The Scotsman has published a story saying that the U.S. would be shocked by Scottish Independence.
It is a rather shoddy piece of journalism. It mentions a ‘Sir Christopher’ leaving the reader to try and work out exactly who he was. (Sir Christopher Meyer?)
It also quotes Lord Kerr, former U.S. ambassador:
“If it were to happen, people would be stunned.”
I am more stunned at that statement.
The very nation who declared Independence from Britain in 1776 stunned at another nation’s independence from the UK? Half of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence were either Scots or of Scots descent.
Anyone who looks at maps through time would see a gradual decline in the (British Empire) red countries around the world.
In fact, anyone who looks at a similar map today would need to strain pretty hard to see red. Apart from the British Antarctic Territory the rest of the red would be placed on small islands mainly in the Atlantic Ocean.
Islands like the Falklands (claimed by Argentina) and Gibraltar (claimed by Spain) and the British Indian Ocean Territory (claimed by Mauritius and the Seychelles). Places that without British sovereignty would be in territorial danger by other countries.
Pretty much everyone else from the 1920s map shown has declared independence from the UK.
So why looking at today’s map would anyone by ’stunned’ by Scotland’s independence?
Sure, Scotland may have had a large hand in creating that Empire, but that imperial past is long gone. Its out of date.
Just like the Treaty of the Union.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
October 5, 2008 at 10:59 am |
An odd assertion from the Scotsman. Given that American was built upon the premise of self determination I believe that most of the folks across the pond would be somewhat agnostic. In fact, given that Scotland is already ‘recognised’ in its own right in the US, little would change. Not to invoke stereotypes, but people may even be staggered by the news that we’re in a Union at all.