re: How does TEXIT avoid losing our independence vote like Scotland did in 2014?

You should also analyze the independence movement of Quebec in Canada.

Without looking, I believe there was one referendum that was voted against by around 55%.

I dated a leftist girl from Montreal a few years back and spent a little time there.

You think Texit will happen EKG?

quote:

---

Without looking, I believe there was one referendum that was voted against by around 55%.

---

probably because being in Canada was a net benefit to them as opposed to being their own country... and Canada would have let them go too. What does that say about them?

Interesting thought.

A quick Wikipedia glance says ...

quote:

---

Supporters of sovereignty for Quebec believe that the current relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada does not reflect Quebec's best social, political and economic development interests. Moreover, many subscribe to the notion that without appropriately recognizing that the people of Quebec are culturally distinct, Quebec will remain chronically disadvantaged in favour of the English-Canadian majority. There is also the question of whether the French language can survive within the geographic boundaries of Quebec and where French-Canadian society and culture fits into what is an increasingly multicultural country. Separatists and Independentists are generally opposed to some aspects of the federal system in Canada and do not believe it can be reformed in a way that could satisfy the needs of Quebec's French-speaking majority. A key component in the argument in favour of overt political independence is that new legislation and a new system of governance could best secure the future development of modern Québécois culture.

---

quote:

---

... the 1995 Quebec sovereignty movement was a tight vote, The "No" campaign won, but only by a very small margin — 50.6% to 49.4%. As in the previous referendum (1989), the English-speaking (anglophone) minority in Quebec overwhelmingly (about 90%) rejected sovereignty, and support for sovereignty was also weak among allophones (native speakers of neither English nor French) in immigrant communities and first-generation descendants. The lowest support for the “Yes” side came from Mohawk, Cree and Inuit voters in Quebec, some first Nations chiefs asserted their right to self-determination with the Cree being particularly vocal in their right to stay territories within Canada. More than 96% of the Inuit and Cree voted No in the referendum. However, The Innu, Attikamek, Algonquin and Abenaki nations did partially support Quebec sovereignty. I

By contrast almost 60 percent of francophones of all origins voted "Yes" (82 per cent of Quebecers are Francophone.). Later inquiries into irregularities determined that abuses had occurred on both sides: Some argue that "No" ballots had been rejected without valid reasons, and the October 27, 1995 "No" rally had evaded spending limitations because of out-of-province participation.

---

So basically French speakers want independence; English speakers don’t.

quote:

---

Is there a link to the proposed constitution? Stated another way, how do people know they would not be moving to more of the same?

---

If you scroll to the VERY bottom of this page, many common questions are addressed: STILL HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT TEXIT?

The Constitution will remains the same—the Texas Constitution.

The legislation required to initiate a TEXIT referendum is incredibly simple when contemplating the large impact it will have. The text of the legislation:

The Texas Independence Referendum Act

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT

to make provision for the holding of a referendum on whether Texas should reassert its status as an independent nation.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Title 16 of the Election Code is amended by adding Chapter 279 to read as follows:

CHAPTER 279. TEXAS INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM

SUBCHAPTER A. REFERENDUM

Sec. 279.001 THE REFERENDUM

(1) A referendum is to be held on whether Texas should reassert its status as an independent nation or remain a member of the United States.

(2) The referendum shall be held on the next regularly scheduled general election date after the passage of this act and any subsequent general elections dates as called by the Governor, a 2/3rds vote of the Texas Legislature or upon the submission of a petition of Texas voters in accordance with chapter 172 of the Texas Election Code.

(3) The day appointed under subsection (2) must be no later than 31 December 2018.

(4) The question that is to appear on the ballot is—

“Should the State of Texas reassert its status as an independent nation?”

(5)The alternative answers to that question that are to appear on the ballot are—

“Yes” and “No”.

Sec. 279.002 DUTY TO PUBLISH INFORMATION ON OUTCOME OF PREVIOUS EFFORTS TO REFORM THE FEDERAL UNION AND ASSERT TEXAS SOVEREIGNTY

(1)The Secretary of State must publish a report which contains (alone or with other material)—

(a) a statement which details previous efforts by the State of Texas to initiate reform in the relationship between the State of Texas and the Federal union as well as efforts to retain or reassert the sovereignty of the State of Texas, and

(b) the opinion of the Secretary of State on the success of those efforts.

(2) The report must be published no later than 10 weeks before the scheduled referendum date.

(3) A copy of the report published under this section must be submitted to the Legislature of the State of Texas, the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, the Texas Congressional delegation, and the President of the United States.

Sec. 279.003 DUTY TO PUBLISH INFORMATION ABOUT TEXAS MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES

(1)The Secretary of State must publish a report which contains (alone or with other material)—

(a) information about rights and obligations of the State of Texas and its citizens that arise under Federal law as a result of Texas membership in the United States, and

(b) examples of countries that are not part of the United States but do have other arrangements and agreements with the United States (describing, in the case of each country given as an example, those arrangements).

(2) The report must be published no later than 10 weeks before the scheduled referendum date.

(3) A copy of the report published under this section must be submitted to the Legislature of the State of Texas, the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, the Texas Congressional delegation, and the President of the United States.

Sec. 279.004 CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES FOR THIS REFERENDUM

(1) For the purposes of this referendum,

Campaign expenditures shall only be made from funds contributed by eligible Texas voters.
Only political action committees registered in Texas no later than 6 months after this legislation takes effect shall be allowed to make campaign expenditures.
No campaign expenditure can be made from the campaign account of any current or former elected official or from any specific purpose political action committee unrelated to this referendum.
All offenses committed under this section and Chapter 253 are enhanced to State Jail Felonies.
Other than these specific provisions, all sections of Chapter 253 apply to campaign contributions and expenditures for this referendum.
Sec. 279.005 RESULTS OF THE REFERENDUM

(1) The results of the referendum shall be reported first and foremost to the citizens of Texas, to both houses of the United States Congress and to the President of the United States by the Governor of the State of Texas.

(2) Should the vote of the citizens result in a YES decision for Texas independence, the Texas Legislature shall, within twelve calendar months following the referendum, craft an Ordinance for Texas Independence defining and outlining a plan to implement the decision of the referendum, to include an operational plan, to establish Texas as an independent republic.

While this language is, in and of itself, a complete bill that could be filed in the next session of the Texas Legislature, it should only be treated as a starting point and not a finished product. There should be plenty of deliberation on the framework for the referendum, but it should not be a victim of “paralysis by analysis.”

quote:

---

Can you draw some parallels to Texas? Not so much language but demographics?

---

Great question—one I believe would take days to answer.

Ultimately Texas does have a very unique culture that’s remained relatively uniform (ideologically) since we originally joined the Union. We’re not the North. We’re not the Deep South. We’re not Western or even Southwestern. We’re Texan. The TEXIT movement articulates that fact in its mission: The people of Texas constitute a distinct nation by every definition of the word, with a distinct culture, economy and system of governance. Texas should always be politically self-governing, culturally distinct, and economically independent.

Most Texans believe government activity should be encouraged only to the extent that it creates opportunity for individual achievement. This individualistic nature likely has to do with the enormous swath of land we encompass (many people lived—and still do—far from others), along with our history—a lone cowboy riding the range, accountable only to himself. Even a segment of Texas Democrats holds on to this belief.

Individualism makes Texas hostile towards government activity, especially government interference in the economy. Government is expected to stay out of people's affairs; when it does get involved, it should be controlled locally. Government should spend little and tax little—if at all. Individual businesspeople should control their own fate and the economy. Most Texans see the government as a barrier against individual competition.

One need only look at the differences in success between Texas Hispanics and California Hispanics (an entire thread unto itself) to see the impact this has had. Hispanic Texans are afforded the benefits of a state with dynamic economic growth and small government. To say that California’s government plays an expansive role in people’s lives is to severely understate the situation.

quote:

---

In both states, nonwhite Hispanics make up the same percentage of the population: about 38 percent. And both are “majority-minority” states, where no one group has an outright majority. In California, Hispanics became the largest group earlier this year. Texas has not yet reached what people refer to as “the tipping point.”

Famously, both California and Texas were settled by Spain and were briefly part of Mexico after its independence from Madrid in 1821. People can be forgiven, therefore, if they see the Hispanic population of both states as monoliths. But there the similarities end.

The pre-existing Mexican populations in the two states were very different. Texas’ was large, estimated between 15 percent and 25 percent of the population of the new state. We’re talking possibly as many as 50,000 so-called Tejanos.

By contrast, California’s Mexican population was small when Mexico ceded the state — maybe around 10,000 when it entered the Union in 1850. These “Californios” were swiftly overwhelmed by the hundreds of thousands who flocked to the state starting with the Gold Rush of 1848.

As Joshua Treviño, vice president for communications at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and a proud multigenerational Texan, told me for my book: “California Hispanics have a very tenuous thread to the past. I lived in California for several years and cannot remember a single time when someone said to me, ‘Oh, I’m a descendant of one of the original Californians.’ They’re all recent imports, going back at most to the 1920s.”

These roots have helped a great deal to deepen Texas’ culture of self-help, small government, low regulation, patriotism and entrepreneurship among the state’s large Hispanic population. At the other end stands California’s model of large transfer payments, putting significant portions of the population on the dole, and more divisive identity politics.

The results are bare for everyone to see. All in all, they make the Lone Star State a golden one for Hispanics.

---

For Hispanics, the Lone Star State beats the Golden one - Dallas News

quote:

---

one I believe would take days to answer

---

Indeed, could be a subject for a dissertation.

Especially in the context of separatism as a reaction to globalization and concentration of power.

quote:

---

This individualistic nature likely has to do with the enormous swath of land we encompass (many people lived—and still do—far from others), along with our history—a lone cowboy riding the range, accountable only to himself. Even a segment of Texas Democrats holds on to this belief.

---

Rugged individualism and self reliance in an expansive land. Those roots are big and deep.

quote:

---

Individualism makes Texas hostile towards government activity, especially government interference in the economy.

---

Correct me if I’m wrong but I think this philosophy is baked in to TX institutions and laws. The TX governor is one of the more limited in power? The TX legislature meets infrequently and briefly, I think every other year?

quote:

---

One need only look at the differences in success between Texas Hispanics and California Hispanics (an entire thread unto itself) to see the impact this has had.

---

Absolutely a fascinating area for a deep dive.

The TEXIT movement doesn’t include the annexation of any state but fully supports other states in their efforts to secede on their own, should their populace choose to put such a move up for a vote.