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

[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.

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?

I'm not touching the ACW with a 1000 yard pole because slavery wasn't abolished at federal level at the time, so it's very fuzzy.

Secession in itself is generally a bad idea, but not one worth shooting people about, unless there's abuse of other rights. So yeah, if a nation decides to secede and the next day starts disenfranchising/repressing people from other cultural groups opposed to such secession, or even within its own cultural group, then a degree of force is warranted.

[Queequeg]

Depends on the situation.  It is generally a terrible idea, and can be repressed when the separatists are gathering around something stupid like slavery or Scottish nationalism.

[Valmy]

I'm not touching the ACW with a 1000 yard pole because slavery wasn't abolished in the north at the time either, so it's very fuzzy.

The controversy was the expansion of slavery to the territories.  Everybody understood that if slavery could not be expanded its days were numbered.  The fact there will still slaves in Delaware does not fuzzy that, though believe me lost causers try to.

Secession in itself is generally a bad idea, but not one worth shooting people about, unless there's abuse of other rights.

The thing is, there usually is which is why there is typically lots of shooting.

[celedhring]

The thing is, there usually is which is why there is typically lots of shooting.

Dunno, I haven't seen many secessions from "non-opressed minorities" in this century as stated in the OP to really make that assertion.

The debate here, I believe, is whether a democratic, free nation should use force to avoid secession, since democratic process should ensure any possible grief could be adressed. I believe that if a strong majority in any population wants to secede and achieves this majority peacefully, then it's not something worth killing people about. If the other side starts shooting first or intends to become a tyrannical nation then of course it should be answered with force.

[Valmy]

Dunno, I haven't seen many secessions from "non-opressed minorities" in this century as stated in the OP to really make that assertion.

Have you seen many from "non-oppressed" minorities that were not negotiated peacefully but left unilaterally and there was no violence involved?  We might be talking about a very small sample size.

[Capetan Mihali]

Dunno, I haven't seen many secessions from "non-opressed minorities" in this century as stated in the OP to really make that assertion.

Have you seen many from "non-oppressed" minorities that were not negotiated peacefully but left unilaterally and there was no violence involved?  We might be talking about a very small sample size.

Well, that's the fault of the question then, isn't it?

[Valmy]

The debate here, I believe, is whether a democratic, free nation should use force to avoid secession, since democratic process should ensure any possible grief could be adressed. I believe that if a strong majority in any population wants to secede and achieves this majority peacefully, then it's not something worth killing people about. If the other side starts shooting first then of course it should be answered with force.

I disagree strongly with this as a general principle.  Because this is entirely arbitrary what sort of population we are talking about and where.  Does a State (or province or whatever) have this right but a county (or district or whatever) doesn't?  How about a village?  What about 100 militia men and their families on a mountain in Idaho?  And why not?  Why do some groups have absolute rights others do not?

No any group that wants to secede does not have an absolute right no matter what arbitrary territory they can get a majority inside.  But if it is negotiated peacefully with the central government under agreed terms than sure.  But we are specifically talking about a situation where there is no peaceful political solution.  In that situation me being in favor of using force entirely depends on the circumstances.

[Iormlund]

So yeah, if a nation decides to secede and the next day starts disenfranchising/repressing people from other cultural groups opposed to such secession, or even within its own cultural group, then a degree of force is warranted.

That would legitimize use of force against a hypothetical Catalonia. Unless all residents are allowed to vote it would be de facto disenfranchising all those who keep their Spanish citizenship.

[celedhring]

The debate here, I believe, is whether a democratic, free nation should use force to avoid secession, since democratic process should ensure any possible grief could be adressed. I believe that if a strong majority in any population wants to secede and achieves this majority peacefully, then it's not something worth killing people about. If the other side starts shooting first then of course it should be answered with force.

I disagree strongly with this as a general principle.  Because this is entirely arbitrary what sort of population we are talking about and where.  Does a State (or province or whatever) have this right but a county (or district or whatever) doesn't?  How about a village?  What about 100 militia men and their families on a mountain in Idaho?  And why not?  Why do some groups have absolute rights others do not?

No any group that wants to secede does not have an absolute right no matter what arbitrary territory they can get a majority inside.  But if it is negotiated peacefully with the central government under agreed terms than sure.  But we are specifically talking about a situation where there is no peaceful political solution.  In that situation me being in favor of using force entirely depends on the circumstances.

I'm not saying that one should stand up and applaud the secession. We are talking of starting a civil war over it.

[celedhring]

So yeah, if a nation decides to secede and the next day starts disenfranchising/repressing people from other cultural groups opposed to such secession, or even within its own cultural group, then a degree of force is warranted.

That would legitimize use of force against a hypothetical Catalonia. Unless all residents are allowed to vote it would be de facto disenfranchising all those who keep their Spanish citizenship.

Well no, because keeping Spanish citizenship would've been their choice, I assume.

[Valmy]

I'm not saying that one should stand up and applaud the secession. We are talking of starting a civil war over it.

Yes.  And?

[celedhring]

I'm not saying that one should stand up and applaud the secession. We are talking of starting a civil war over it.

Yes.  And?

That one should use all possible ways to defuse the situation. Again, going back to Larchie's starting statement, if after trying everything one only has the tanks to keep a country together, the tanks should stay in their garages.

(provided, as I said, that the other side hasn't started using violence themselves to achieve secession).

[Iormlund]

So yeah, if a nation decides to secede and the next day starts disenfranchising/repressing people from other cultural groups opposed to such secession, or even within its own cultural group, then a degree of force is warranted.

That would legitimize use of force against a hypothetical Catalonia. Unless all residents are allowed to vote it would be de facto disenfranchising all those who keep their Spanish citizenship.

Well no, because keeping Spanish citizenship would've been their choice, I assume.

No, their choice was to live in Spain, and they had bought homes there, built businesses, developed careers ...

Now it's no longer Spain. They didn't choose that.

[Valmy]

That one should use all possible ways to defuse the situation. Again, going back to Larchie's starting statement, if after trying everything one only has the tanks to keep a country together, the tanks should stay in their garages.

(provided, as I said, that the other side hasn't started using violence themselves to achieve secession).

How exactly can they unilaterally secede without using any violence at all?  They are going to have to take over government buildings and roads and property and so forth.  Even if there was no physical violence involved it is inherently an act of aggression.  And no I disagree with Larchie's blanket statement.  Whether or not the tanks should be used depend on the how and why.

[Josquius]

I'd say the following criteria are needed:

1: Does a majority support it. Duh.
2: Would it be able to support itself without cheap tricks and temporary situations- i.e. no villages deciding to go independent in the hopes of being tax havens, to make everyone millionaires from the local oil well, etc...
This one is key to me. We can't have areas thinking only in the short term to make a quick buck and screw over the rest of the country. The country needs a long term future.
3: Does it have a geography or culture that makes it somewhat of a natural nation- not  strictly a must have this one but I would certainly look a lot more kindly on a group of islands or a unique ethnic group wanting their own country, rather than one unnatural square bordered province amongst many.