The Scottish Referendum

[Malvad]

In three days on September 18 2014 Scotland will vote on whether it wishes to be an independent state or remain part of the United Kingdom. I thought this would be a good topic to discuss as it does have very large consequences and I know some here are from or live in the UK. So what do you think?

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I think this is a huge deal. I hope that it doesn't happen.... because it really is a big decision.

 

[Flemingovia]

Sometimes in history big deals have to happen.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

That is true. But I hope people realise how serious it is and they shouldn't take it as a referendum on the government of David Cameron. Not saying that they are or aren't, as I don't live there so I wouldn't know.

It reminds me of our republic referendum. There is no going back & you really need to get it right.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

I don't believe it will happen. The polls have it close but the press over the last week has gone out of its way to push the 'No' side and people en masse tend to be fickle. The BBC releasing the report about RBS supposedly moving HQ to London and the report today on the possible £400M deficit in Scotland NHS funding will hurt the 'Yes' campaign, even if they hate David Cameron.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I think you're probably going to be proven correct.

As I said, it reminds me of the republic campaign. The media and others kept reporting that the polling was very close, but in reality the referendum failed in every single state and it failed nationally by a significant margin.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

Hopefully the 'Yes' campaigners will not be too upset when the result is announced officially Friday morning.

Everyone seems to think there will be riots in the streets.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

That is concerning. I certainly hope that does not happen.

What do you think will happen to the provincial Government? It would be a big slap in the face for the nationalist State Minister or whatever his title is.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

That is concerning. I certainly hope that does not happen.

What do you think will happen to the provincial Government? It would be a big slap in the face for the nationalist State Minister or whatever his title is.

I don't think it will change anything. He is still the head of the SNP and they are in control until the 2016 general election. He will likely not be as vocal or as public once it fails but I doubt he will resign.

He will probably turn it around and say that the 48-49% that voted 'Yes' is a mandate to hold Westminster to this stupid Vow thing they posted up yesterday.

 

[Flemingovia]

I don't believe it will happen. The polls have it close but the press over the last week has gone out of its way to push the 'No' side and people en masse tend to be fickle. The BBC releasing the report about RBS supposedly moving HQ to London and the report today on the possible £400M deficit in Scotland NHS funding will hurt the 'Yes' campaign, even if they hate David Cameron.

People in the uk tend to vote how the newspapers tell them to vote.

The media has been remarkably partisan. An analysis across the media of headlines for one day last week showed a huge weighting in favour of "no" supporting articles, even in supposedly neutral news outlets.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

That is concerning. I certainly hope that does not happen.

What do you think will happen to the provincial Government? It would be a big slap in the face for the nationalist State Minister or whatever his title is.

I don't think it will change anything. He is still the head of the SNP and they are in control until the 2016 general election. He will likely not be as vocal or as public once it fails but I doubt he will resign.

He will probably turn it around and say that the 48-49% that voted 'Yes' is a mandate to hold Westminster to this stupid Vow thing they posted up yesterday.

I think it would leave his position as being untenable.. but I guess it would be hard to give up the position just over a vote.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

I don't believe it will happen. The polls have it close but the press over the last week has gone out of its way to push the 'No' side and people en masse tend to be fickle. The BBC releasing the report about RBS supposedly moving HQ to London and the report today on the possible £400M deficit in Scotland NHS funding will hurt the 'Yes' campaign, even if they hate David Cameron.

People in the uk tend to vote how the newspapers tell them to vote.

The media has been remarkably partisan. An analysis across the media of headlines for one day last week showed a huge weighting in favour of "no" supporting articles, even in supposedly neutral news outlets.

I was trying to be polite in my characterization of the general UK populace.

But, yes, it seems that very little independent thought goes into political decisions (or any decisions) here.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

That is concerning. I certainly hope that does not happen.

What do you think will happen to the provincial Government? It would be a big slap in the face for the nationalist State Minister or whatever his title is.

I don't think it will change anything. He is still the head of the SNP and they are in control until the 2016 general election. He will likely not be as vocal or as public once it fails but I doubt he will resign.

He will probably turn it around and say that the 48-49% that voted 'Yes' is a mandate to hold Westminster to this stupid Vow thing they posted up yesterday.

I think it would leave his position as being untenable.. but I guess it would be hard to give up the position just over a vote.

I think Salmond has been a leader in the SNP since the 1990s so I doubt he will step down.

Plus, he comes across (at least to me) as incredibly arrogant. So, again, unlikely to resign.

 

[Lennart]

Scotland has potential to grow both as an independent country or as a part of the UK, so I don't think they have that kind of rush Catalans, for instance, have in Spain. I don't think it's an "Aye or Die" decision as Groundkeeper Willie seems to think...

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vDzf-wSbk[/video]

Scottish people I know lean towards "Yes", even if they're living here in England. Ironically the thing they complain the most about is Salmond himself. I've heard a couple of times something along the lines of "I would like Scotland to be an independent country but not with Salmond as President".

I think they could vote either way, but if whatever option wins only by a small margin then there could be some unrest. No riots or anything like that...

I'd say they're voting yes.

 

[Imperium Magna Graecia]

The Scots come across as a, fiercely, patriotic bunch! Yet, at the best of times, people have a way of surprising each other.

Personally, i'd like to see a 'United' Kingdom, (this coming from a Monarchist-Australian!).

I don't think there will be civil unrest in the streets; perhaps, once upon a time, there might have been! I don't think there will be this time. Just disappointment, either: in the streets of Glasgow or London.

The main thing i've tried looking for is: what system of government will Scotland adopt if and when they achieve independence. It was the same question that was asked of Australian's before we were taken to a referendum, in 1996, on whether to abolish the Monarchy or remain part of the Commonwealth.

Nothing has been reported on that yet. For me, that's a key factor in my decision-making process.

Gaining indépendance is one thing. How you 'move forward' from that point, however, is another matter entirely. It's one, i think, that's constantly over-looked in these sorts of debates, too.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Even if they go independent Lennart he won't become President. the Queen will still be the head of state.

 

[Lennart]

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZR-2cm9aIA[/video]

... And I think they would be OK with that xD

 

[Flemingovia]

What makes me laugh is all the Americans going "gee, folks, scotlandland should not declare independence from the United Kingdom of englandland"

Makes me want to say "psssst.......1776"

 

[mcmasterdonia]

 

[Malvad]

In fairness I didn't get a choice in independence.

 

[Chasmanthe]

I think this is a huge deal and it's one of the reasons I didn't quit NS was to see what everybody thinks about what will happen to the remainder of the united kingdom if Scotland vote for independence.

I first graced the internet in 1999 and was immediately caught up in arguments with 14-year-old Scottish Nats. Last year I revisited that forum and realised how shockingly bad I am at getting along in an internet community, it's remarkable how little I've progressed in some aspects.

I've always been really pro-Union, but the attitude of English people who say "they can just sod off" depresses me to such an extent that I would quite like to see the yes win, the government fall, and basically rearrange things so fundamentally as to dismantle the entire concept of a British state and leave these islands changed into whatever the vicissitudes would make of it.

 

[Chasmanthe]

That is concerning. I certainly hope that does not happen.

What do you think will happen to the provincial Government? It would be a big slap in the face for the nationalist State Minister or whatever his title is.

I take it you are being ironically partisan, because if you aren't, you're being worryingly ignorant and dismissive of Scottish sovereignty such as it is.

The head of the devolved government of Scotland, which is an executive government for everything but defense and foreign affairs, is called the First Minister, is democratically elected and sworn in by her majesty, independently of the westminster-run government.

Blindly using the term state minister is conflating the idea with much more denigrated Secretary of State for Scotland, which is an appointed cabinet position in the UK executive government whose functions have been mainly superseded by the devolved government.

Similarly using the term provincial is extremely inflammatory, so once again, well done for ironic use of that. There are few words so heavily laden with imperialism than 'provincial'

I haven't been watching the news but I don't think a no vote will be such a slap in the face to the SNP, they know exactly what they are fighting for and they have almost won. Even if they lose they will never give up, they will just try again in a few generations time. The slap in the face is what comes to everybody with any real interest in the United Kingdom, most severely those who have most to gain from the status quo.

 

[Romanoffia]

Scots independence would be a disaster for Scotland. Their revenue for all their social welfare programs come from Whitehall Street, so to speak. Largely, Scots independence would be the death of the UK and totally disrupt NATO. Scotland would then become a EEC pawn because it would have to be admitted to the EEC and such a vote would require Scotland to become a pawn for various factions demanding the admission of other nations. Then there's that pesky issue of the SIP's demands to remove nuke forces from Scotland. Not to mention a currency issue and the fact that Scotland is utterly incapable of maintaining it's social welfare programs, not to mention its own defence. And the list goes on.

Ironically, Queen Elizabeth II would remain the Head of State for an 'independent' Scotland in the way she is Head of State for Canada or Australia. Meaningless as that is, no matter which way it goes, Scotland could be the new Northern Ireland of the 1970's what with all the foreign meddlers just waiting in the wings.

I suspect the referendum will fail, but that's not a sure thing. If the referendum passes, I'll bet you a dollar that it never goes into effect.

What you will get is a more independent Scotland which remains part of the UK either way.

 

[Flemingovia]

Scots independence would be a disaster for Scotland. Their revenue for all their social welfare programs come from Whitehall Street, so to speak. Largely, Scots independence would be the death of the UK and totally disrupt NATO. Scotland would then become a EEC pawn because it would have to be admitted to the EEC and such a vote would require Scotland to become a pawn for various factions demanding the admission of other nations. Then there's that pesky issue of the SIP's demands to remove nuke forces from Scotland. Not to mention a currency issue and the fact that Scotland is utterly incapable of maintaining it's social welfare programs, not to mention its own defence. And the list goes on.

Ironically, Queen Elizabeth II would remain the Head of State for an 'independent' Scotland in the way she is Head of State for Canada or Australia. meaningless as that is, no matter which way it goes, Scotland could be the new Northern Ireland of the 1970's what with all the foreign meddlers just waiting in the wings.

I suspect the referendum will fail, but that's not a sure thing. If the referendum passes, I'll bet you a dollar that it never goes into effect.

What you will get is a more independent Scotland which remains part of the UK either way.

The EEC has not existed since 1993.

No such place as "Whitehall Street."

I have no idea what the "SIP" you mention. Did you mean "SNP"?

I think you hugely overestimate the economic and political repercussions of a yes vote. Do you have evidence, beyond tabloid scaremongering?

I did laugh at your comment about foreign meddlers, considering your president's attempt to influence the vote yesterday.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

That is concerning. I certainly hope that does not happen.

What do you think will happen to the provincial Government? It would be a big slap in the face for the nationalist State Minister or whatever his title is.

I take it you are being ironically partisan, because if you aren't, you're being worryingly ignorant and dismissive of Scottish sovereignty such as it is.

The head of the devolved government of Scotland, which is an executive government for everything but defense and foreign affairs, is called the First Minister, is democratically elected and sworn in by her majesty, independently of the westminster-run government.

Blindly using the term state minister is conflating the idea with much more denigrated Secretary of State for Scotland, which is an appointed cabinet position in the UK executive government whose functions have been mainly superseded by the devolved government.

Similarly using the term provincial is extremely inflammatory, so once again, well done for ironic use of that. There are few words so heavily laden with imperialism than 'provincial'

I haven't been watching the news but I don't think a no vote will be such a slap in the face to the SNP, they know exactly what they are fighting for and they have almost won. Even if they lose they will never give up, they will just try again in a few generations time. The slap in the face is what comes to everybody with any real interest in the United Kingdom, most severely those who have most to gain from the status quo.

Oh ffs, get a grip man. I used State Minister because I was unsure what the correct title was. The same for provincial, is it a state government or dominion government? I could have done more research, yes, but it is not inflammatory. Take your bullshit elsewhere. That is inflammatory.

I would not be offended if you called my state Premier a State Minister or referred to the state of WA as a province. It would be a mistake, not inflammatory.

I am somewhat attached to the idea of the United Kingdom being well... United. If they lose the referendum, there needs to be a plan for how to move forward. That applies to both sides, the Scots can get a revote if they vote no this time around. However they are unlikely to be able to go back on a yes vote. At the same time, Scots are unlikely to want to vote on independence every decade or so... And it will take some time before another government will hold another referendum (in my opinion).

 

[Gracius Maximus]

What makes me laugh is all the Americans going "gee, folks, scotlandland should not declare independence from the United Kingdom of englandland"

Makes me want to say "psssst.......1776"

I am fully in support of the 'Yes' campaign. But, I don't get a vote even though I have lived here for a year and will live here for the foreseeable future while my students that arrived prior to Sept 1 from various parts of the EU do. Weird process.

If the vote is a 'Yes' then the Pound will drop in value and the money that I am pulling over from my accounts in the US will go further. So bring on independence and economic ruin.

 

[Chasmanthe]

In response to mcm:

You're forgiven.

So you didn't know that there's no such thing as dominions anymore?

Devolution is a difficult concept for those not familiar with it. It's not imperialist, and it's not federalist, it's a Third Way.

A yes vote would ruin everything, but as Flem said, sometimes big things have to happen. It would be a very far reaching change, and for those people who can lose the UK it is something they can support.

A no vote from a show of genuine unity would be something to be proud of, whereas a no vote born of anxiety and media pressure is not. To me, a no would be a hollow victory because british patriotism is shown to be so superficial.

and apologies to mcm for being hard on you.

 

[Lennart]

Scots independence would be a disaster for Scotland. Their revenue for all their social welfare programs come from Whitehall Street, so to speak. Largely, Scots independence would be the death of the UK and totally disrupt NATO. Scotland would then become a EEC pawn because it would have to be admitted to the EEC and such a vote would require Scotland to become a pawn for various factions demanding the admission of other nations. Then there's that pesky issue of the SIP's demands to remove nuke forces from Scotland. Not to mention a currency issue and the fact that Scotland is utterly incapable of maintaining it's social welfare programs, not to mention its own defence. And the list goes on.

Ironically, Queen Elizabeth II would remain the Head of State for an 'independent' Scotland in the way she is Head of State for Canada or Australia. Meaningless as that is, no matter which way it goes, Scotland could be the new Northern Ireland of the 1970's what with all the foreign meddlers just waiting in the wings.

I suspect the referendum will fail, but that's not a sure thing. If the referendum passes, I'll bet you a dollar that it never goes into effect.

What you will get is a more independent Scotland which remains part of the UK either way.

OK, If you mean Scotland will become an EU pawn, then think twice, look at the countries that make up the EU... Sometimes it seems like the EU itself is the pawn. Not being admitted is no big deal... Iceland, for one, has had a very friendly and profitable relation with the EU not being a part of it... Same as Switzerland and Norway.

Also I don't think Scotland will be having more problems to maintain their own defence and welfare than New Zealand has... And saying they can't do this or that, they are not good enough for this or that... That's the kind of thing they are sick of. Maybe it's time for them to show us they can. Your opinion is exactly the same the English had about USA back in 1776.

The UK won't be the same, but it doesn't mean something bad either... Maybe the Welsh will get more attention (?), and if it disbanded into four independent countries, I think they would remain friends and allies.

The only real issue I see in your comment is the currency. We will see.

But I'm sure they could do well. The thing is that they could do well staying as well.

 

[Romanoffia]

Scots independence would be a disaster for Scotland. Their revenue for all their social welfare programs come from Whitehall Street, so to speak. Largely, Scots independence would be the death of the UK and totally disrupt NATO. Scotland would then become a EEC pawn because it would have to be admitted to the EEC and such a vote would require Scotland to become a pawn for various factions demanding the admission of other nations. Then there's that pesky issue of the SIP's demands to remove nuke forces from Scotland. Not to mention a currency issue and the fact that Scotland is utterly incapable of maintaining it's social welfare programs, not to mention its own defence. And the list goes on.

Ironically, Queen Elizabeth II would remain the Head of State for an 'independent' Scotland in the way she is Head of State for Canada or Australia. meaningless as that is, no matter which way it goes, Scotland could be the new Northern Ireland of the 1970's what with all the foreign meddlers just waiting in the wings.

I suspect the referendum will fail, but that's not a sure thing. If the referendum passes, I'll bet you a dollar that it never goes into effect.

What you will get is a more independent Scotland which remains part of the UK either way.

The EEC has not existed since 1993.

No such place as "Whitehall Street."

I have no idea what the "SIP" you mention. Did you mean "SNP"?

I think you hugely overestimate the economic and political repercussions of a yes vote. Do you have evidence, beyond tabloid scaremongering?

I did laugh at your comment about foreign meddlers, considering your president's attempt to influence the vote yesterday.

I suggest you look at the factual economic figures given in this article to see what an independent Scotland would mean to the UK - it's not Scotland that will have the real problems, the UK will be in for it and probably terminally so. These numbers are factual and the potential disastrous results are echoed by every economist who isn't a Marxist or other form of idiot:

Read: http://fortune.com/2014/09/17/scotland-uk-independence/



You are right, the US President is a meddler, a jackass, a walking turd who can't even play golf despite spending every day on the golf course. I could make an entire sport out of making fun of our idiot President as most people are already doing exactly that, and rightly so.

Speaking of Obama and the game of golf - you know what his handicap is? He's an idiot. A blithering idiot. He can't influence a golf ball, let alone a vote in Scotland.


Also, excuse me for using obsolete 100 year old+ archaic expressions.

As for the SNP - And independent Scotland would go broke in a year or two, tops. Just think of all the welfare programs and transfer payments a new Scots government would have to take over from the UK.

On a positive note for the UK, think of the millions of people on the dole who UK tax payers will no longer have to foot up any more.

Besides, other than having ancestral ties with Scotland and England, whatever Scotland does doesn't matter a hill of beans to me unless the price of Scotch goes up and then I might get upset. Although, if Scotland does get its independence, it would set the precedent for Secession on the world stage which might make any number of US States quite happy to try it for themselves again.

 

[Chasmanthe]

Looks like we scraped through :-)

I'm sure most Brits don't appreciate how close they came to losing the union!

Thanks all for your support ;-)

 

[Flemingovia]

[video]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1vh-wEXvdW8[/video]

 

[Gracius Maximus]

Looks like we scraped through :-)

I'm sure most Brits don't appreciate how close they came to losing the union!

Thanks all for your support ;-)

It is my understanding that the last-minute promises made to Scotland in order to secure the vote (keeping the Bartlett formula, etc.) do not sit well with the majority of the English. Is this incorrect?

Also, now it seems there will be an upsurge in the drive for an English-only parliament, since Scottish MPs get to vote on English-only legislation at present.

Further, I do believe that a lot of people that voted 'No' last night may regret that decision in 9 months when the next general election doesn't see any appreciable change in Westminster governance. Especially if the EU referendum is pushed and the whole of the UK withdraws (I know - a far shot at present but the 'No' campaign were 20-30 points ahead in the polls nine months ago).

Oh well, my money is once again worth less here in the UK. But, overall, probably the best result. Research Council funding goes a long way up here.

 

[Flemingovia]

Looks like we scraped through :-)

I'm sure most Brits don't appreciate how close they came to losing the union!

Thanks all for your support ;-)

It is my understanding that the last-minute promises made to Scotland in order to secure the vote (keeping the Bartlett formula, etc.) do not sit well with the majority of the English. Is this incorrect?

Also, now it seems there will be an upsurge in the drive for an English-only parliament, since Scottish MPs get to vote on English-only legislation at present.

Further, I do believe that a lot of people that voted 'No' last night may regret that decision in 9 months when the next general election doesn't see any appreciable change in Westminster governance. Especially if the EU referendum is pushed and the whole of the UK withdraws (I know - a far shot at present but the 'No' campaign were 20-30 points ahead in the polls nine months ago).

Oh well, my money is once again worth less here in the UK. But, overall, probably the best result. Research Council funding goes a long way up here.

I think your analysis is pretty spot on. Westminster is good at devolving culpability, poor at devolving power. I am sure there will be a huge cry of "foul" in Scotland in a few months.

There is a lot of resentment in England this morning. Either we are a federation or a Union, and the essence of union ought to be fair equal treatment across the board. Increasingly it is not.

 

[Lennart]

Is the UK turning into a federal state?

I live in England, I like England, and having Scots to vote about England-only matters, as Gracius Maximus said, when English MPs can't do the same in Scotland sounds less than fair to me.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

A federal system would probably work best, aye. Like what Australia uses. I say Australia instead of the USA, because we have a constitutional monarchy system.

Obviously you would not require Governors for each state, with the royal family living there.

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

A little Scottish Independence "conspiracy" for today:

http://www.infowars.com/yes-supporters-claim-videos-show-scottish-referendum-was-rigged/

Footage shows 'yes' votes being added to 'no' pile

by PAUL JOSEPH WATSON | SEPTEMBER 19, 2014

Despite a ten per cent margin of victory for the ‘No’ campaign in the Scottish referendum, some supporters of the ‘Yes’ camp are pointing to videos which they claim show evidence of vote rigging.

[Video] click link to watch.

Scotland voted to stay in the United Kingdom after voters rejected independence by a margin of 55% to 45%. The pro-independence campaign claimed 1,617,989 votes but was defeated by the ‘Better Together’ campaign which obtained 2,001,926 votes. The turnout was 84.5%.

However, almost as soon as the vote count began last night, some were pointing to alleged examples of tampering.


In the first example, bundles of referendum papers are seen on top of a table designated for ‘No’ votes and yet when zoomed in, the top paper on two of the bundles clearly shows an X marked in the box for ‘Yes’.

The second clip shows a man at a desk in a polling station writing on a piece of paper. Some claim this proves he is filling in referendum cards, although he could just as easily be tallying up votes.

The third example is a little harder to explain. It shows a woman at a polling station counting votes. She takes one paper from the ‘No’ pile and places it in the ‘Yes’ pile before taking at least two cards from the ‘Yes’ pile and placing them in the ‘No’ pile.

Police in Glasgow are also investigating at least ten cases of vote fraud where people turned up to vote only to find that their names had already been crossed off the list, suggesting other people were voting multiple times.

“Last night police officers were present at the count to remove the ballot papers and keep them as evidence,” reports the Daily Mail. “The papers were from 10 different boxes across Glasgow, and not concentrated in one area.”

While these videos by no means offer concrete evidence of vote fraud, they do feed into the sentiment that the British establishment was so panicked by the prospect of a ‘Yes’ vote, a likelihood which grew which after polls narrowed earlier this month, that it would go to any lengths to prevent Scotland from gaining independence.

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

snip

I was at a gathering last night when the Glasgow situation started to be discussed. Honestly, I believe such things happened on both sides in probably a fairly widespread fashion.

I did not get a vote (and since I am not a UK citizen didn't want one) so I didn't attend a polling station but my friends here informed me that they were not asked for any form of identification when they went to vote. They simply provided their name and walked in. This was at multiple polling locations. Further, one person stated that he filed a postal ballot but also received a referendum card at his parents' address in Inverness, so theoretically, he could have had two votes.

That coupled with the sheer ineptitude (my opinion) of the entire voting process indicates that there was the potential for widespread voter fraud. The polling stations collected ballots in large rubber tubs, loaded them into private vehicles and then drove them for miles (sometimes via very remote areas) before effectively dumping them in the counting centers.

That is just a process that begs for exploitation.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

That is concerning. I certainly hope that does not happen.

What do you think will happen to the provincial Government? It would be a big slap in the face for the nationalist State Minister or whatever his title is.

I don't think it will change anything. He is still the head of the SNP and they are in control until the 2016 general election. He will likely not be as vocal or as public once it fails but I doubt he will resign.

He will probably turn it around and say that the 48-49% that voted 'Yes' is a mandate to hold Westminster to this stupid Vow thing they posted up yesterday.

I guess I was wrong on this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29277527

 

[James]

I don't think anyone expected that seeing as he himself said that he'd avoid resignation no matter the result.

 

[Ravenna]

It's satisfying to see Scotland making the choice with more common sense. It was silly to read statements like 'I vote Yes because I want change'. But change for what? You know, it can always be for worse? No simple logic in that.

Why both factions couldn't try to improve their relations instead of creating more barriers. Call it idealism. Multi-culti, separatism, group feuds... Pretty bad prognosis for the European integration.