It’s a close call in Scotland whether to become an independent sovereign state, with far-reaching consequences to the economy, the country’s finances, its money and relations with the European Union. If Scotland does secede, it definitely will make secession spread contagious in other countries like Russia, India, China and even the Texas Nationalist Movement.
Daniel Miller, president of the Texas Nationalist Movement, has been working on the concept of personal liberty and limited government for The Lone Star State for over 17 years, has acquired thousands of signatures from Texans who are extremely interested in breaking away from an omnipotent government and reinstating the republican form of government in their State.
Texas is not alone in watching what’s happening in Scotland – there are several other states whose efforts will be optimistically re-energized should the people of Scotland vote ‘yes.’ "But Texas has another reason to be doubly concerned,” says Miller. "The risk of ISIS crossing the border into our state increased considerably with the recent surge of illegal immigrants.” This, combined with the national security failures of the federal government to close the borders, puts Texas in a highly precarious position.
"Not a lot is being said on the situation in Scotland by the media this side of the Atlantic,” says Miller, "because those in power, sitting in lofty places, know that secession can be contagious and Texas has a much higher chance at prosperity than does Scotland or many other countries that are already independent. Independence by a western region will no longer be something that happened in history books. It will be something that Texans can look at and relate to today!”
As one of the largest and oldest organizations in the country promoting the interests of freedom, liberty and independence, The Texas Nationalist Movement’s objective is clear: the complete, total and unencumbered political, cultural and economic independence of Texas.
As a champion of conservative causes, Daniel Miller has devoted his adult life to serving Texas and continues to be an outspoken advocate for positions that are now being accepted in mainstream political discourse as truth. He has testified in front of the State Affairs Committee in the Texas House of Representatives on HCR 50 (State Sovereignty Resolution) and worked to build public pressure to support this resolution.
Daniel Miller is the author of "Line in the Sand", a book on Texas Nationalism is not alone either in the world envisioning similar break ups elesewhere. While flood-hit Kashmir is reckoning its survival due to Indian army’s rescue efforts, separatists nonetheless whip the sentiments of people to introspect their willingness to continue in India.
Though the US, UK and other international community say “Kashmir dispute” be left to India and Pakistan to resolve bilaterally, it keeps surfacing at the debate by the House of Common in Britain every year, not withstanding its own prospect of a break-up with Scotland holding a referendum today, September 18, to decide whether or not to continue its 300-year old union with Britain.
Though India has guaranteed Kashmir autonomy under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, it has whittled down over the years, with the BJP government vowing to scrap the article that gives Kashmir special status. India has to overcome its own limits to reach out Kashmiris the way British are trying to keep Scotts remain within the UK.
Recent flood-rescue operations by Indian army gave a glimpse of hope to move in this direction initially but soon swamped by anti-India coverage by some TV channels from the ground zero, which was immune to real conditions of reaching out the far-flung areas in mountain-ridden valley.
Some analysts offer the new notion of "multinational statehood" to replace the mid-20th century model of pure statehood that was imposed unilaterally by the stronger army intervention than by voluntary acceptance by residents.
There is a contradiction in what India is doing in its Northeast, compared to what it is engaged in to continue its relentless holding on to Kashmir. In the Northeast, the integration model failed to work but over a period marked by appeasement and tolerant negotiations, results are visibly seen now. Moreover, the middle class in the Northeast has been weaned away by pumping more funds and tolerating misuse to a greater extent. Despite hostile sentiments to the Indian army in the northeast, free movement by people to other parts of India helped the middle class to integrate and accept India as the other option was one of poverty or Chinese aggression.
But in Kashmir, similar panacea will not work as the Indian government followed a long policy of appeasing the elite circles at the cost of the middle class. While the recent floods bring hope in pushing the process of a reversal of this policy, it may take another century for India to see happy Kashmiris accepting Indian suzerainty but will Pakistan keep quiet till then?