Neu Leonstein wrote:Greater Mackonia wrote:I didn't really see anything particularly contradictory in that post. A government's legitimacy does not depend on a glorified opinion poll but on its ability to effectively exercise power. Nicola Sturgeon can declare independence all she wants, it would have no effect, neither does such meaningless language as declaring the union "illegitimate". The United Kingdom is a sovereign power, the Scottish government is not, the United Kingdom commands the monopoly of violence to decide the state of the exception which is law, the Scottish government does not. The United Kingdom does not exist according to any 'principles', it exists as a cartel of coercion conduct by one group of individuals against another.
Of course, I entirely concede that in practice the government will most likely bow to demands for a Scottish referendum to spite the people of this country. The Trotskyite deep state are already mobilising to give this non-issue false credibility. I am just pointing out in reality the Scottish government is in no position to make these demands and if we had competent leaders they would just be ignored.
Sure, but a military occupation of Scotland by England is not exactly consistent with the rules to which the British government agreed to subject itself. Now, you can dislike those rules, that's fine. But when competence is measured as "willingness to trigger violent armed conflict within one's borders", then you will find competent leaders to be few and far between in developed countries.
It wouldn't be much of a civil war against that non-existent Scottish military and disarmed populace to be honest.
The English government has subscribed to rules, and in making an argument for a different course of action, I am inevitably saying they should subscribe to different rules. To raise this different mode of conduct in opposition to a point challenging them would simply be tautologous. If you were just practically speaking, the UK would not have to make a big fuss about it, just ignore them.
Competence is the degree to which you successfully fulfil your chosen interests, and I think one of the most interests of rulers is to maintain the territorial integrity of their states and to prevent themselves from having their power diminished. You will see few leaders in influential countries who wilfully submit to see their nations broken up either. The example of violent conflict was an extreme and absurd one to illustrate the basic point, the Scottish government has no way to practically execute independence without Westminster's permission. It would more likely take the form of Nicola Sturgeon going "OCH PORKY BOI GIVE US 'RR SEKOND REF-AR-REN-DUM" And him replying "No" to which they sit down because they can't do jack shit beyond make noise to the attention of the hysterical media. Or take some other hypothetical action to which the end result will always be superior British force or financial pressure easily dispersing whatever efforts are made.
-Alba (
