scottish Nationalism, and you will have the people who will start shit on the other side of the line.

[revelarts]

IMO there's no necessity for Violence. Many former colonies in the 20th century have changed to independent rule without violence.
And It's funny that the 50 States somehow seem so sacred that for many it's even CRAZY to conceive of a state breaking off. Alaska and Hawaii make the most sense IMO, they may as well be colonies now , no offense.
Odd thing is this conversation just goes to show the police state view we hold of the feds, I mean to think that in these days that they would KILL Americans to preserve the union. To me THAT"S CRAZY. the only motive i've read here to do that is MONEY. soldiers kill American Citizens becuase of loss of TAX revenue. That's crazy. What other reason would there be to "preserve the union" by force that would justify mass murder? I can think of none.

[jimnyc]

IMO there's no necessity for Violence. Many former colonies in the 20th century have changed to independent rule without violence.
And It's funny that the 50 States somehow seem so sacred that for many it's even CRAZY to conceive of a state breaking off. Alaska and Hawaii make the most sense IMO, they may as well be colonies now , no offense.
Odd thing is this conversation just goes to show the police state view we hold of the feds, I mean to think that in these days that they would KILL Americans to preserve the union. To me THAT"S CRAZY. the only motive i've read here to do that is MONEY. soldiers kill American Citizens becuase of loss of TAX revenue. That's crazy. What other reason would there be to "perserve the union" by force that would justify mass murder. I can think on none.

I see it as more of citizens fighting than I do soldiers or the feds. Unless you have 100% solidarity, some are gonna be pissed, some will move to another state and others might be willing to fight. Once small fighting begins, then it grows, then in comes the national guard and all hell breaks loose. Don't blame solely the government for history or perceptions of what "might happen".

[Noir]

Lol, that's not what I meant. Maybe I should have been more clear.

I meant how close are they politically. Is Scotland considered a protectorate like Puerto Rico or Guam is to us.

My apoligies, in retrospect that looks awfully condescending of me, t'was not my intention.

Politically they have Ben very close, however in 1998 to try and appease a growing (peaceful) nationalist movement a referendum was held and the Scots decided they wanted their own local parliament and elections. But the government that set it up set the system so it would be extremely difficult for one party to get an overall majority as they didn't want to SNP (Scotish Nationalist Party) getting that.

The SNP has been quiet strong and growing the past decade and transferred more and more powers to their parliament buildings in Hollyrood, and in the last election they stroked to their strongest victory yet and (despite the system) got a clear cut majority of the seats in their parliament.

At no point has I ever heard anyone be violent for reaming the union, nor do I ever expect to.