- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
How does TEXIT avoid losing our independence vote like Scotland did in 2014?
Posted on 1/15/21 at 11:12 am
Posted on 1/15/21 at 11:12 am
quote:
Leading up to the passage of the referendum bill and through to the actual vote, the debate will be vigorous. However, until there is a vote, there will be no honest debate on the issue of TEXIT. To quote Weston Martinez, “You have to have the vote to have the conversation.”
Ultimately, the success or failure of TEXIT at the polls will be determined by the scope of the debate and the strategy used by each side to convince Texans to choose to leave or remain. In any debate on TEXIT, the side advocating for maintaining the status quo has a near insurmountable task. They essentially have to argue that all of the reasons that created enough political momentum to actually have a vote to leave still aren’t bad enough to leave. This puts them in the unenviable position of having to dismiss the legitimate concerns of virtually every Texan. At a minimum, if they acknowledge that legitimate concerns exist, they have to show that there is a reasonable and viable path to addressing these concerns within the federal system. Again, given the attitude that Texas voters have about the feasibility of reforming the federal system, this puts them at a severe disadvantage.
This is why, so often, you see the advocates of the status quo (e.g., TexiCANTS) attempting to redirect the debate to focus voters on the uncertainty posed by abandoning the status quo. By shifting the debate in this way, it baits those who are seeking self-determination into explicitly declaring post-independence policies that are then tied to the referendum. For those advocating for TEXIT, it is important to avoid this pitfall that became a major factor in the rejection of independence by Scottish voters.
One of the biggest mistakes made by the Scottish National Party in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum came in the form of a white paper produced by the SNP-dominated government, called Scotland’s Future. The purpose of the 670-page tome was to create, in the words of First Minister Alex Salmond, the “most comprehensive blueprint for an independent country ever published.”
Within its pages, it attempted to do that very thing. It contained 200 pages of answers to the most commonly asked questions about Scottish independence, and specifically addressed some of the more complex issues related to citizenship, travel, currency, and debt. However, it went further by advocating for post-independence policies that were staples of SNP campaigns in Scotland for years. This is where it went off the rails. While many hailed the ambition of the document and lauded the effort for moving the independence conversation forward, others, particularly voters, saw it more as a post-independence SNP election manifesto.
With the publication of the white paper, the debate over Scotland’s independence shifted. The points of contention no longer centered on the viability and practicality of an independent Scotland. Rather, the conversation became infinitely more complicated as the focus of contention became about the post-independence policies of the SNP.
Sensing an opening, the Better Together campaign pounced on an opportunity to tie the entire issue of Scotland’s independence on the governance of the SNP and the popularity of its specific policy positions. Suddenly their messaging shifted from “independence is a bad idea” to “a vote for independence is a vote for the SNP.”
The SNP was then forced into a two-front war, having to defend its policies while simultaneously trying to advocate for independence. After all, that’s what political parties do. They advance policy proposals based on the principles of their party. In doing so, the SNP fell into a trap of its own making and subverted the most attractive benefit of independence ?the opportunity to create something new.
They promised a concrete, fixed future that didn’t yet exist and created in the minds of the voters the notion that Scottish independence was merely an extension of current SNP governance. The voters were aware of what the future looked like if they stayed in the United Kingdom. The boundless and unlimited opportunity presented by the right of self-government, to remake the future in their image, was stolen from Scottish voters by the introduction of the white paper.
Although it was not the primary cause of the defeat of the Scottish referendum, this played a major role in the final result. The clue is in the numbers. The SNP received 44.04 percent of the votes in the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections. The ‘Yes’ vote in the 2014 independence referendum received 44.7 percent. If the majority of TEXIT advocates can avoid this trap, they are in the proverbial “catbird seat.” However, this debate will not be the normal partisan bickering we are all used to. It will create very strange bedfellows as the battle lines become clearly drawn.
For TEXIT to win the debate, it will have to be able to clearly articulate why staying in the Union is no longer an option and, with exceptional discipline, key in on the opportunity that can exist in an independent Texas, promising nothing other than giving Texans their first chance at self-government in their entire lives. Given the broad patchwork of people and interests that will be working for TEXIT, all would do well to remember the saying, “Only a fool fights in a burning house.”
Texas Nationalist Movement
Posted on 1/15/21 at 11:18 am to EKG
Texas better do something quick before they turn into the new California.
Posted on 1/15/21 at 11:25 am to EKG
Scottish "independence" is a ruse. The SNP want to be free of the UK but want to immediately join the EU and make themselves slaves to Brussels. But to answer your question, Scottish opposition to independence was based largely on their addiction to welfare. Scotland is the closest thing to a 3rd world country in Western Europe. Their fears of what would happen to benefits should they leave the UK is why they voted for a continued union.
Posted on 1/15/21 at 11:36 am to SCLibertarian
I don't disagree with you.
The Scottish National Party (SNP) has simply offered their assistance to the Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM) in terms of explaining some of the speed bumps they faced along the way--not the content/reasons they sought (seek) independence from the UK, but hiccups they encountered with the process
They feel they did a rotten job in explaining their stance to the voters. That's something TEXIT places at the top of its list of priorities--making the language of its objectives clear, and not allowing politicians to weigh it down with convoluted verbiage.
The Scottish National Party (SNP) has simply offered their assistance to the Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM) in terms of explaining some of the speed bumps they faced along the way--not the content/reasons they sought (seek) independence from the UK, but hiccups they encountered with the process
They feel they did a rotten job in explaining their stance to the voters. That's something TEXIT places at the top of its list of priorities--making the language of its objectives clear, and not allowing politicians to weigh it down with convoluted verbiage.
This post was edited on 1/15/21 at 11:45 am
Posted on 1/15/21 at 11:43 am to EKG
As a native born Texan residing in the US state of Louisiana. Would I get a Texas passport as well?
Posted on 1/15/21 at 11:43 am to Marciano1
quote:
Texas better do something quick before they turn into the new California.
That is not the problem. You are talking 10,000s a year.
Now go drive through the breeding fields of Dallas, Ft. Worth, etc. and their inner suburbs and estimate the amount of product turning 18 every year.
Posted on 1/15/21 at 11:50 am to Napoleon
quote:
As a native born Texan residing in the US state of Louisiana. Would I get a Texas passport as well?
Will Texans need a passport to travel to the United States after TEXIT (and vice versa)?
quote:
Negotiating travel between the United States and an independent Texas should be relatively easy since there is already an example of how the United States handles regular travel between itself and a contiguous foreign country. All we have to do is look south toward Mexico.
Starting in 2014, the number of people legally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border topped one million daily. Passports aren’t even required, as the U.S. government allows Mexican citizens to use “Border Crossing Cards” to enter the United States from Mexico “by land, or by pleasure vessel or ferry.”
There is a very good reason that motivates the federal government to lower the barriers to travel between contiguous countries and itself. It’s good for the economy.
Noe Garcia, president of the Border Trade Alliance, singled out the economic motivator. “Legal border crossings at the dozens of ports of entries located along the U.S.-Mexican border significantly benefit both the U.S. and Mexican economies, which is why the numbers continue to rise.”
However, anyone concerned about the use of passports to travel from State to State within the United States should hope they don’t live in one of handful of States that haven’t implemented the federal guidelines in 2005’s REAL ID Act. Starting in January of 2018, residents of Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Washington will need a passport to board any flight, domestic or international, according to new TSA guidelines. However, the States not listed have state-issued IDs that are compliant with the TSA guidelines. In addition, government-issued Border Crossing Cards and Global Entry Cards can be used.
This is all to point out that travel agreements between self-governing independent nations are common, as is the desire of nations to ease travel restrictions between those countries while maintaining high standards for security.
A great example of this is the federal Visa Waiver program that allows the citizens of certain countries to travel to and through the United States for up to 90 days for tourism or business without having to obtain a visa. That program includes Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan and the United Kingdom, with nine other countries in the process of being certified.
It is reasonable to assume that Texas would readily qualify for all existing programs instituted by the federal government that lower the barriers to travel and speed the process for those who travel. This would have to be discussed, and final agreements would be part of the negotiations.
Posted on 1/15/21 at 11:57 am to Napoleon
quote:
As a native born Texan residing in the US state of Louisiana. Would I get a Texas passport as well?
I would assume that any native born Texans who return to the Republic within a reasonable time after secession should be eligible for citizenship.
Posted on 1/15/21 at 12:05 pm to blueridgeTiger
As would I, blueridgeTiger.
Posted on 1/15/21 at 12:09 pm to gthog61
quote:
As a native born Texan residing in the US state of Louisiana. Would I get a Texas passport as well?
I've joked my entire life that my Laredo birth certificate is my key to being a rebel with a cause.
Posted on 1/15/21 at 12:11 pm to bluedragon
Posted on 1/15/21 at 12:50 pm to blueridgeTiger
quote:
I would assume that any native born Texans who return to the Republic within a reasonable time after secession should be eligible for citizenship.
Does the U.S. revoke citizenship? Thought the general practice was born a U.S. citizen, remain a citizen until you die.
Posted on 1/15/21 at 12:52 pm to EKG
The population of Texas, which is 40-47% liberal and Democrat-voting, does not support secession.
Posted on 1/15/21 at 12:52 pm to Marciano1
quote:
Texas better do something quick before they turn into the new California.
Fricking carpetbaggers are a scourge. Like a Biblical plague of locusts. They destroy their state then move to other states and shite the carpet there, too.
Absolutely no morals to stay and foot the bill for the commie policies they vote for.
An absolute douchebag plague.
Posted on 1/15/21 at 1:03 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
The population of Texas, which is 40-47% liberal and Democrat-voting, does not support secession.
TEXIT is a bipartisan movement. When last polled, 30% of Texas Democrats supported Texas secession.
A vote will ultimately show the comprehensive numbers.
This post was edited on 1/15/21 at 1:48 pm
Posted on 1/15/21 at 1:04 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
The SNP want to be free of the UK but want to immediately join the EU and make themselves slaves to Brussels
They're just looking for handouts and subsidies. Scotland is a fricking mess.
Posted on 1/15/21 at 1:06 pm to EKG
quote:
30% of Texas Democrats supported Texas secession.
It's going to need to be a lot higher than that.
Not to mention, Texas is not the only entity that needs consulting. Congress and SCOTUS are going to have a say. I admire your dedication to your cause, but its a lot of wheel spinning if the federal government does not recognize Texas' right to leave unilaterally.
This post was edited on 1/15/21 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 1/15/21 at 1:28 pm to EKG
You need to stop asking Scotts for advice and get the council of Tennesseans. They are the ones that freed you from the Mexicans .
Posted on 1/15/21 at 1:42 pm to Indefatigable
quote:this. If this happens in TX, what will stop this from happening in other areas? Then we’ll no longer have a unified country
Congress and SCOTUS are going to have a say
Posted on 1/15/21 at 1:46 pm to chalmetteowl
quote:
Then we’ll no longer have a unified country
That's the point.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News