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

[Valmy]

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

Deserving has nothing to do with it.

[garbon]

Could we have a "maybe so" option?

[grumbler]

People shouldn't die for countries.

They should make the other poor dumb bastards die for their countries.

[Valmy]

People shouldn't die for countries.

They should make the other poor dumb bastards die for their countries.

[Ed Anger]

I favor using force on Tim. Like a bus hitting him. Or a rickshaw.

[grumbler]

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.

This only works if Scotland is a person and UK is a person.  If they are groups, then there can be vast differences of opinion in both camps, and force wouldn't necessarily be the only thing keeping them together.  Your statement is the equivalent of saying "if downtown has crime, and the city chose to patrol downtown with police to deter crime, then police are the only thing preventing crime."

[celedhring]

People shouldn't die for countries.

They should make the other poor dumb bastards die for their countries.

Always wondered, is that quote truly Patton's or created by Coppola for the film?

[celedhring]

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.

This only works if Scotland is a person and UK is a person.  If they are groups, then there can be vast differences of opinion in both camps, and force wouldn't necessarily be the only thing keeping them together.  Your statement is the equivalent of saying "if downtown has crime, and the city chose to patrol downtown with police to deter crime, then police are the only thing preventing crime."

And hence why I said that a larger majority than 51% should be required for secession, to ensure there really is a consensus within the population that would secede.

If a minority is trying to force others into secession (see Ukraine), then you're not fighting secession, but tiranny.

[Valmy]

Always wondered, is that quote truly Patton's or created by Coppola for the film?

If he said it, it was purely coincidence.  While the intro monologue has lots of true Patton quotes that is not one of them.

[Valmy]

And hence why I said that a larger majority than 51% should be required for secession, to ensure there really is a consensus within the population that would secede.

I disagree.  South Carolina was virtually unanimous (at least amongst the white guys).  But I do not consider their secession legitimate because of the how and why part. 

Secession requires a legitimate reason regarding the abuse of individual rights as described in the Declaration of Independence.  Merely the whim of the electorate is not sufficient and certainly not because they are afraid the Central Government might endanger their ability to enslave or abuse or suppress minorities.

[celedhring]

I'm not touching the American Civil War with a 1000 yard stick, but minority supression makes a nation tyrannical - hence you're not fighting secession but tiranny.

Unless Scots display a disposition for using Englishmen as forced labour in whisky breweries, that's not entering the picture here.

[grumbler]

And hence why I said that a larger majority than 51% should be required for secession, to ensure there really is a consensus within the population that would secede.

That still doesn't do the trick.  52%, or 60%, or 67%, or whatever still doesn't necessarily represent a "consensus."

And there has to be a consensus among the remaining population that the regions should be allowed to secede.  After all, the territory of the region that is to secede is as much the national territory of those living in the rest of the country as it is the national territory of those who wish to secede.

If secession has the blessings of both the secessionists and the rump-staters, then force should not be used to stop it.  How much support is necessary should be the subject of negotiations.  Referenda should preceded negotiations and then be used to confirm the results of negotiations. 

[celedhring]

And hence why I said that a larger majority than 51% should be required for secession, to ensure there really is a consensus within the population that would secede.

That still doesn't do the trick.  52%, or 60%, or 67%, or whatever still doesn't necessarily represent a "consensus."

And there has to be a consensus among the remaining population that the regions should be allowed to secede.  After all, the territory of the region that is to secede is as much the national territory of those living in the rest of the country as it is the national territory of those who wish to secede.

If secession has the blessings of both the secessionists and the rump-staters, then force should not be used to stop it.  How much support is necessary should be the subject of negotiations.  Referenda should preceded negotiations and then be used to confirm the results of negotiations.

All this has happened in the Scottish case, which is the one that prompted Jimmy Olsen to post this thread.

[Valmy]

I'm not touching the American Civil War with a 1000 yard stick, but minority supression makes a nation tyrannical - hence you're not fighting secession but tiranny.

Unless Scots display a disposition for using Englishmen as forced labour in whisky breweries, that's not entering the picture here.

The Scots situation is totally different since there is a negotiated and agreed upon referendum, Tim is talking about a situation where it is not being negotiated peacefully.  I do not think the Scots have a grievance that justifies the separation but if the UK agrees to it than it is all good.

But secession without negotiation to put your ethnic group in a position of power is not the exception, that is generally how these things tend to go.  So if you are not going to touch the normal situation with a 1000 yard stick than what are we talking about?

[PDH]

Always wondered, is that quote truly Patton's or created by Coppola for the film?

Supposedly it is a Patton quote, but he didn't make it at the time of the 3rd Army Speech.