Yes, this is their logo, my fellow Scots may find their lack of imagination for their logo a little on the nose but that's beside the point.
What I want to know is what all my Californian followers feel about this, regardless of any constitutional impediment that would very likely make this endeavour close to impossible.
Personally I would rather like to see California go on its own, it has more than enough economic potential to be in the top 10, if not top 5, weathiest nations in the world. And given the direction the political spectrum in Washington DC is heading towards the differences are starting to look very much like those between Scotland and the rUK. And though most of +Stephanie Rebours-Smith family lives there, I couldn't tell you off-hand how they would feel about that.
This probably opens a whole bunch of Pandora's boxes filled with cans of worms but let me know what you think, even if you're not in California.
Embedded Link
Yes California
It is time for California to secede from the United States and become an independent country. Yes California is the campaign dedicated to achieving that goal. The reasons for this are just as much emotional as they are economic, and just as cultural as they are codified in reason.
Google+: View post on Google+
Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.
California receives more federal funding than any other state. Their economy is highly dependent on being member of the union. This idea makes zero sense on any level. Don't even get me started on defense…
I've seen these exact same arguments from British unionists. As I have no data I'm not saying they're not valid as far as California is concerned but for Scotland it certainly wasn't true.
Like my old man use to say don't let the door crack your ass and anymore than what it is.
+Raymond Cool factually false. California is a net payer not a net receiver.
+Jim Wylie Factually accurate actually. The fact that California residents pay it back in taxes does not change what it receives, my statement was about that.
By any logic you want to apply, those funds would be a net loss in revenue. As I said, their economy is highly dependent on those funds. The relationship is symbiotic.
+Raymond Cool It may be helpful to support your argument if you had, for example, IRS figures.
Just a suggestion, otherwise it'll end up being a war of "you're wrong", "no, you're wrong" ad-nauseum.
+Jean-Loup Rebours-Smith here you go – google.com/
We both agree to net payer. (these numbers are census/IRS aggregate)
However removing a third of a trillion dollars in funding requires you to replace those moneys via your own economy, and all of the infrastructure required to run the programs as well.
I wonder if they'll build a Great Wall along the Oregon-Nevada-Arizona border?
legal!
lmao