Why its so important to defend President Trump's Executive Order dealing with refugees.

Last week during the Question and Answer segment of a speaking engagement, a young person asked me how I could be sure that I was on the correct side of any particular issue.  No doubt at one time or another, most people have considered this question.  When I was younger and knew very little of the world, I was very careful before pronouncing an opinion on political or international issues.  Frankly put, I didn't want to look foolish.  During my college days, if some group or another was protesting apartheid or speaking up on the issue of abortion, for instance, I would find the time to learn as much as I could before I put my credibility on the line by stating my opinion, and my audience was usually limited to my friends and family.  Today when I listen to the various groups protesting President Donald Trump and his actions since his inauguration, I frequently hear Trump and his supporters referred to as "Nazis and Racists", with the President himself constantly being compared to Nazi Dictator Adolf Hitler.  I'm willing to bet that the great majority of people using the term "Nazi" and making comparisons to Hitler, probably could not find Germany on a map, let alone accurately explain Hitler and his National Socialist movement.  Regardless, the name-calling and bullying won't be ending anytime soon, so those of us who support President Trump had better prepare ourselves for the long-haul.

When President Trump took office, he immediately went to work following through on a number of his campaign promises.  Anyone who followed the 2016 presidential election shouldn't be surprised by Trump's Executive Order temporarily halting immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations.  Contrary to what is regularly written by the left-wing press, the order does not "ban" immigrants from any country.  Instead, it temporarily freezes the process, to allow officials from the Department of Homeland Security to review and properly investigate each applicant.  According to Trump's own language, the review must be completed within a four-month window.  Actually, on two separate occasions, President Obama took the same action, albeit his effort included only two "Muslim-majority" nations.  What were President Obama and now President Trump intending when issuing these orders?

We have been incredibly fortunate in that significant terror attacks in the United States over the last decade have only occurred about once a year.  Europe, which is ground-zero for refugee resettlement, is basically at war with Muslim extremists.  The French have felt the brunt of violence, with the United Kingdom and Germany not far behind.  Terror-related deaths have also occurred in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain.  Along with individual terrorist actions, Europeans have had to deal with rampant sexual assaults against women at public celebrations, including New Years.  It seems that Muslim extremists have decided that any woman wearing what they consider to be revealing attire, is a justified target fro sexual assault.  The terror attacks that fill the headlines of European newspapers are almost always directly tied to the refugee community.  Why hasn't the United States suffered the same frequency of terror-related events?  One reason is because we have just recently bought into the refugee "come-one, come-all" attitude that the left seems to believe is safe, intelligent policy.  President Trump's Executive Order was intended to prevent some of what Europe has suffered.  With so many refugees arriving on the borders of Hungary, Greece and Italy every day, it has been impossible for European law enforcement to adequately investigate each new arrival.  President Trump enacted his Executive Order so that our law enforcement would have the time and resources to accomplish what the Europeans have so far failed to do- protect innocent civilians from terrorists who have been purposely seeded into refugee communities.

The fact that one court in Washington State and another in California have ruled against the President should come as no surprise.  These activist, leftist judges believe that their authority overrides the Executive Branch, which flies directly in the face of the Constitution.  If the President of the United States does not have the authority to control the border, then who does?  If you speak to rank-and-file Border Patrol and Immigration Enforcement Officers, those who are most familiar with Immigration Law (yours truly has a bit of experience in that area as well), they will tell you that the President absolutely has the authority to take action limiting immigration.  Interestingly enough, our Justice Department includes the existence of Immigration Courts, who are trained to interpret law relating to immigrants.  Instead, we have the California-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ignoring the Constitution for the sole purpose of damaging a President whom they despise.

At the end of the day, those of us who call ourselves Conservatives must be more aggressive in support of our President and the policies for which he was elected.  At the moment, the left is running rampant, destroying property, threatening people and bullying our society into hiding behind our locked doors.  Their behavior, which has yet to be criticized by any national Democratic Party leader, is an attempt to overurn the results of the 2016 election through intimidation and fear.  But they may have a surprise coming.  Sixty-four million American citizens voted for Donald Trump, and groups within that block are beginning to mobilize, so that our voices may be heard.  At times I almost regret not behaving in such a fashion when Obama was piling up twenty trillion dollars in debt, destroying our reputation internationally, and leaving wounded veterans to die on the streets.  Hindsight is 20/20,  as the cliche reminds us, so I'm going to focus on the future.

Europe suffers another terrorist attack, as the free world continues to search for a champion.

On Tuesday, terrorists conducted suicide attacks in Belgium, killing upwards of 31 people and at least  160 injured.  The terrorist operators chose to detonate their suicide gear in the crowded Maelbeek Metro Station in Brussels, and also at Zaventem International Airport.  This horrific event was no doubt some sort of retaliation for Belgium's aggressive efforts to assist the French authorities in identifying, locating and apprehending terror suspects who are using Belgium as a safe haven.  Only three days ago, Belgian police apprehended one of the individuals suspected of direct involvement in last year's Paris attacks.  I have nothing but admiration and support for the law enforcement authorities in Belgium and France.  Over the previous four months, a great deal of attention has been generated regarding the issue of national security, as everyday French (and Belgian) citizens have to consider just how safe rheir families really are.  Sadly, we aren't discussing Europeans on vacation who inadvertently got caught up in local violence.  The people of Europe are obliged to have public discourse regarding the safety of their own communities. This is a very sobering time for resiidents of Avila, Spain, or Cork Ireland, or maybe Schlitters, Austria, who have basically always been able to assume the relative security of their neighborhoods and villages, at least as far as foreign threats go.  The world has become a much smaller place, and liberal immigration laws and the lack of enforcement has provided those persons who harbor latent resentment towards anything from the west, to move in next door.  That reality is no longer worth the argument.  These people had to come from somewhere, which makes the continued debate regarding refugees from Syria even more important.

One of the most frustrating aspects of the terror attacks in Belgium, is the predictable, toothless response of the United States.  President Barsck Obama, who just happens to be visiting Cuba (enjoying Cuba Libres and good seafood while political prisoners and no doubt a number of U.S. citizens, starve in the Havana jail), tossed out the tired "our thoughts and prayers" comment to the press, and then continued his original speech, which was so ideologically leftist that Che Guevara saluted from the grave.  It is so difficult to accept (but we must, at least for the next nine months) the direction we are taking with regards to Socialist Cuba, when at the same time the Obama Administration has gone out of its way to embarrass Israeli President Netanyahu and create difficulties between our nations.  In truth, it wouldn't have mattered if Obama had been in DC or Durban when the news from Brussels first broke.  President Obama has laid down the law, policy-wise.  ISIS does not pose a threat to the United States, and any effort by the United States to take a leadership role in the fight against ISIS would be innappropriate.  This hardline "laissez faire" approach to international terror is living our European allies in a bit of a fix.  In 2008, when Barack Obama took office, the leaders of Europe were tripping over each other to be the first to be best friends with the first African-American President of the United States.  This sickening lovesick attitude (which pervades amongst the people of Europe as well), was on display in foreign relations, as France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands were perfectly willing to grt in line behind whatever policy Obama thought best.  Examples include the terrible New Start Nuclear Disarmament Treaty, which was supported by Europe, the lack of spine in dealing with Russian threats against Nato expansion, and the never-ending sanctions regime put in place to force Russia to end its support of murdering thugs and guerillas in Ukraine.  Where has that policy gotten us?  Nowhere, except we have to change our maps to correctly show Crimea as again a province of Russia.

Now that the leaders of Europe have lined up their equities alongside Obama, they impatiently wait for the United States to step up and show some aggressive leadership in the fight against this evil plague that continues to expand and continues to kill.  Sadly Monsieur Hollande, Frau Merkel, and Mr. Cameron will have to wait at least until late January 2017.  Unless ISIS conducts a major terrorist operation within the United States, the European nations, as they are doing with the refugee crisis, will have to formulate policy sans the U.S.A.  The Obama Administration's wilingness to wait until the bad guys strike us domestically before we recognize them (and all Islamic Extremists) as the enemy is a terrible mistake, and very well may prove costly.  For a month or so, it appeared that possibly Russia and Vladimir Putin might be willing to take the lead in the campaign to destroy this group, but we found out, not surprisingly, that all Putin wanted was to strengthen the bargaining position of Russia's Syrian puppet, Bashar al-Assad.  So the free world continues to look for a champion, someone who will rain destruction on these thugs.  As things stand, ISIS has no opposition to its expansion into Africa (through Boko Haram and al-Shabaab), Latin America and Southest Asia.  Militarily, ISIS appears to have no problem fighting the Iraqi Armed Forces to a stand-still (even with air support and ad hoc special forces ops for Iraq).  Now that the Russians have stepped things down in Syria, ISIS feels no real threat or pressure.  I fear that this summer may bring tragedy to many people; I pray everyday to be wrong.

Europe takes a giant leap to the Right. (Part II)

The Italian love/hate relationship with Silvio Berlusconi is truly something to admire.  He has been charged with a variety of crimes, with only a few inconsequential accusations amounting to convictions.  At press time, Berlusconi was in the news regarding the potential sale of his football team, Italian giant AC Milan.  He is currently serving a "house-arrest" sentence for tax evasion (I think), but our contacts in Italy and within Berlusconi's recently reborn party Forza Italiana warn is to never count out Silvio Berlusconi.  Interestingly enough, Berlusconi has provided the Italian people with the only political consistency that they country has experienced since the second World War.  Italy is famous for having governments of spectacularly short lifespans, but Berlusconi, who shamelessly appeals to the nationalist and patriotic emotions of the Italian people, has managed to stay in office longer than any other Italian Prime Minister.  The current left-of-center government is bleeding votes as the economy struggles with the usual "confidence in banking" issues.  But at least we can count our second "left-of center" government, alongside Sweden.

The Czech Republic is a bit of a mess.  Because roughly fifteen percent of the population continues to support the Communist Party, and no other parties will work in coalition with the Communists, its virtually impossible to put together an effective coalition government.  The center-right and the center-left usually end ever election with only a small percentage difference in votes.  Two important issues to watch: the far-right has been growing rapidly, especially with unemployed young people and in rural areas.  Also, if a center-left coalition were to include the Communists, would that impact the Czech Republic's membership in NATO and relationship with Russia, vis-a-vis the United States?  Poland, on the other hand, is not a difficult country to size up politically.  Poland is, and has been (and will probably continue to be), the most right-of-center country in Europe.  The Polish people are strongly pro-U.S. and anti-Russian, even after the fall of Communism.  The Catholic Church continues to influence the lives of most Poles, and, learning from history, the Polish government has built a powerful Army and Air Force.  Another country that appears to be most comfortable with a right-wing government is Hungary.  The Fidesz (Hungarian Civic Alliance) Party has a substantial majority in the Hungarian parliament, and Fidesz leader Viktor Orban is Hungary's Prime Minister.  The Fidesz Party has come under attack from international human rights organizations because of accusations that the party is anti-Semitic, racist and xenophobic.  Fidesz has made serious efforts to clean up its image, but it makes no bones about its opposition to immigration, especially from Turkey and other Islamic nations.

The United Kingdom just re-elected David Cameron to a second term as Prime Minister.  Last time around, Cameron had to spend the first few days after the election, trying to put together a coalition government; this time around, he gets to watch TV and fool around with his lovely wife.  Cameron's Conservative Party absolutely destroyed the opposition, with a result that shocked even the most optimistic Tory punter.  Now the poor British people will have to listen to a few weeks of Sky News and BBC analyzing and re-analyzing how this development came to pass. For me, its not rocket science.  Since Cameron took office, there have been a number of racially-connected mini-riots in various UK cities.  Not to mention the incident involving the British soldier who was brutally murdered on the street, practically in front of his post.  And who can forget the look of fear on the faces of Prince Charles and Camilla as their car was attacked by a group of protesters in London?  I'm sure the fact that the ISIS commander who appears to be in charge of the beheadings department proudly brags about his English heritage, is something that sticks in the craw of every English person.  The UK is not a haven for extremist and future terrorists should not consider relocating there.  The voters wanted to make sure that the right message was delivered to the bad guys. Although I'm not sure what the Tories plan on doing to tighten immigration and fight the growth of Islamic extremism in the Black and Arab ghettos of London, Liverpool, Manchester and Bristol (just to name a few), but I'm sure the message was received, loud and clear.

We haven't reached the Balkans and Greece, but I think we've arrived at a good place to take stock of our research.  Twelve of the countries we reviewed, including Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, Spain and Austria, have right-of-center government.  Only three (France, Sweden and Italy) are sailing against the wind.  I expect France and Italy to elect right wing governments in their next elections, especially if the terrorist issue continues to be a priority.  How can it not be?  With the entire continent embracing conservative governments, what does that mean for the rest of the world?  The EU will probably adopt more market-friendly policies, which includes encouraging tax cuts and tax code reform.  Also, Immigration faucet will be turned down to a trickle.  In a number of European countries, the fear isn't that foreigners will arrive with a terrorist agenda, but that desperate Africans, Algerians, Libyans and Ethiopians will arrive and take all the jobs.  Getting in a shoe box with twenty other people and managing to get it from Tripoli to Reggio on the coastal boot of Italy, will no longer guarantee someone legal residency in Europe.  I believe that this is the first change that Europe will embrace.  And right-wing governments from Warsaw to Lisbon will be on too happy to introduce the legislation to their constituents.

Europe takes a giant leap to the Right. (Part I)

One of the most interesting political trends I've been watching on the international scene recently has been the growth of right-of-center political parties in Europe.  This development does not follow a trend, as Asian countries seem content to continue the trend of hopping from one extreme to the other, and South America is on a decidedly leftist run at the moment (trying to gauge African politics with a western yardstick is a dangerous game, so we'll just leave the African nations out of today's discussion).  From my optic, and with some countries is can be difficult to judge; a number of new political movements have shown up on the scene, who really skate a thin line between fascist and eco-terrorist.  Teaching a modern European politics class in college must be an interesting job.  But a quick analysis of the major players in Europe show a definite swing to the right.  The Christian Democrats of Angela Merkel seem as entrenched as during the best Helmut Kohl days.  In fact, the popularity of the right in Germany may be the only hope for the opposition, as new right-of-center and extreme right parties threaten to draw votes away from the CDU.  To put it simply, the CDU may not be conservative enough anymore.  Everyone seems to be watching France with baited breath, as Marine Le Pen shows no sign of weakening.  In fact, the other players involved appear to be hoping for some screw-up on Le Pen's part.  She does live on the political edge, and she doesn't appear to speak with a delay (so as to think through everything she says beforehand), but let's face it; everyone expects a mistake sooner or later.  Her political party, the National Front (FN), did very well in the last European Union Parliamentary election, and polls show her consistently on top of her two rivals (but by the smallest of margins).  Some things are certain: the Socialists (PS) will not abandon Francois Hollande, who was lucky to squeak out a win against Sarkozy when all the elements were in favor of a PS blowout.  Many expect Sarkozy to emerge as the UPM candidate, completing a remarkable "phoenix-rising-from-the-ashes" comeback, and I agree.  Le Pen and Sarkozy may split the right vote so evenly that Hollande gets a second term.  Regardless, its impossible to deny that the French electorate has moved to the right.

The conservative government of Mariano Rajoy continues to face the tremendously difficult job of rebuilding the Spanish economy.  The fact the his People's Party (PP) has managed to stay in power this long is more a case of the electorate remembering what an unmitigated disaster the last government was.  But Spain is not a lost cause, as the country has been registering very encouraging growth.  But unemployment remains an issue, and with local elections coming at the end of the month, and the national election occurring before the end of the year, its very possible that the Spanish electorate could flip the players once again.  I don't think so.  I believe a number issues, with immigration and crime being near the top, will keep the PP in charge in Madrid.  Portugal also has a right-of-center government, which is trying to tackle an economic situation which is one of the worst in the EU.  Portugal has benefited from low oil prices, low interest rates and the low performance of the Euro, but debt and a struggling banking sector continue to blunt recovery.  Portugal will have national elections in either September or October.  It will be interesting to see if the current government tries to push through any additional reforms before the election, which might result in a negative response by the electorate.

I'm not ambitious enough to tackle the subject of the Belgian government.  Its a solid candidate for a posting all on its own.  The Netherlands is a fascinating country, politically.  The right-of-center "People's Party for Freedom and Democracy" (VVD) won the last election, but the left-of-center "Labour Party" (PvdA) is not far behind.  The recent trend in Holland has been to the right, and there is no reason to believe it will end.  Immigration is a big issue, with many Dutch fearing the Islamization of their society.  The government in Denmark is right-of-center, with the Liberal Party (V) leading a coalition that includes the increasingly popular far-right Danish People's Party.  Denmark is an interesting society, though, as the monarchy, highly limited by the constraints of the constitution, is obliged to perform ceremonial functions and not much else, similar to other European monarchies.  But Queen Margrethe II will not hesitate to make her opinions known; in fact, if she moved to increase her own power I would be surprised if she were not supported by the Danish people.  The monarchy is Holland is just as popular, where former Queen Beatrix continues to be adored by the Dutch.

In Scandinavia, Norway and Finland continue a recent trend towards conservative governments, while the Swedish refuse to break their tradition of left-of-center politics.  The continued growth of the conservative parties in Norway has been surprising, although the immigration issue is huge in both Sweden and Norway.  Many consider Norway to be the wealthiest country in the world, with the highest standard of living (Luxembourg, Lichtenstein and Switzerland might disagree); Norwegians are beginning to show a desire to protect the benefits that they believe they deserve as native Norwegians.  Speaking of Switzerland, the Swiss People's Party has a strong hold on the reigns of government, and just happens to be a right-wing political party (not simply "right-of-center"); this is not surprising as the Swiss have always appeared to associate their famous neutrality with Nationalism. Austria has been electing conservative governments for over a decade, and the trend continues to move to the right.  The issue of immigration has threatened to cashier the current government, in favor of a political party with even more right-wing credentials.  The Austrians don't screw around.

         

Post-Scotland: Crisis for Independence Movements in Europe?

List: Scotland Independence Referendum Complete Results


I was one of the many who anxiously followed the Scottish Independence Referendum results as they were announced. I'm not Scottish, but I love Scotland and I'm a bit sad that the voters rejected outright independence.   I'm also surprised.  I can't explain why, but I had this feeling that the voters would surprise the pundits.  Actually, they did.  The vote wasn't really close.  So I'm stuck humming "Loch Lomond" with a permanent vision of Queen Elizabeth and those ugly little dogs in my head.  Back on the continent, different folks with a variety of agendas set about interpreting the results.  Personally, I don't believe the referendum on Scotland is a precursor to anything (accept possibly another go by the Quebecois to separate from Canada).  Those persons keeping an eye on the various European independence movements now turn their focus on Catalonia, Spain. 

In 2012 the state government of Catalonia signed an agreement stating that a referendum on independence from Spain would be held in 2014 unless "socio-economic and political context make a postponement necessary".  Madrid is doing everything possible to legally combat the independence movement, which shouldn't be a surprise.  I will not get into the nuts and bolts of the Spanish financial crisis, except to say that I believe high domestic growth and international financing confidence indicate that the economy is on the mend.  The recent modest improvements in the economy have not discouraged the movement for Catalonian Independence.  Many Catalonians believe that Catalonia provides more to the Spanish government than it gets in return, especially when Barcelona is factored into the equation.  If Catalonia manages to hold the referendum in 2014 (which becomes less likely everyday), there is little doubt that the people will vote to secede by a statistical majority.  Even if the referendum is postponed for a year, I can't envision a scenario in which the Catalonian people vote against independence.  I'm going out on a limb here, but I believe the only way that Madrid can avoid a separation with Catalonia, is by proposing increased autonomy, and hoping that the Catalonians won't act unilaterally.  Frankly, I don't see this ending well.  With the Basque question presently on the back-burner ("hey, we were here first!"), the Spanish people are beginning to resent the Catalonian independence movement.  Most Spaniards have felt the pinch of austerity in recent years, and the Spanish media never misses an opportunity to portray Barcelona as the Bacchanalian capital of Europe, with plenty of drunk students and money from tourists to go around. My biggest concern, is that Madrid will be obliged to provide Catalonia with virtual independence, and the Basques will be right behind.

In all honestly, the so-called independence movements in mainland France (Brittany and Normandy being the only two that have received any media attention) are used as platforms to attract tourists.  Both Brittany and Normandy have fascinating and unique customs and dialects, but so does every region of France (trust me on this one; my family is from Angouleme).  The one exception is Corsica.

Since 1960, Corsica has suffered through periods of unrest highlighted by violence committed by Corsican nationalist groups.  Because of its location, the culture of Corsica incorporates traditions from France, Spain, as well as Italy.  In the mid to late 1970s, the underground independence movement was responsible for a number of assassinations, including mayors and policemen.  The government in Paris reacted aggressively and many arrests were made.  In the 1990s, the independence movement collapsed due to internal conflict, and in 2000, French President Lionel Jospin granted increased autonomy to Corsica.  Since then steps have been taken to protect the indigenous language, which is close to extinction.  One issue that has consistently caused problems is the building of summer/vacation homes in Corsica by wealthy Parisian families.  The last time I checked, the Parisians were winning, I'm sorry to say (of course, there's nothing wrong with a polite, half-French, half-Texan buying a vacation house in Bastia, right?).  You can commit the Corsican independence movement to history; France has won.

I am fascinated by the case of Belgium.  Fifty-five percent of Belgians (the northern side) speak Flemish (Dutch), and forty-five percent (the southern side), speak French and call themselves Walloons.  I once read an article which described Belgium as suffering from a case of "linguistic apartheid", which, ironically, is a Dutch word.  Basically, Belgium is a country made up of two separate nationalities, the Flemish and the Walloons, and neither side wants to play with the other.  Belgium is a wealthy country of 11.2 million souls, and (more irony), its capital Brussels is considered the de facto capital of the European Union.  Having spent some time in Belgium, I must say there seems to be a bit of snobbery at play on the part of the Flemish.  What keeps Belgium together?  More than anything else, its royal family.  Don't misunderstand; the Belgians don't adore their royals as the Dutch love the House of Orange.  Its just that the royal family seems to be the one thing that presides equally over both sides.  The rational thing to do would be for the Netherlands to annex north Belgium and for France to annex the south.  Brussels (and its environs) could remain a city-state, continuing its important functions relating to NATO and the EU.  But for something this prolific to happen, enough folks on both side would have to make the effort.  And no one cares enough to make the effort.

I won't delve into the examples of German "independence movements", because they follow the same examples of mainland France.  Bavarians want to talk about independence, but only if you come for Oktoberfest and drink lots of beer.  If you enjoy history as much as I do, you will appreciate the case of South Tyrol.  This situation involves Austria, not Germany; but I took advantage of the shared language to build a nice segue.  Time for a bit of history.  In 1914, The Austro-Hungarian Empire and the German Empire went to war against France, Russia, England, and Serbia (the Ottoman Empire, the United States, Italy and a few others joined later).  At the time, Germany and Austria-Hungary (Central Powers) were bound by a mutual-defense treaty with Italy.  The Italians chose to interpret their obligations quite narrowly and announced neutrality.  In 1915, Italy renounced its neutrality and declared war on the central Powers (Italy's former allies).  After the war, the victorious Allies dismembered Austria-Hungary, and, in payment for services rendered, gave Italy large swaths of Austrian territory including South Tyrol.  Even though another World War has occurred (in which the Italians switched sides AGAIN), many Austrians still resent Italy's land grab.  The former province of Tyrol is now split into North Tyrol (Austria) and South Tyrol (Italy).  Even today, seventy percent of people in South Tyrol speak German and identify themselves as ethnically Austrian.  Austrians in Tyrol take this issue very seriously, and at times groups of armed men have gathered in the mountains, anticipating hostilities.  Why won't Italy act sensibly, and return South Tyrol to Austria?  It has everything to do with the fact that South Tyrol is a wealthy province, with a booming tourist industry and a robust agricultural sector.  Unfortunately for Austrian Tyrolians, the government in Vienna is more pacifist than Heidi, and does nothing more than occasionally mention the issue politely through diplomatic channels.  In 1866, Italy demanded an end to Austrian rule in Venice because Venice was obviously an Italian city.  In 1918, the situation repeated itself with Trieste.  How about a little fair play from Rome?  Don't hold your breath.

I began this post with a bit of reflection on the Scottish referendum, and really never made any correlations.  I guess that was the point.  Every circumstance is different, and the independence issues on the mainland bear more similarities to the late problems in northern Ireland than they to do the temporary family disagreement over Scotland's status.  I do believe the issues mentioned above will attract the attention of the European media some time before the end of the year (with the exception of Corsica), as some dispensation has been debated.  Personally, I'm anxious to see the Quebec independence movement (Mouvement Souverainiste du Quebec) reassert itself and call for another referendum.  In 1995, the vote was razor-thin, with fifty-one-percent voting against independence and 49 percent in favor.