Voting in the referendum for Scottish independence

[Jub]

I understand that voluntarily voting in a eletction is morally unjustifiable as you are participating in the decision-making process of a force-initiating armed gang. It is also seen as consenting to be ruled over by the government. I have read some of the discussion about referendums on this forum (from 2007) and I get that voting in typical referendums (i.e. ones which are for a specific law) is in the same category as voting in elections. However, a new dimension is added when a referendum is not for a law, but for the actual abolition of a state (or in this case, not the full abolition of the British state of course but the abolition of its jurisdiction over Scotland).

 

I live in Scotland and for me the issue is not (as it is for most here) a decision between voting yes or no to independence, but between voting yes or not at all. The way I see it, if I were to vote no, I'd be consenting to the rule of the British state, which over its history has given me a bounty of reasons never to do, so that's that option out the window.

So, not voting means I'm not contributing to the chance of secession (assuming that the referendum isn't rigged of course, which we can never be sure of) but I do keep my full principled integrity by not consenting to be ruled over. On the other hand, voting yes increases the chance of having a more local government (yay) and practically, the state couldn't care less if I consent or not of course, but I do lose out on some principled integrity. Another factor which (to anyone who knows what the Scots are like) obviously doesn't phase the population of Scotland is the fact that it's a very, very socialist country and therefore any genuine democracy would result in the government becoming "larger" in the American sense. I'm not sure "big government" is ok just because it's geographically small.

 

Anyway, I think I've expressed the fact that I'm in two minds about this well enough. I'd very much like to hear what people on here have to say about this, especially since there is nobody else who would actually understand this perspective or take it seriously. Apart from literally one friend, the only people I know here who oppose the state are "anarcho" communists so I'm not getting any useful feedback from them.

 

So, to vote or not to vote?

[philsau]

Great post. Where in Scotland you from? I lived in Edinburgh for a year and used to be involved in the Scottish Libertarian group. The "vote or not" is a tough one. I agree with you on your point that localising power is certainly on the right vector to liberty, however the political makeup of Scotland is stubbornly leftist and has been so for nearly a century, so an independent Scotland would be unrestrained in it's socialism.

 

I don't think it's immoral myself to vote for the least bad option as you see it compared to your ideals. At the end of the day it is the gang of thieves who are the moral perpetrators, not you. Kind of reminds me of Rothbard's argument that if you were a slave and you could vote for better conditions, would you vote?

[ribuck]

Kind of reminds me of Rothbard's argument that if you were a slave and you could vote for better conditions, would you vote?

 

For slaves, the vote is between "I endorse continued slavery, and prefer condition A" and "I endorse continued slavery, and prefer condition B". In a non-binding referendum such as this one, it's just an opinion poll: "I prefer outcome A" or "I prefer outcome B".

 

It may not be very useful for you to express your opinion in the upcoming referendum, but it's morally harmless. If secession becomes more common, eventually society may come to accept individual secession too.

[barnirubl]

@patrick

 

I live in Scotland and intend to vote for independence because it would mean a greater chance to be ruled by the government voted into power by the people of Scotland. I've heard a lot of rot about Governments being bad. Whether you vote or not you are bound by Government law so you should try to get a Government that is the least contemptuous of it's citizens.

 

We tried not having governments and living by the rule of kings - it didn't work! At least with a government you have the illusion of choice.

 

In an anarchic society you would soon find out why we need the rule of law and elected officials. The weak in society need protection from the strong.

[Jagsfan82]

In an anarchic society you would soon find out why we need the rule of law and elected officials. The weak in society need protection from the strong.

Oh my... you shouldn't have said that....

[tiepolo]

It is not the abolition of the British state's jurisdiction over Scotland that is proposed, it is not 'independence' that is on offer but secession. Scotland is not an occupied land, any more than the rest of the UK is. I also think it's sad that the concepts of state and nation have become muddled up. Whether the Scots and English etc. belong to the same nation, as fellow Britons, is a different question than that about where political decisions should be made.

 

To my mind this vote, coming before votes on Britain's future in the EU, is a bit like being given a vote to change cabins on a sinking ship. Alex Salmond is a pathetic creature who has no political vision or genuine nationalist sentiment (hence his crazy idea that Scotland can both be free and 'independent' and part of the EU). He just wants to be a big fish in a small pond.

 

Personally I am conflicted because I quite like the idea of the Union, and think we are stronger together. Having been born in Scotland to English parents I feel more British than English. I am annoyed not to get a vote due to presently residing south of the border. That said I can see a silver lining if Scotland does go its own way, including the fact that the Labour Party will find it hard to win elections in England after such a split. 

[ribuck]

The advantage, if Scotland goes its own way, is that secession becomes an acceptable idea. In time, English counties will be able to seceed, then cities, and we will start seeing many interesting alternative societies.

[Poet]

I find it mind-boggling that any FDR listener would consider anything other than voting yes.

[J. D. Stembal]

Having been born in Scotland to English parents I feel more British than English.

 

I feel more Illinoisan than American, having been born in Illinois to American parents.

 

I am unsure how either statement has any real meaning. Can you please clarify what you mean?

 

I find it mind-boggling that any FDR listener would consider anything other than voting yes.

 

I must dissent from your blanket statement and point out the option of not voting at all.

 

[Poet]

@EndTheUsurpation, it is important to stress that the first comment you quote was not mine.  It is better forum etiquette to create an individual response post for each of the posts you are responding to.  I believe he was expressing the confusion many English people feel, having had their identity subsumed into the constructs of empire.  I have heard Russians friends expressing similar sentiments after the fall of the USSR, their self-identity as Russians had become inextricably linked to the larger construct.

As for your objection to my bewilderment that any FDR listener would not vote for independence, you may well be missing the point that Stef was making in that video.  His point was that most elections are a sham designed to get you to participate in a state without any real possibility of changing anything.  The independence referendum, on the other hand, is an extremely and almost accidental opportunity to completely reject and get rid of the current state.

This referendum only came about as a means to put to bed an argument that had been dragging on since the last rigged referendum in 1979, and was only allowed to go forward because the London government was absolutely confident, based on the polls at the time, that there was no way the Scots would vote to break away.  They underestimated the extent to which the illegal wars of the past 13 years and other poor decisions have highlighted the divide between mainstream Scottish opinion and the English political elite, both left and right.

If the Scots vote for independence, they will still be subject to a state, but it is almost impossible that it could be as contemptuous and dangerous as the state they boot out.  I am saying that any FDR listener should welcome a situation in which decisions and control of resources are brought back to a more local level, and in which a major body-blow is delivered to a state that has aided and abetted in some of the worst international crimes of recent years.  This will be good for Scottish people and good for English people, because it will shine an uncomfortably bright light upon the state.

I cannot think of any vote in recent history that is less like the smoke-screen elections that Stefs rails against, this is an unexpected glitch in the system that, incredibly, gives us the opportunity to unplug the system itself.

With the decision on a knife-edge, and with the No campaign, back by the entire London media, ratcheting up the fear-based propaganda, the idea that any FDR listener would think it moral, in these circumstances, to stay at home and not vote is utterly bizarre. 

[omegaPRIME]

@patrick

 

I live in Scotland and intend to vote for independence because it would mean a greater chance to be ruled by the government voted into power by the people of Scotland. I've heard a lot of rot about Governments being bad. Whether you vote or not you are bound by Government law so you should try to get a Government that is the least contemptuous of it's citizens.

 

We tried not having governments and living by the rule of kings - it didn't work! At least with a government you have the illusion of choice.

 

In an anarchic society you would soon find out why we need the rule of law and elected officials. The weak in society need protection from the strong.

 

Not really sure if you're in the right place.

[Poet]

Not really sure if you're in the right place.

At least he's voting in the right direction, plenty of time, later, for him to discover that governments aren't there to protect you from the predators, they are the predators  

[cobra2411]

Voting typically is about making the choice for the lessor evil; in the end you still choose evil. 

 

The interesting thing here is that if Scotland declares independence then they could repudiate their debts and I'm sure that scares the hell out of the UK. Sure, they'd be forced to operate based only on what they take in through taxes but there's nothing stopping them from simply erecting the middle finger in the direction of the UK when asked to pay their debts. I do like the "toss in the monkey wrench" aspect of it and would likely vote for that reason. 

 

It is nice to see the threats from the UK though.... 

 

"Scotland will be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks in a “very dangerous and insecure world” if it votes for independence on Sept. 18, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron said.

 

Being part of a union gives Scots the protective benefits of being part of a larger country, Cameron told reporters at the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s summit in Newport, Wales, yesterday."

 

BTW, my father's family is from Aberdeen. 

[LovePrevails]

I would be more enthusiastic about the prospect of local government after a "yes" vote if it weren't for the fact that Scotland is completely lefty and so in love with getting free shit from the government that other people have to pay for

 

my main concern for independence is that it will just be a super bribe-fest that bankrupts the country

people will not vote for parties up here that don't believe in free EVERYTHING

[Poet]

@Cobra2411- No matter what the result is,  the monkey wrench has already been well and truly tossed.  In a complete panic after the weekend polls showed the Yes campaign pulling ahead, the Westminster parties have now agreed to give Scotland what is essentially home rule within the Union, if they just vote no.  That concession has already led to demands that the English should get their own parliament too, and the fairness of that is so fundamentally obvious that it will have to happen.If, on the other hand, the vote is Yes, the UK's remaining time as a nuclear power will be limited to a few years, because Scotland will not keep Europe's largest arsenal of nuclear weaponry just 20 miles from its most populated city, and there is no constituency in England that would be willing to house them instead.  That means that the UK will not be able to go ahead with the £25bn Trident replacement, raising serious questions over whether it should continue to see itself as a major world player.Either way, the United Kingdom as we know it is over.  I would not be at all surprised, in the aftermath of all this, to see England shed yet more of its imperial legacy and become a more streamlined country over the coming years, far more focused on business and competitive taxes. 

my main concern for independence is that it will just be a super bribe-fest that bankrupts the country

people will not vote for parties up here that don't believe in free EVERYTHING

 

 

@LovePrevails, I know exactly what you mean but my theory, as an Irish guy who has been living here for over a decade, is that an awful lot of the benefits culture and, indeed, the mental illness, alcohol abuse and drug idiocy stem from a deep-seated despair and feeling among Scots that the game is stacked against them from the start.There is also the belief, which I've heard expressed many times, that they may as well wring some benefit money out of the system, given the fact that the UK gets the oil, and given that so much money is blown on wars and trident.  Successive Westminster governments have seen it that way, paying off generations of Scots with the dole, so that the English can get on with the lucrative business of building financial services on the credibility of one of the world's few petrocurrencies.I am not saying that multi-generational welfare dependency can be reversed overnight, but I think it will be interesting to see what happens when Scottish society, as a whole, suddenly has a more straightforward and much clearer sense of where their taxes and national resources are going.  I would not rule out the possibility that a Scottish government can come up with somewhat better solutions to Scottish problems, and there is a lot of untapped potential in this nation of people who have more or less given up on themselves.Somewhere, deep down, the Scots are still a fiercely independent and innovative people, they just need the chance to lose the chip on their collective shoulder and discover who they really are.

[J-William]

If they do it will be very interesting.

 

I saw someone blaming Scottish independence on ISIS, that's just too funny.

[cobra2411]

"the Westminster parties have now agreed to give Scotland what is essentially home rule within the Union, if they just vote no."

 

And if they were so benevolent then why did they wait till now to offer it? I also wouldn't be surprised if they pulled a Pelosi and said you have to vote no to see the terms of the agreement... 

[Wienerdog4life]

The state in these situations is often referred to as a cancer. Would it not be okay to first remove the vast majority of a tumor with the intent to clean out the smaller clusters in the next procedure?