Would you be in favor of keeping your country together with force

[Grey Fox]

Vive la Corse libre!

[Josquius]

Not unless there was very good reason to believe something was very iffy about the secession; it was all a plot of the Russians or self-serving local business interests or the like.
If it would be a viable country of decent size or uniqueness then its their choice, its the fundamental essence of democracy, its just disgusting to say in a case like Scotland, where independence is a dumb but valid option, that force should be used to enslave them.

[garbon]

If the only thing keeping a country together is force then that country doesn't deserve to be together.

That's an odd statement to make in reply.

[The Larch]

If the only thing keeping a country together is force then that country doesn't deserve to be together.

That's an odd statement to make in reply.

Excuse me?

[jimmy olsen]

If the only thing keeping a country together is force then that country doesn't deserve to be together.

It's the opposite, if people aren't willing to die for it then it doesn't deserve to be a country.

[The Larch]

If the only thing keeping a country together is force then that country doesn't deserve to be together.

It's the opposite, if people aren't willing to die for it then it doesn't deserve to be a country.

That's mind-boggingly stupid.

[celedhring]

People shouldn't die for countries.

[garbon]

If the only thing keeping a country together is force then that country doesn't deserve to be together.

That's an odd statement to make in reply.

Excuse me?

What it is odd. I don't think Tim was asking the question with relation to artificial constructs (like perhaps Yugoslavia) but to long standing states like the UK which of course have more than force tying them together.

[garbon]

People shouldn't die for countries.

Ukraine approach?

[celedhring]

If the only thing keeping a country together is force then that country doesn't deserve to be together.

That's an odd statement to make in reply.

Excuse me?

What it is odd. I don't think Tim was asking the question with relation to artificial constructs (like perhaps Yugoslavia) but to long standing states like the UK which of course have more than force tying them together.

Well, if Scotland chose to leave following the agreed conditions with the London government and then the UK chose to use the army to avoid secession - then force would be the only thing keeping it together.

[celedhring]

People shouldn't die for countries.

Ukraine approach?

If Crimea wanted to break away peacefully after a proper referendum and not a farcical one under Russian guns, then yeah, I'd rather not have the Ukrainian army try to keep it by force. Same with the Eastern part.

There's a bunch of steps one can take to persuade a breakaway region before rolling out the tanks, though. One of the things that surprised me of the whole Scottish affair is how London didn't explore further devolvement which would have easily divided the nationalist front.

[garbon]

If the only thing keeping a country together is force then that country doesn't deserve to be together.

That's an odd statement to make in reply.

Excuse me?

What it is odd. I don't think Tim was asking the question with relation to artificial constructs (like perhaps Yugoslavia) but to long standing states like the UK which of course have more than force tying them together.

Well, if Scotland chose to leave following the agreed conditions with the London government and then the UK chose to use the army to avoid secession - then force would be the only thing keeping it together.

While I'm not sure on the UK/Scotland scenario, I don't think it would be accurate (or perhaps useful) to speak of force being the only thing keeping two countries together if they have a long standing history of being conjoined...unless I guess if a huge majority of citizens from the seceding country were in favor. Otherwise, I think you could say 51% of voters was the only thing pulling them apart which isn't very helpful.

[celedhring]

If the only thing keeping a country together is force then that country doesn't deserve to be together.

That's an odd statement to make in reply.

Excuse me?

What it is odd. I don't think Tim was asking the question with relation to artificial constructs (like perhaps Yugoslavia) but to long standing states like the UK which of course have more than force tying them together.

Well, if Scotland chose to leave following the agreed conditions with the London government and then the UK chose to use the army to avoid secession - then force would be the only thing keeping it together.

While I'm not sure on the UK/Scotland scenario, I don't think it would be accurate (or perhaps useful) to speak of force being the only thing keeping two countries together if they have a long standing history of being conjoined...unless I guess if a huge majority of citizens from the seceding country were in favor. Otherwise, I think you could say 51% of voters was the only thing pulling them apart which isn't very helpful.

History should not dictate the actions or rights of people living in the present, in my opinion.

I do agree though that larger majorities should be required for such a sweeping change to a society. In the Catalan one a 2/3 majority has been put forward even by some separatist circles.

[garbon]

History should never dictate the actions or rights of people living in the present.

I wasn't saying length of time alone as the metric but rather that often with history there are long established processes and inter-dependencies between the regions (aka measure of strife and discord that a separation could bring).

[Valmy]

Well it sort of depends on why or how they are leaving.