President (recumbent) Barack Obama

[our Sydney 11]

Another thought: we have the "School of the Air" for the most isolated rural kids. Is there an equivalent scheme in the USA? I am guessing not....

http://www.questacon...of_the_air.html

You guess correctly

Best regards

Syd

[Davey Jones' Locker 1,324]

Hi Mr locker

I think Australia is an exceptional case as regards educating it's population, a very high value has always been placed on a good education in Australia, and particularly distance learning. The various radio linked schools and collages demonstrated what could be done, without the success of which we in the UK would never have had the Open University. I think that the extreme remoteness of some Australian farms and stations actually created the drive for these distance learning solutions, small schools could not be sustained as some years there would be no children of school age in a 1000 square miles of country. I think also the nature of the Australian environment forced a lifestyle that could not fall back on subsistence exploitation of the natural environment (logging, fishing, hunting, subsistence mining) the way the southern US can and forced Australians toward white coller jobs. This in turn has forced a proper welfare system on Australia, also higher level of public sector jobs and more realistic levels of service industry wages, particularly in catering and tourism.

Best regards

Syd

 

Probably! Thanks Syd.

 

 

My last comment on the matter is that some Aussie States have considered seceding from time to time. Western Australia sometimes becomes bitchy towards the eastern part of the country and wants out but their moves have never gone too far.

 

Tasmania is also an interesting case: it is one of the poorest parts of the nation with all kinds of economic problems and lack of infrastructure. Some mainlanders compare it to the southern USA but this is really unfair. Nevertheless it does have a lot of problems. However, in the 19th century, before Federation turned all of the independent British colonies into a single nation, it was extremely prosperous. Back in the 1990s, some economists were asked to produce a hypothetical model of how Tasmania's economy would perform if it became an independent nation. According to their models, it would thrive.

 

I wonder if anyone has done similar modeling for Texas and Louisiana. Maybe if they had to fend for themselves, their economies would kick-start and the outcomes would indeed be better. I am sure, over time, if they were independent their grudge towards "the north" would lessen and their Bible belt fundamentalism would become much more moderate. Of course, there is no way Washington will let their oil producing states go, and as Angry notes, there is hardly a groundswell of support for this movement but it is interesting to speculate about while we wait for Oscar Niemeyer to kick the bucket.

[our Sydney 11]

_{Hi Mr Locker}

_{there are some interesting ideas of a future indipendent southern states of the US in here Richard Morgan I think one of the better attempts to look at modern southern states politics, and a good novel into the bargin!}

_{Best regards}

_Syd

[Bibliogryphon 8,616]

Hi Mr locker

I think Australia is an exceptional case as regards educating it's population, a very high value has always been placed on a good education in Australia, and particularly distance learning. The various radio linked schools and collages demonstrated what could be done, without the success of which we in the UK would never have had the Open University. I think that the extreme remoteness of some Australian farms and stations actually created the drive for these distance learning solutions, small schools could not be sustained as some years there would be no children of school age in a 1000 square miles of country. I think also the nature of the Australian environment forced a lifestyle that could not fall back on subsistence exploitation of the natural environment (logging, fishing, hunting, subsistence mining) the way the southern US can and forced Australians toward white coller jobs. This in turn has forced a proper welfare system on Australia, also higher level of public sector jobs and more realistic levels of service industry wages, particularly in catering and tourism.

Best regards

Syd

 

Probably! Thanks Syd.

 

 

My last comment on the matter is that some Aussie States have considered seceding from time to time. Western Australia sometimes becomes bitchy towards the eastern part of the country and wants out but their moves have never gone too far.

 

Tasmania is also an interesting case: it is one of the poorest parts of the nation with all kinds of economic problems and lack of infrastructure. Some mainlanders compare it to the southern USA but this is really unfair. Nevertheless it does have a lot of problems. However, in the 19th century, before Federation turned all of the independent British colonies into a single nation, it was extremely prosperous. Back in the 1990s, some economists were asked to produce a hypothetical model of how Tasmania's economy would perform if it became an independent nation. According to their models, it would thrive.

 

I wonder if anyone has done similar modeling for Texas and Louisiana. Maybe if they had to fend for themselves, their economies would kick-start and the outcomes would indeed be better. I am sure, over time, if they were independent their grudge towards "the north" would lessen and their Bible belt fundamentalism would become much more moderate. Of course, there is no way Washington will let their oil producing states go, and as Angry notes, there is hardly a groundswell of support for this movement but it is interesting to speculate about while we wait for Oscar Niemeyer to kick the bucket.

 

Can I at this point say SCOTLAND?

[our Sydney 11]

Hi Mr locker

I think Australia is an exceptional case as regards educating it's population, a very high value has always been placed on a good education in Australia, and particularly distance learning. The various radio linked schools and collages demonstrated what could be done, without the success of which we in the UK would never have had the Open University. I think that the extreme remoteness of some Australian farms and stations actually created the drive for these distance learning solutions, small schools could not be sustained as some years there would be no children of school age in a 1000 square miles of country. I think also the nature of the Australian environment forced a lifestyle that could not fall back on subsistence exploitation of the natural environment (logging, fishing, hunting, subsistence mining) the way the southern US can and forced Australians toward white coller jobs. This in turn has forced a proper welfare system on Australia, also higher level of public sector jobs and more realistic levels of service industry wages, particularly in catering and tourism.

Best regards

Syd

 

Probably! Thanks Syd.

 

 

My last comment on the matter is that some Aussie States have considered seceding from time to time. Western Australia sometimes becomes bitchy towards the eastern part of the country and wants out but their moves have never gone too far.

 

Tasmania is also an interesting case: it is one of the poorest parts of the nation with all kinds of economic problems and lack of infrastructure. Some mainlanders compare it to the southern USA but this is really unfair. Nevertheless it does have a lot of problems. However, in the 19th century, before Federation turned all of the independent British colonies into a single nation, it was extremely prosperous. Back in the 1990s, some economists were asked to produce a hypothetical model of how Tasmania's economy would perform if it became an independent nation. According to their models, it would thrive.

 

I wonder if anyone has done similar modeling for Texas and Louisiana. Maybe if they had to fend for themselves, their economies would kick-start and the outcomes would indeed be better. I am sure, over time, if they were independent their grudge towards "the north" would lessen and their Bible belt fundamentalism would become much more moderate. Of course, there is no way Washington will let their oil producing states go, and as Angry notes, there is hardly a groundswell of support for this movement but it is interesting to speculate about while we wait for Oscar Niemeyer to kick the bucket.

 

Can I at this point say SCOTLAND?

 

I think you can, but what point you are trying to make is unclear to me.

It is undoubted that much of the Scottish population is concentrated in the central industrialised belt, as such it bears little resemblance to either Tasmania or the southern states of the US. There are many dispersed communities in Scotland but they are not the norm as in the southern US, further the UK as a whole has fare more uniform standards of living and welfare support than the Southern US. While being part of the UK enables it to enjoy many services that would be denied it if it had to pay for them on a per capita basis. It finds itself in the position of contributing income from its resources to the United kingdom economy however the development of those resources came about at relatively favourable terms as a result of the union (just ask Nigeria what happens if you invite BP in and don't have a big stick to threaten them with!) and many services are available to Scotland at a much reduced cost compared to similar sized populations in Europe (like TV services). Over all I think comparing the southern US or Tasmania with Scotland is like comparing chalk and a medium sized halibut but maybe you can bring clarity to the situation.

Best regards

Syd

[Bibliogryphon 8,616]

Hi Mr locker

I think Australia is an exceptional case as regards educating it's population, a very high value has always been placed on a good education in Australia, and particularly distance learning. The various radio linked schools and collages demonstrated what could be done, without the success of which we in the UK would never have had the Open University. I think that the extreme remoteness of some Australian farms and stations actually created the drive for these distance learning solutions, small schools could not be sustained as some years there would be no children of school age in a 1000 square miles of country. I think also the nature of the Australian environment forced a lifestyle that could not fall back on subsistence exploitation of the natural environment (logging, fishing, hunting, subsistence mining) the way the southern US can and forced Australians toward white coller jobs. This in turn has forced a proper welfare system on Australia, also higher level of public sector jobs and more realistic levels of service industry wages, particularly in catering and tourism.

Best regards

Syd

 

Probably! Thanks Syd.

 

 

My last comment on the matter is that some Aussie States have considered seceding from time to time. Western Australia sometimes becomes bitchy towards the eastern part of the country and wants out but their moves have never gone too far.

 

Tasmania is also an interesting case: it is one of the poorest parts of the nation with all kinds of economic problems and lack of infrastructure. Some mainlanders compare it to the southern USA but this is really unfair. Nevertheless it does have a lot of problems. However, in the 19th century, before Federation turned all of the independent British colonies into a single nation, it was extremely prosperous. Back in the 1990s, some economists were asked to produce a hypothetical model of how Tasmania's economy would perform if it became an independent nation. According to their models, it would thrive.

 

I wonder if anyone has done similar modeling for Texas and Louisiana. Maybe if they had to fend for themselves, their economies would kick-start and the outcomes would indeed be better. I am sure, over time, if they were independent their grudge towards "the north" would lessen and their Bible belt fundamentalism would become much more moderate. Of course, there is no way Washington will let their oil producing states go, and as Angry notes, there is hardly a groundswell of support for this movement but it is interesting to speculate about while we wait for Oscar Niemeyer to kick the bucket.

 

Can I at this point say SCOTLAND?

 

I think you can, but what point you are trying to make is unclear to me.

It is undoubted that much of the Scottish population is concentrated in the central industrialised belt, as such it bears little resemblance to either Tasmania or the southern states of the US. There are many dispersed communities in Scotland but they are not the norm as in the southern US, further the UK as a whole has fare more uniform standards of living and welfare support than the Southern US. While being part of the UK enables it to enjoy many services that would be denied it if it had to pay for them on a per capita basis. It finds itself in the position of contributing income from its resources to the United kingdom economy however the development of those resources came about at relatively favourable terms as a result of the union (just ask Nigeria what happens if you invite BP in and don't have a big stick to threaten them with!) and many services are available to Scotland at a much reduced cost compared to similar sized populations in Europe (like TV services). Over all I think comparing the southern US or Tasmania with Scotland is like comparing chalk and a medium sized halibut but maybe you can bring clarity to the situation.

Best regards

Syd

 

I was not trying to draw a direct parallel between the exact situations. However, there is talk of how these states would fare outside of their current national framework which is entirely theorectical but in Scotland there is a very real process, where these types of argument are going to be discussed at length over the next two years and the population of Scotland will have to make a choice. Each side will make the choice seem as black and white as possible but in reality they will be weighing up what is most important.

 

Alternatively I could responde in Monty Python fashion -

 

"BURMA"

 

"What did you say Burma for?"

 

"I panicked"

[our Sydney 11]

Hi Mr locker

I think Australia is an exceptional case as regards educating it's population, a very high value has always been placed on a good education in Australia, and particularly distance learning. The various radio linked schools and collages demonstrated what could be done, without the success of which we in the UK would never have had the Open University. I think that the extreme remoteness of some Australian farms and stations actually created the drive for these distance learning solutions, small schools could not be sustained as some years there would be no children of school age in a 1000 square miles of country. I think also the nature of the Australian environment forced a lifestyle that could not fall back on subsistence exploitation of the natural environment (logging, fishing, hunting, subsistence mining) the way the southern US can and forced Australians toward white coller jobs. This in turn has forced a proper welfare system on Australia, also higher level of public sector jobs and more realistic levels of service industry wages, particularly in catering and tourism.

Best regards

Syd

 

Probably! Thanks Syd.

 

 

My last comment on the matter is that some Aussie States have considered seceding from time to time. Western Australia sometimes becomes bitchy towards the eastern part of the country and wants out but their moves have never gone too far.

 

Tasmania is also an interesting case: it is one of the poorest parts of the nation with all kinds of economic problems and lack of infrastructure. Some mainlanders compare it to the southern USA but this is really unfair. Nevertheless it does have a lot of problems. However, in the 19th century, before Federation turned all of the independent British colonies into a single nation, it was extremely prosperous. Back in the 1990s, some economists were asked to produce a hypothetical model of how Tasmania's economy would perform if it became an independent nation. According to their models, it would thrive.

 

I wonder if anyone has done similar modeling for Texas and Louisiana. Maybe if they had to fend for themselves, their economies would kick-start and the outcomes would indeed be better. I am sure, over time, if they were independent their grudge towards "the north" would lessen and their Bible belt fundamentalism would become much more moderate. Of course, there is no way Washington will let their oil producing states go, and as Angry notes, there is hardly a groundswell of support for this movement but it is interesting to speculate about while we wait for Oscar Niemeyer to kick the bucket.

 

Can I at this point say SCOTLAND?

 

I think you can, but what point you are trying to make is unclear to me.

It is undoubted that much of the Scottish population is concentrated in the central industrialised belt, as such it bears little resemblance to either Tasmania or the southern states of the US. There are many dispersed communities in Scotland but they are not the norm as in the southern US, further the UK as a whole has fare more uniform standards of living and welfare support than the Southern US. While being part of the UK enables it to enjoy many services that would be denied it if it had to pay for them on a per capita basis. It finds itself in the position of contributing income from its resources to the United kingdom economy however the development of those resources came about at relatively favourable terms as a result of the union (just ask Nigeria what happens if you invite BP in and don't have a big stick to threaten them with!) and many services are available to Scotland at a much reduced cost compared to similar sized populations in Europe (like TV services). Over all I think comparing the southern US or Tasmania with Scotland is like comparing chalk and a medium sized halibut but maybe you can bring clarity to the situation.

Best regards

Syd

 

I was not trying to draw a direct parallel between the exact situations. However, there is talk of how these states would fare outside of their current national framework which is entirely theorectical but in Scotland there is a very real process, where these types of argument are going to be discussed at length over the next two years and the population of Scotland will have to make a choice. Each side will make the choice seem as black and white as possible but in reality they will be weighing up what is most important.

 

Alternatively I could responde in Monty Python fashion -

 

"BURMA"

 

"What did you say Burma for?"

 

"I panicked"

 

I think you have hit the issue on the head with your comment about trying to make the Scottish independence issue seem black and white. A more complex proposal I cannot think of, politically and socially, as the separation of the UK. It would make Mr Morgan’s vision of the splitting up of the US seem like a harmonious paradise of a clear cut logical future . . . I really do recommend the book it has some brilliant Ideas in it!

Best regards

Syd

[Magere Hein 1,397]

I think you have hit the issue on the head with your comment about trying to make the Scottish independence issue seem black and white. A more complex proposal I cannot think of, politically and socially, as the separation of the UK. It would make Mr Morgan’s vision of the splitting up of the US seem like a harmonious paradise of a clear cut logical future . . . I really do recommend the book it has some brilliant Ideas in it!

 

I have no particular ideas about Scottish independence, or states seceding from the USA. I do have, however, some thoughts about the more general issue of large states. As a citizen of a smallish nation (smallish rather than small, the Netherlands are 8th of 27 among member states of the European Union, ranked by population) I can't help but thinking that for states large doesn't equate better.

 

I'm rather fond of European integration as far as legal, social and economic matters are concerned. I'm certain that the Union made a critical contribution to the fact that we've been living peacefully here for 67 years, ignoring the nasty episodes in the eastern parts. It's quite an improvement over the many centuries of near-permanent war.

 

I'm not convinced, however, that further political integration is such a good idea. I don't think many EU citizens like the idea of being governed from Brussels much. More generally, I think that we need less, rather than more government. Most of the time most people do quite well without it. I'm not blind to the fact that some services are needed above local territory, I rather like the example of the arrangements the Dutch have to keep sea water out. We can't do that locally. At the same time I think the modern state has mostly come into existence as a counter to the bad intentions of other states. To some extent I see reason in that. However, I don't see reason in the tendency of states to regulate every bit of people's lives.

[Davey Jones' Locker 1,324]

I think you have hit the issue on the head with your comment about trying to make the Scottish independence issue seem black and white. A more complex proposal I cannot think of, politically and socially, as the separation of the UK. It would make Mr Morgan's vision of the splitting up of the US seem like a harmonious paradise of a clear cut logical future . . . I really do recommend the book it has some brilliant Ideas in it!

 

I have no particular ideas about Scottish independence, or states seceding from the USA. I do have, however, some thoughts about the more general issue of large states. As a citizen of a smallish nation (smallish rather than small, the Netherlands are 8th of 27 among member states of the European Union, ranked by population) I can't help but thinking that for states large doesn't equate better.

 

I'm rather fond of European integration as far as legal, social and economic matters are concerned. I'm certain that the Union made a critical contribution to the fact that we've been living peacefully here for 67 years, ignoring the nasty episodes in the eastern parts. It's quite an improvement over the many centuries of near-permanent war.

 

I'm not convinced, however, that further political integration is such a good idea. I don't think many EU citizens like the idea of being governed from Brussels much. More generally, I think that we need less, rather than more government. Most of the time most people do quite well without it. I'm not blind to the fact that some services are needed above local territory, I rather like the example of the arrangements the Dutch have to keep sea water out. We can't do that locally. At the same time I think the modern state has mostly come into existence as a counter to the bad intentions of other states. To some extent I see reason in that. However, I don't see reason in the tendency of states to regulate every bit of people's lives.

Magere, as a Dutchman, do you have any thoughts on the Flemish separatist movement in Belgium that you would like to share?

[Magere Hein 1,397]

Magere, as a Dutchman, do you have any thoughts on the Flemish separatist movement in Belgium that you would like to share?

 

Now that's a topic I'm more familiar with. I don't see Belgium falling apart anytime soon, for reasons I'll explain later, but I think it'll happen eventually. I speak with Flemmings regularly and this is a subject that comes up sooner or later. It's interesting to see that in the last few decades Flemish separatist sentiments have spread considerably through the political spectrum. Until the 1990s separatism was pretty much confined to very right-wing circles. As Flemish nationalism was strongly associated with Nazi collaboration during WWII, any party or ideology that kept their distance from the Nazis wouldn't touch separatism with a 10' pole. Vlaams Blok, itself quite right-wing, managed to change that. The moves toward stronger federalism that've been running through Belgian politics since the 1970s are a reflection of that.

 

The reasons the strings aren't cut yet are, as I see it, the following:

• Wallonia needs Flanders in Belgium for financial reasons. Mining and manufacture, once the engines of Belgian economy, were mostly located in Wallonia, but have largely collapsed since the 1970s. Today Flanders is the rich part. Consequently, the Walloon part of the electorate will resist separation to the end.
  
• Flemish separatism is still much a right-wing thing. Socialists and, to a lesser extent, liberals aren't very keen on the thing.
  
• Even if splitting Belgium in two could be negotiated, there's the problem that both sides want Brussels. No political settlement is possible in which either Wallonia or Flanders get Brussels.
  
• What's the perspective for the resulting parts after a split? Separate states? An independent Flanders I can just imagine, but nothing like it for Wallonia or Brussels. I ignore the German speaking minority in this discussion. I don't think Wallonia is keen on joining France and integration of Flanders in the Netherlands is something neither the Flemish nor the Dutch fancy much. The Flemish haven't forgotten 1830 and will not become subjects of an Orange.

 

That said: Belgium doesn't work very well and the Belgians know that. The fact that it took a year and a half to form a new federal govenment after the 2010 general elections is revealing evidence for that. I think it's inevitable that somewhere in the next twenty years the knot will be cut, possibly along the lines of: Wallonia in some way connecting to France, Flanders as an independent state and Brussels as a European Capital Territory.

 

I can be wrong.

 

regards,

Hein

[Davey Jones' Locker 1,324]

Thanks for that detailed response. I ws talking to a French lady in my office and she said the Walloons are very proud and unlikely to be keen to become part of France unless absolutely necessary.

 

I heard a rather fiery separatist interviewed when I was in Europe last month. I did not kow if his opinions were widely shared but, from what you say, it sounds lie they are becoming more prevalent and mainstream.

[Bibliogryphon 8,616]

Magere, as a Dutchman, do you have any thoughts on the Flemish separatist movement in Belgium that you would like to share?

 

Now that's a topic I'm more familiar with. I don't see Belgium falling apart anytime soon, for reasons I'll explain later, but I think it'll happen eventually. I speak with Flemmings regularly and this is a subject that comes up sooner or later. It's interesting to see that in the last few decades Flemish separatist sentiments have spread considerably through the political spectrum. Until the 1990s separatism was pretty much confined to very right-wing circles. As Flemish nationalism was strongly associated with Nazi collaboration during WWII, any party or ideology that kept their distance from the Nazis wouldn't touch separatism with a 10' pole. Vlaams Blok, itself quite right-wing, managed to change that. The moves toward stronger federalism that've been running through Belgian politics since the 1970s are a reflection of that.

 

The reasons the strings aren't cut yet are, as I see it, the following:

• Wallonia needs Flanders in Belgium for financial reasons. Mining and manufacture, once the engines of Belgian economy, were mostly located in Wallonia, but have largely collapsed since the 1970s. Today Flanders is the rich part. Consequently, the Walloon part of the electorate will resist separation to the end.
  
• Flemish separatism is still much a right-wing thing. Socialists and, to a lesser extent, liberals aren't very keen on the thing.
  
• Even if splitting Belgium in two could be negotiated, there's the problem that both sides want Brussels. No political settlement is possible in which either Wallonia or Flanders get Brussels.
  
• What's the perspective for the resulting parts after a split? Separate states? An independent Flanders I can just imagine, but nothing like it for Wallonia or Brussels. I ignore the German speaking minority in this discussion. I don't think Wallonia is keen on joining France and integration of Flanders in the Netherlands is something neither the Flemish nor the Dutch fancy much. The Flemish haven't forgotten 1830 and will not become subjects of an Orange.
  

That said: Belgium doesn't work very well and the Belgians know that. The fact that it took a year and a half to form a new federal govenment after the 2010 general elections is revealing evidence for that. I think it's inevitable that somewhere in the next twenty years the knot will be cut, possibly along the lines of: Wallonia in some way connecting to France, Flanders as an independent state and Brussels as a European Capital Territory.

 

I can be wrong.

 

regards,

Hein

 

What would become of the King of the Begians?

[Magere Hein 1,397]

What would become of the King of the Begians?

 

I haven't given that question much thought, I admit, nor do I personally care. I'm a republican at heart and another landless prince doesn't bother me.

 

However, it's a good question. I think the answer can be found in a combination of the title King of the Belgians and a comment made by Jules Destrée^WP, a Walloon socialist lawyer, made in 1912: "Sire, (...) Vous régnez sur deux peuples. Il y a en Belgique, des Wallons et des Flamands; il n'y a pas de Belges." (Sire, you rule two peoples. There are in Belgium Walloons and Flemmings; there are no Belgians.)

 

I don't know how deep royalist feelings run in modern inhabitants of Belgium, but after Belgium splits there seems to be little room for their king in the remnants.

 

regards,

Hein

[Rotten Ali 599]

Can I have a go please...

 

If it were down to me, which would never be but give me load of rope with which to hang myself... I would get rid of Belgium completely. It's totally unnessarsary. In a modern world there is little time for insular people. My French lessons were poorly carried off by a Belgie we called Maddam Sluice Gate. Never forgiven for for the suffering entailed. I digress...

 

Many living in Belgium would get the chance to vote in any of four ways.

 

The whole of Belgium would become the capital territory of a formal new Country called Europe.

 

Those living near France, Holland, Luxemboug or Germany would get the chance to join those nearest respective countries or stay in this "European Capital State" based on the greater metropolitan area of Brussels.

 

As and when various European countries such as Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy go to the wall and need to be bailed out further then those counties are consumed into this new rump state actually called Europe. It will be one hell of a mess and once shawn of those Belgian nationals who secretly want to be French, Dutch or German then the rest can set to work on how to get the whole euro area working as it should.

 

As for the USA, why not flush our those pretty Republican types. Give them the vote to leave and see if they can make a better go of it, either together as a group or as new independent countries. I feel, should they try and do so, then all would fail bar Texas since it is still buoyed by oil wealth.

 

[CarolAnn 924]

I feel, should they try and do so, then all would fail bar Texas since it is still buoyed by oil wealth.

 

Ummm no. Texas would not be able to sustain itself. There isn't as much oil wealth as there used to be. Most of the wealth in Texas is now from banking and industry, and all the companies that are headquartered in Texas would probably leave.

 

People want to live and work here and companies want to be headquartered here because of the lack of an income tax for their employees and a favorable corporate tax rate. This would quickly change if Texas were to secede. It's very different to be a populist state in a larger country and a country unto oneself.

 

Many of Texas' industries are buoyed by federal money. Lockheed Martin and Bell Helicopter in Fort Worth would lose federal contracts. Sikorsky Helicopters has a large presence in Corpus Christi.

 

There is also the annoying little issue of Fort Hood. The largest US Army base in the world is in Texas. Over 50,000 US Army soldiers smack in the middle of the state. Add to that six Air Force bases, three other Army bases, a joint reserve base and you can put a soldier on every street corner.

 

There is still oil here, but it no longer leads the economy, and a lot of what does drive the Texas economy is multinational corporations. A separate Texas wouldn't be nearly as attractive to them as a state of Texas is.

 

In 1869, Texas v White determined that the union "was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

 

Secession talk is stupid. It's the last bastion of the idiot. There isn't a single state in the US that could support itself as a country, and it would take all of a day for the Army to move in and take over.

[Bibliogryphon 8,616]

I feel, should they try and do so, then all would fail bar Texas since it is still buoyed by oil wealth.

 

Ummm no. Texas would not be able to sustain itself. There isn't as much oil wealth as there used to be. Most of the wealth in Texas is now from banking and industry, and all the companies that are headquartered in Texas would probably leave.

 

People want to live and work here and companies want to be headquartered here because of the lack of an income tax for their employees and a favorable corporate tax rate. This would quickly change if Texas were to secede. It's very different to be a populist state in a larger country and a country unto oneself.

 

Many of Texas' industries are buoyed by federal money. Lockheed Martin and Bell Helicopter in Fort Worth would lose federal contracts. Sikorsky Helicopters has a large presence in Corpus Christi.

 

There is also the annoying little issue of Fort Hood. The largest US Army base in the world is in Texas. Over 50,000 US Army soldiers smack in the middle of the state. Add to that six Air Force bases, three other Army bases, a joint reserve base and you can put a soldier on every street corner.

 

There is still oil here, but it no longer leads the economy, and a lot of what does drive the Texas economy is multinational corporations. A separate Texas wouldn't be nearly as attractive to them as a state of Texas is.

 

In 1869, Texas v White determined that the union "was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

 

Secession talk is stupid. It's the last bastion of the idiot. There isn't a single state in the US that could support itself as a country, and it would take all of a day for the Army to move in and take over.

 

A very comprehensive reply

 

Surely a better Republican strategy would be to focus on 2016 and find somebody that people would want to vote for.

 

Easier than erasing 200 years of history?

[CarolAnn 924]

Surely a better Republican strategy would be to focus on 2016 and find somebody that people would want to vote for.

 

Easier than erasing 200 years of history?

 

Repubicans have to get their minds around the idea that while the average American has options and positions on many issues, most are not completely driven by ideology. Most Americans tend to live their lives in the middle of the road and recognize that while they may have "ideal world" ideas, they recognize that we all have to live together and that compromise is required to do so. Although the media focuses on Tea Part members and Occupy activists, most of us just want the government to work and take care of what it needs to take care of, as we take care of our homes and families as we need to do.

 

Democrats are a little better at understanding this, but time and constant obstruction by the Republicans is making them just as obstructionist. Fortunately, the republic is built to function despite the best efforts of our elected officials.

[Davey Jones' Locker 1,324]

Magere, as a Dutchman, do you have any thoughts on the Flemish separatist movement in Belgium that you would like to share?

 

Now that's a topic I'm more familiar with. I don't see Belgium falling apart anytime soon, for reasons I'll explain later, but I think it'll happen eventually. I speak with Flemmings regularly and this is a subject that comes up sooner or later. It's interesting to see that in the last few decades Flemish separatist sentiments have spread considerably through the political spectrum. Until the 1990s separatism was pretty much confined to very right-wing circles. As Flemish nationalism was strongly associated with Nazi collaboration during WWII, any party or ideology that kept their distance from the Nazis wouldn't touch separatism with a 10' pole. Vlaams Blok, itself quite right-wing, managed to change that. The moves toward stronger federalism that've been running through Belgian politics since the 1970s are a reflection of that.

 

The reasons the strings aren't cut yet are, as I see it, the following:

• Wallonia needs Flanders in Belgium for financial reasons. Mining and manufacture, once the engines of Belgian economy, were mostly located in Wallonia, but have largely collapsed since the 1970s. Today Flanders is the rich part. Consequently, the Walloon part of the electorate will resist separation to the end.
  
• Flemish separatism is still much a right-wing thing. Socialists and, to a lesser extent, liberals aren't very keen on the thing.
  
• Even if splitting Belgium in two could be negotiated, there's the problem that both sides want Brussels. No political settlement is possible in which either Wallonia or Flanders get Brussels.
  
• What's the perspective for the resulting parts after a split? Separate states? An independent Flanders I can just imagine, but nothing like it for Wallonia or Brussels. I ignore the German speaking minority in this discussion. I don't think Wallonia is keen on joining France and integration of Flanders in the Netherlands is something neither the Flemish nor the Dutch fancy much. The Flemish haven't forgotten 1830 and will not become subjects of an Orange.
  

 

That said: Belgium doesn't work very well and the Belgians know that. The fact that it took a year and a half to form a new federal govenment after the 2010 general elections is revealing evidence for that. I think it's inevitable that somewhere in the next twenty years the knot will be cut, possibly along the lines of: Wallonia in some way connecting to France, Flanders as an independent state and Brussels as a European Capital Territory.

 

I can be wrong.

 

regards,

Hein

Gloves are off now: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-28/belgian-king-in-fascist-row/4445710

[Magere Hein 1,397]

Magere, as a Dutchman, do you have any thoughts on the Flemish separatist movement in Belgium that you would like to share?

Now that's a topic I'm more familiar with.

Gloves are off now: http://www.abc.net.a...ist-row/4445710

 

Yes, things are heating up.

 

There's a constitutional aspect to this. Article 88 of the Constitution of Belgium establishes the inviolability of the King and article 101 the principle of ministerial responsibility. When King Albert likens Flemish nationalists to fascists, constitutionally speaking it's Prime Minister Di Rupo doing so through the king's mouth. While it is unusual for Belgian monarchs to make such strong statements, there's nothing wrong with it. When Flemish nationalists feel stung by King Albert's words, they're barking up the wrong tree when they're blaming him.

 

To be continued.

 

regards,

Hein

[Davey Jones' Locker 1,324]

Time to drag up secessionist talk again with a retiring MP wanting Western Australia to go it alone.

[Guest Phoeborat]

Wif da dingo eating dem babies why aint cha all Australia want to leave dat island

[Toast 14,800]

 

 

<2 minutes in, looks at fingers>

 

Oh shit, apparently I'm a bloke.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,132]

< looks at my tiny Penis >

Fuck, its a clitoris, Im really a girl!!

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,132]

(Incidentally, why is he 'recumbent' in the thread title? Does he spend a lot of time in the horizontal position?)

That was me. I'm not sure why. I had to change it from "elect" to something; "recumbent" sounded better than "incumbent" I suppose, and if he were to die, I expect he would spend quite a lot of his time lying down.

 

Oh, I wonder...

 

The letters... B E N T in recumbent...

Now Joan Rivers said it some time ago... Michelle Obama was born, and lived her life till the age of about 21 as a bloke called Michael. Dropped of the football team and became Michelle.

Now we know that she is a big old unit but after watching one of those old you tube films I'm really intrigued to ask if it is on the radar of our American members?

As a sub question... If she never had re-assignment opperation then does that make it the case Barack is gay? Not that it matters much what they get upto in bed, but if it's the case I don't really want the leader of western world to be living a lie.

Maybe more will come out when he leaves office?

 

 

PS Mrs Rotten is now calling me a redneck...

Just when I thought you couldn't top your Ebola post...............

You know what you have to do now R.A, get number crunching and calculate the odds of the conspiracy of Obama being born in Kenya and married to a dude etc etc.

This may also throw up the possibility that Maggie Thatcher was really Mick Thatcher and Harold Wilson was really Gladys Wilson from Bolton or summat.

I love you man, I love you!!!!

[Toast 14,800]

nothing to see here, move on