[Plantagenet]

I must say that the English have done a very poor job trying to convince the Scots to vote to keep Scotland in the UK.

The English seem to be relying on fear to win the election. ooooo.....your NHS will be cut.....oooooooo......the banks will move to London.........ooooo.....your pensions will be cut off....be very afraid.

I haven't heard one positive forward looking statement out of the people who think Scotland should stay with England. All they do is try to spread fear.

In contrast, the SNP is optimistic and forward looking. They want to Scotland to be a small, leftist, social democracy, with generous social spending funded by oil, much like Norway or Denmark. And who wouldn't want to be like Norway or Denmark?

[Plantagenet]

The voting age for the independence vote has been lowered to 16.

I wonder if the 16 year olds will be afraid to leave the warm embrace of England, or if they are the ones painting their faces blue and chanting for independence at the street corners?


The voting age will be 16 for the scottish independence measure

[Subjectivist]

Just put up by the Washington Post. The big name politicians are ducking for cover just hours before voting starts.

GLASGOW, Scotland – A referendum on Scottish independence that was once expected to collapse in resounding defeat was instead going down to the wire on Wednesday, with each side scouring lush Highland ridges, Gothic back alleys and rocky coasts seeking any advantage on the eve of a vote that could divide this island after three centuries of union.

The referendum has transfixed Scotland’s 5.3 million people, and analysts predict an extraordinary 90 percent of eligible voters on Thursday to answer a simple but sweeping question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”

But as much as the vote will turn on attitudes toward Scottish nationalism, it also will be a verdict on a group nowhere to be seen on the ballot: British politicians.

[Plantagenet]

Obama just issued a last minute statement telling the Scots to all vote "no" on Independence from England.

I think Obama is worried that if Scotland breaks free, they won't be around to help him with the two new wars he is starting in Syria and Iraq.


Hey Scotland---stick with England and with me---we've got two kool new wars for your kids to help fight in Syria and Iraq.

[Red Pill]

Plant does a great job of presenting this complex issue in an adult manner.

Seems one of the tricky points is weather an independent Scotland would retain the Pound. Britain says no, but the pro independence side has stated that they have a powerful bargaining chip in that, if their denied a currency union, they'll renege on their portion of UK debt, currently ~100 Billion pounds. Wow, who woulda thought it could be so simple?

[Plantagenet]

I always thought to opportunity to walk away from debt was one of the more attractive options for Scotland if it votes to become independent.

When GM went bankrupt, the US set up a new GM corporate entity and left all the debts and legal liabilities withe the "old" bankrupt GM. Similarly, when banks go bankrupt, governments sometimes set up a "ghost" which winds up with all the debt and bad paper, while a newly incorporated bank gets all the assets.

Heres an opportunity to do that on a national basis. When Scotland leaves the United Kingdom, set it up so the debt stays with the United Kingdom. AND someday England, Wales and No. Ireland might also eventually secede from the UK, leaving all the debt to a "ghost" UK country.


This is genius---Scotland can go debt free!

[Sixstrings]

Hm, CNN raises the question -- will Britain be giving Scotland nuclear weapons?

That could be dangerous. A new, small nationalist nation just getting started and organized and they're going to have nuclear weapons?

US is against nuclear proliferation of any kind. You just don't want an accident to happen, you know?

Why is the U.S. nervous about Scottish independence vote?

Washington (CNN) -- Faced with the prospective divorce of its closest friend, the United States is following the advice column carefully: don't take sides, keep your opinions to yourself, and avoid getting dragged into the fray.

The complicating factor in this potential split? One side has a nuclear arsenal. Who gets custody of that?

Thursday's independence referendum in Scotland, and with it the possible split of the 300-year-old United Kingdom, could have consequences big and small, including in the United States. The "special relationship" heralded by presidents and prime ministers for decades would be fundamentally altered, though American officials refuse to speculate in which ways.

As British Prime Minister David Cameron said on Tuesday, a "yes" result on independence would amount to a "painful divorce" between Scotland and the rest of Great Britain, not a "trial separation."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/16/politics/us-scotland-vote/

Other dangers:

* It could send the British Isles into economic depression and some chaos for a while. Bank runs. Money is already flying out, folks are nervous -- nationalists that rock the boat are not stability, they are not good for the economy.

* It splits up the British military. Plus all the economic problems from this. So that weakens our #1 ally in Europe. It weakens NATO, too.

[Sixstrings]

Plant does a great job of presenting this complex issue in an adult manner.

Seems one of the tricky points is weather an independent Scotland would retain the Pound. Britain says no, but the pro independence side has stated that they have a powerful bargaining chip in that, if their denied a currency union, they'll renege on their portion of UK debt, currently ~100 Billion pounds. Wow, who woulda thought it could be so simple?

My prediction:

If the vote is yes, then Britain will immediately backtrack on all the "scary divorce" threats.

Britain will do everything it can to cobble things back together and keep it all intact as much as possible -- so YES, Scotland will keep the pound. That's my prediction. Otherwise it's financial chaos.

The thing has to be handled right, for the security and safety of all the people on the British Isles. Would be kind of silly to create a big huge mess and economic depression and bank runs and no bread in the store all because some Scots got bored.

So anyhow, relax folks, it will be okay, it'll work out to essentially a cosmetic change that's just going to cost a lot of money.

It's still a monarch wearing two crowns, that's all. It just won't be a united crown anymore. Separate privy councils. Separate administration. Same monarch, and really, should be same foreign policy because what's the darn sense of sharing a monarch if one winds up opposed to the other, internationally?

Whatever you Scots do, don't ally with the French again, that was always a bunch of trouble.

[Sixstrings]

Obama just issued a last minute statement telling the Scots to all vote "no" on Independence from England.

I think Obama is worried that if Scotland breaks free, they won't be around to help him with the two new wars he is starting in Syria and Iraq.

A United Kingdom thrown into financial crisis, chaos, and its military split up and there's just little england there with wales hooked on it -- in one fell swoop there goes our longterm ally, the UK.

What kind of a place is just england with wales? It'll be like Belgium or something.

No longer relevant. No longer a power in Europe, and the world. Just a place to go golf:



Obama's right on this BUT -- if he was going to speak at all, it's pretty tacky just to tweet it. He could have gone over and given some speeches.

And the Queen should have said more too. She thinks she can't because of the neutrality thing but screw it, that's what she is for, at times like these. She's clearly against it -- she told a group of Scots to "think very carefully about the future."

What 16 year old is "thinking carefully about the future," for crying out loud? Pffft.

I like Scots but this is a bonehead thing and it's really putting the shaft to folks in England, seems wrong to me, sticking them with all the bills and problems and Scotland thinks they'll be a little oil rich nation and can just walk way from it all -- scot free.

Seriously, this sucks for England, how can the scots do this to them? And it's gonna break the Queen's heart, how can they do that to her?

And how is this even legal, anyway? You can't willy nilly start letting places spin off into nationalist separatist republics. Who's going to be next, Quebec? And what happens when some island up there wants to separate from Scotland?

Is all of NATO just going to balkanize because folks are "bored?" How can we stand up to a growing Russia, splitting up and becoming weaker?

At least we've got this settled over in the USA, since our Civil War. This shouldn't even be legal in the UK. If we allowed it over here, sure Texas would like to go off on its own, sure Vermont would like to have their birkenstock Noam Chomsky hippie republic.

But you know what? Divided like that, we'd all fall, in the end.

[Tanada]

Oh please six, you are the standard opinionated American, if the Government said it was true then by gosh and by golly it is. I have a very dear friend in northern England and as he explains it all the UK government cares about is London, because that is where the bulk of the voters live. The people in north England, Scotland and Wales get as close to ignored as is politically possible by the UK government. Its like being a Republican voter in Chicago, sure you exist, but nobody admits it or even if they do nobody gives a rip what you think about anything.

The whole point of Representative government is to have your concerns heard, if your voice is never heard then why would you want to stay attached to those who are ignoring you? Its like being the kid last picked for teams in school sports and having the captain expect your unending loyalty.

[Sixstrings]

I have a very dear friend in northern England and as he explains it all the UK government cares about is London, because that is where the bulk of the voters live. The people in north England, Scotland and Wales get as close to ignored as is politically possible by the UK government.

Well that's been going on for centuries, it's suddenly a problem now?

The red "flyover" states get ignored a lot too, our elites think nothing exists except for the coasts. That's just how it goes, you have capitals and you have provinces. It doesn't mean things would be better with a Rick Perry President of Texas starting a war up with Mexico.

Or, Scotland now, and again I ask -- what happens when one of those little islands in the north sea feel "ignored" by Glasgow and want independence. Will Scotland allow that? See, it never ends, you either have a union or you don't and you're not supposed to break up unless everything really has collapsed and people are starving and there's mass revolution.

For goodness sake, it's the United Kingdom, do they not know their history anymore? They're just going to end it, just like that?



Could a divided UK have won the Battle of Britain?

Can a divided UK stand up to Russian pressure, and other threats?

Is a divided UK of use to anyone -- sure maybe Scots would like to just have oil and not have a military but we've got enough of those places in Europe don't we? Is it really smart to dismantle a foundation of NATO, and the Western world?

As if it's not bad enough the American atlas has shrugged, now the frickin' UK has to dismantle istelf? While ISIL rampages like a jihadi mongol horde and you've got Russia building an empire?

The whole point of Representative government is to have your concerns heard, if your voice is never heard then why would you want to stay attached to those who are ignoring you?

I agree with you insofar as,

* This is really a UK independence party thing.

* If secession is going to be legal in a place like the UK, then it would be far smarter for the constitution to allow for recall referendum to recall the whole government and new elections -- but you don't just break the nation apart, that is dangerous in a dangerous world that's got other empires growing and expanding.

* This vote has a lot more to do with wanting out of EU deals, and for Scots it's translated as wanting away from London. But again, dissolution of your nation is the nuclear option -- it's too bad they don't have a better mechanism for voters to get change. Would be better to leave the darn EU deals and break from Europe and keep your country together.

Or, secession shouldn't be legal in the first place, and the federal government needs to put it down and that's how it is in the USA. The People can vote through our state legislatures to call a constitutional convention in the worst case, but we don't fly off into separatist republics.

Also -- actually Brits DID give the Scots a lot of autonomy already and they've had a regional parliament for a long time now. But look what happens, it just encourages it, it's the same as Quebec -- you got to keep giving them more and more to keep them in the union, but it's really unfair to everyone else.

I wish the Scots the best Tanada, but I still say it's a big shaft to folks in England, left holding the bag with the bills and the problems.

FOR EXAMPLE,

Why can't English and Welsh have a vote in this? It's everyone's nation, not just the Scots'.

And..

There are *almost a million* Scots that live in England and Wales, but they don't get to vote in this so how is that fair? That's more than the swing vote right there, since Scotland itself has 5 million total population.

It's just not good, Tanada, for the West to balkanize like this, into nationalist separatist republics. US is losing it's #1 ally. How can we stand up to Russia like this, if NATO is just going to fly apart by referendum in the West, and Russian-stoked separatism in the east?

[Sixstrings]

The UK's problem is that it's become too permissive.

They've got a big domestic muslim problem, because they're *too permissive*.

And now their union is going to break apart after three centuries, because they're *too permissive*, and have somehow allowed it to be "okay" for places to just secede at the whim of 16 year old voters.

Scottish secession is "cool," but it is not wise. Just like the idea of Texas secession is "cool" -- but not wise.

It's the young people voting for this, and they don't know any better, and from what I read the nationalists told them to talk their grandmothers into voting for it too. Older people are wiser, they're against this.

Margaret Thatcher wouldn't have allowed this.

Anyhow -- if the vote is yes, then it's just going to cost a bunch of money to set up some new bureaucrats in Scotland and make new flags and all that, and border controls, maybe man Hadrian's Wall again, and more bureaucracy, on and on.

But if that vote is yes then here's what needs to happen -- British gov and the new nationalist scottish gov need to be responsible and get together and keep the pound and make as little disruption as possible. And do something about the military that effectively keeps that whole and together, so we don't lose the second cornerstone of NATO and the West.

Don't mess the whole world up and make a big mess, Scotland with its 5 million people, please.

[Sixstrings]

Ha, speaking of Hadrian's Wall:

Scottish Independence: Border Guards 'Could Be Stationed On Hadrian's Wall'

There could be "border guards along Hadrian's Wall" if Scotland votes for independence, a think tank has seriously suggested.

The new country would need to attract 20,000 more immigrants a year than presently expected in order to pay for pensions without raising taxes, The Scotland Institute said.

It said the Yes campaign had significantly underestimated the number of new entrants required to balance out the country's ageing population and provide the revenues to meet its promises.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/13/scotland-hadrians-wall-independence_n_5816238.html

What Scotland is wanting is just too radical. They can't just break off like that, like an Australia and just be a commonwealth country.

What would have been reasonable is something like how double crowns used to be -- like Habsburgs wearing crowns in multiple places, separate privy councils, separate administrations, but coordinated military and the same foreign policy.

So, and option for a bit lesser union with England, that would give them everything they want and not wreck the whole UK either and worry the US and mess up NATO and defense.

OTOH -- from the above article, sounds like they've got an aging population and it wouldn't be all smooth sailing to just break off like that. That's always doing to cause disruption, look at the history in Europe, it would be a decade of some transition mess.

Latest polls have the no vote at 52%. That tweet from Obama may actually have some effect -- I imagine older scottish voters will think carefully about the bigger issues that younger voters don't. They'll think about what the Queen said. Maybe they'll see in the newspaper the US isn't happy about it. They'll be responsible and conservative in the end.

I'm going to go ahead and predict NO wins the vote.

I'm not usually wrong, so I won't mind being wrong, and I don't really care anyway I'm not British -- we just need to not have global financial disruption contagion out of this, or NATO messed up, or the British military messed up.

And I'll tell you something else, if the vote is Yes, then guess who is going to have to open up the discount window and send a lot of money to Scotland and British banks -- the US federal reserve. They are just inviting a big mess with this independence thing and screwing with the pound like that, and we will have to bail them out and that devalues our dollar and it's all interconnected.

[Sixstrings]

I haven't heard one positive forward looking statement out of the people who think Scotland should stay with England. All they do is try to spread fear.

Well, when one side of something is all hopey changey then that should tell you something no?

But you're right. They could have done a positive campaign.

I think it's just crazy, and Plant as Americans this does nothing to help the US position at all. The former UK would just be all wound up and busy with Hadrian's Wall and transition for years to come. We'll lose our #1 ally. Their military disrupted, having to split it up, maybe even some nukes for Glasgow. It's madness.

Worst of all, financial disruption, financial crisis and it's the US federal reserve that would have to print money to pour into that.

It likely would work out better for Scots in the long run, from a purely self-interested view for them, or then again maybe they'd do something stupid like Iceland and get crazy with banking. When little countries screw up, they screw up big.

But most of all, it just doesn't seem right, this is the UK:



This is not the UK:



That looks like Belgium, or a melanoma.

Just doesn't look right, that's not the UK.

[Plantagenet]

I think it's just crazy, and Plant as Americans this does nothing to help the US position at all. UK would just be all wound up and busy with Hadrian's Wall and transition for years to come. We'll lose our #1 ally. Their military disrupted, having to split it up, maybe even some nukes for Glasgow. It's madness.

Worst of all, financial disruption, financial crisis and it's the US federal reserve that would have to print money to pour into that.

People were afraid when the US broke away from England (gosh...we won't be able to use the pound!). People had the same kind of fears when India broke away from England after hundreds of years of English domination. But the US and India and all the other colonies that got free from England are doing fine.

Now the Scots want to be free. If the Scots vote to be independent, then god bless them and god speed. I wish them luck either way.

-----------------
PS: 6 I'm really enjoying your posts. Hope you are having a great time watching summer wind down.

[Sixstrings]

People were afraid when the US broke away from England (gosh...we won't be able to use the pound!).

That was a 50/50 thing too, close call, half the American colonials weren't even for it. And it may not have lasted without His Majesty the King of France's intervention, on our behalf.

And it could have fallen apart in 1812 when the darn "NO campaign" British burned our capital city down.

But Plant,

Scotland and American colonial freedom fighters are not analogous -- though I did love that movie Braveheart, I don't see how anyone can say Brits have done anything bad to them in a very long time. This thing is just a divorce, it's like your wife leaving you just because she can, for no darn good reason, leaving you with all the bills and problems and she takes off with the oil wells wanting to "find herself" and be "like Denmark."

Scots have full representation in parliament, plus they have their own parliament. They're just acting like quebecois and it's ridiculous, and Welsh have their parliament and separatist rumblings too. I don't get what the deal is -- have yourself a state gov like we do and some things it handles then have yourself a federal gov and things it handles, and get over it already.

What you don't get to do is be a bad sport after a national election and just secede after 300 years.

I'm conservative, Plant, I don't like all this change and nationalist separatist republics. I don't want a queen over here, of course, but I like that there's a Queen Elizabeth over in England, and she's got a castle in Scotland and she has dogs and is in her 80s for goodness sake -- they couldn't wait on this? For Charles to ascend?

They really had to stress the queen out like this? I read the Daily Mail, the poor Queen has been asking questions about all the twists and turns on this thing every day and she wants to say something yet she can't and finally she did say a little something about it.

Folk ought to listen to her, she's seen 20 prime ministers (or thereabouts) come and go. That's her role there, constitutional issues and big picture things -- why can't she have spoken her mind on this? Doesn't seem right.

And now she has to stress about this, the worst thing that could happen in her reign, the dissolution of the United Kingdom. It doesn't get worse than that. After everything else she's been through, they've got to put her through this now.

People had the same kind of fears when India broke away from England after hundreds of years of English domination. But the US and India and all the other colonies that got free from England are doing fine.

Scotland is not India, Scotland is an integral part of mainland core UK. For 300 years now. I don't get how this thing is even legal. My history is fuzzy on the union, I think it was a scottish parliament that gave the crown over to start with so I guess this is what England gets for making another Scottish parliament.

It's just like the quebecers, more you try to do for them the worse it gets. Not trying to put Scots down here but come on, you're British, 300 years now, get over it you don't even speak French or some other language.

Where's the national pride, and patriotism, and all you've been through together for so many centuries. I'll say it again: could a divided UK have won the Battle of Britain?

If the Scots vote to be independent, then god bless them and god speed. I wish them luck either way.

I wish them luck too, but I still say it looks selfish to me, like England is getting the shaft and left holding the bag and all the bills and all the problems.

And what happens to the Queen? The nationalists say they will keep her, but others of them say something else and talk of a republic. It would break her heart to lose her home, in Balmoral, and whatever these nationalists are saying, everything is up in the air and nobody knows.

And NATO takes a blow with this, and who knows how they're going to split up the British military, what about the nukes -- surely the world has not become this insane, that nukes must be handed over to a scottish nationalist that the daily mail has called a "maoist." (they seem like nice people but Jesus, they are not prime time, don't give them nukes)

I'll stop ranting -- but if it's yes, wait and see I'll be right, there will be a lot of confusion and financial disruption and problems in the markets and it'll be Uncle Sam having to print money from the Fed and pass it out to Scotland and Britain to stem the contagion.

PS: 6 I'm really enjoying your posts. Hope you are having a great time watching summer wind down.

Well, thank you! I enjoy yours as well. I'm really going to stop posting soon, and that will mean I am having a great time, if you don't see me on here.

[Sixstrings]

Fun video explaining everything:

Scottish referendum explained for non-Brits - video
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2014/sep/17/scottish-referendum-explained-for-non-brits-video

I'm sorry I spun off into becoming a Scotlandoomer.

But.. I do think the Queen should have been allowed to give her opinion, that's a bunch of crap.

And.. why can't the 700,000 scots living in England and Wales vote?

And.. for that matter.. isn't it everyone's country, after three centuries now, why can't all Brits vote?

I'd have to say here, independence would probably work out to be a lot of fun and good for Scots but it's just going to suck for the English left holding the bag.

What would be more fair is a return to the shared crown arrangement, James I I think, and that went on for a hundred years before the act of union. So just repeal the act of union, have separate administrations, but keep foreign policy THE SAME, keep the pound, and no silly border between the two and keep the military united.

That would allay US gov concerns about this as well, and keep the UK united as joint crowns, and keep them a strong pillar of NATO and it's like halfway breaking up but not totally and they have their pride being a nation again etc. (though it was 400 years ago since they had a Scottish king for goodness sake, nobody remembers being independent)

You know, the general issue here, is just balkanization. Is it really smart for a Canada to let quebec go just because it wants to. And what's next in the UK, will Wales want to go off too? And then those isles are just all split up, all that British history a thing of the past gone forever?

Would Texas, over here, want independence? I say it's a bunch of crap and we already had a civil war over this a long time ago and it's proven that you can't just let your country break all up or you'll get swallowed up by some other empire that's ADDING places, not shedding them.

If they must do this at all, then just roll it back to how it was in the 1600s, before act of union, joint crowns -- that would be constitutional and appropriate.

Just my two pence on it.

[Sixstrings]

Obama, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Republicans and Democrats all hope Scots vote no:

Barack Obama tells Scotland: stay united

The unusual last-minute intervention by the President is a sign of concern in Washington that one of America's closest allies could be about to split in two.

"The UK is an extraordinary partner for America and a force for good in an unstable world. I hope it remains strong, robust and united," Mr Obama said in a tweet.

Mr Obama first expressed his support for the union in June but repeated his message in the final hours before voting began.

Both Democrats and Republicans have urged Scots to vote no, saying independence would leave Britain as a diminished power on the world stage.

Bill Clinton this week also called for a no vote in a statement released through the Better Together campaign.
The former president said he worried a "long, complex negotiating proccess" would weaken the Scottish economy and had concerns about Scotland trying to keep the pound as its currency.

Hillary Clinton also said she would "hate" to see Britain "lose" Scotland, adding her voice to Mr Obama's and her husband's.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11103256/Barack-Obama-tells-Scotland-stay-united.html

Bill Clinton's a smart guy, other than that NAFTA and bank dereg thing but moving on, he is right about the financial crisis dangers here and the big mess this could be.

Bill Clinton: Vote ‘no’ in Scotland

He began his statement by saying he was “reluctant” to offer his personal views on the matter, given that the Scots alone should make their decision regarding Thursday’s referendum on whether to stay in the UK or become independent.

“I understand and sympathize with those who want independence,” he added, citing Scotland’s natural resources and independent spirit.

But Clinton said that Scotland leaving the UK would carry “substantial” financial risks, suggesting the proposal to maintain the pound as its national currency and the separation process could weaken the economy and cause instability.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/bill-clinton-scotland-reject-independence-111038.html

The crazy thing about it all is that apparently nobody thought Yes could win, so it looks like there hasn't been any deep thought or study on what to do about it if they do have to separate. It's risky, messing with markets and instability and messing with the pound.

(and it is ironic, centuries after fighting for our own independence, the US now intervenes a bit to keep Britain together)

[Sixstrings]

Scottish independence vote cheers supporters of Texas secession

(Reuters) - The upcoming vote to decide whether Scotland should be independent of the United Kingdom has bolstered those campaigning to split the state of Texas from the United States.

Texas Nationalist Movement president Daniel Miller, who wants the state's legislature to put the secession question on a statewide ballot, said Scotland's Sept. 18 referendum is a good sign for his movement.

"If Scotland can do it, so can Texas," Miller said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/16/us-usa-texas-independence-idUSKBN0HB2LI20140916

I think Texas v. White is the SCOTUS case that ruled there is no right to secession:

Historian Kenneth Stampp notes that a historical case against secession had been made that argued that "the Union is older than the states" and that "the provision for a perpetual Union in the Articles of Confederation" was carried over into the Constitution by the "reminder that the preamble to the new Constitution gives us one of its purposes the formation of 'a more perfect Union'."[24] Concerning the White decision Stampp wrote:

In 1869, when the Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, finally rejected as untenable the case for a constitutional right of secession, it stressed this historical argument.

The Union, the Court said, "never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation." Rather, "It began among the Colonies. ...It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation."[24]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#Supreme_Court_rulings

And then, the federal government's view at onset of civil war secession that the union of states is perpetual from 1776 onwards and no state can ever secede, only individuals (or a conspiracy of individuals) would be in rebellion against federal law and the Constitution:

The position of the Union was that the Confederacy was not a sovereign nation—and never had been, but that "the Union" was always a single nation by intent of the states themselves, from 1776 onward—and thus that a rebellion had been initiated by individuals.

Bottom line: per the SCOTUS, the states are in perpetual union for all time and can never secede, from 1776 onwards.

I wonder -- how did a right to secede, by referendum, ever come about in Canada and the UK in the first place?

[Sixstrings]

Republicans and Democrats unite in opposition to Scottish independence

Congress's most vocal advocate for a united Britain warns that a Yes vote in the Scottish referendum would "weaken" the US-UK alliance

Brad Sherman, a Democrat who has championed the union cause in Congress, said the US foreign policy establishment was united in its hope that Scotland would stay a part of Britain.

"You will not find anyone involved in American foreign policy - from the President on down - who does not think that this division will weaken the alliance that we have," Mr Sherman said.

The US State Department also issued a clear call in support of the union.

The House of Representatives earlier this summer passed a resolution written by Mr Sherman which called for a "united, secure, and prosperous" UK.

Mr Sherman said Wednesday: "It's clear that a united United Kingdom is a stronger and more ready ally of the US."

He said he worried that a long and complicated division of the armed forces would "clearly diminish" their effectiveness and their ability to fight alongside the US in hotspots around the world.

"I would hate to see the Royal Navy and British military be any less effective than it is today," he said.
Chris Murphy, the Democrat chair of the Senate's Europe subcommittee, said he also believed the US-UK alliance would be stronger if Scotland remained within Britain.

"Our relationship with Great Britain is stronger if Great Britain is stronger," he said. "I don't think separation helps the relationship but it's ultimately up to Scottish voters to decide."
Ron Johnson, Mr Murphy's Republican counterpart, also backed the union, saying: "From my own standpoint, I hope they stay together."

Frances Burwell, director of the transatlantic relations at the Atlantic Council think tank, said the sudden narrowing of the polls had shocked many in Washington who found it “incomprehensible” that Scotland would break away from the rest of the UK.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11088679/Republicans-and-Democrats-unite-in-opposition-to-Scottish-independence.html