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

[DGuller]

The American Civil War is pretty unique in that the suppression of secession was actually a good thing.

Some days I'm not sure that's the case.  The South, especially the deep part, is still a festering sore that hobbles the country politically to this day.

[Valmy]

In general I would say no. The American Civil War is pretty unique in that the suppression of secession was actually a good thing. I can't think of too many other examples were wars were fought to stop a state from splitting up which had a good outcome.

There is even a precedence: the UK already lost an integral part in 1921 and the war before that wasn't worth it either.

That is only because states splitting up is generally messy business.  Not just because one side wasn't Euroweenie enough.  That Irish thing was not going to be pretty either way.

[Zanza]

It's not that different that keeping Bavaria and Germany together indeed.

Not really. Annexing Austria into Germany would be more like annexing Alsace-Lorraine into Germany. It was once part of what was then considered Germany, but it certainly isn't anymore.

[Valmy]

It's not that different that keeping Bavaria and Germany together indeed.

Not really. Annexing Austria into Germany would be more like annexing Alsace-Lorraine into Germany. It was once part of what was then considered Germany, but it certainly isn't anymore.

Yeah it is literally not anymore.  So it makes me wonder why one would be sending in armies to keep them from seceding.

[Zanza]

That is only because states splitting up is generally messy business.  Not just because one side wasn't Euroweenie enough.  That Irish thing was not going to be pretty either way.

As Brain already mentioned: Norway split from Sweden without major conflict. The Czechs and Slovaks split their country peacefully.  Despite what happens in Ukraine right now, the dissolution of the USSR was peaceful. Even Serbia and Montenegro were able to split peacefully. If Serbia can do it, so can the UK or Spain if it becomes necessary.

[Valmy]

As Brain already mentioned: Norway split from Sweden without major conflict. The Czechs and Slovaks split their country peacefully.

Norway was never really part of Sweden, that was handed to Sweden after the Napoleonic Wars and never integrated.  The Czechs and the Slovak thing happened after a lot of shit had gone down (like, you know, when the Slovaks allied with the Nazis against the Czechs).  That was just the end game and even then it was preceded with months of intense debate over 'hyphenism'.  In any case it was an opportune time when the foundations of the state was being reformed anyway, and further that does not even count because it was mutually negotiated not a straight up secession.

Despite what happens in Ukraine right now, the dissolution of the USSR was peaceful.

There was very nearly a coup and a civil war.  The bottom line was the Soviets were too weak to do anything about it.  And why exactly do we get to ignore what the fallout to that was?

Even Serbia and Montenegro were able to split peacefully. If Serbia can do it, so can the UK or Spain if it becomes necessary.

Oh for fucksake stop bringing up counter points that are not.  I am not talking about mutually negotiated separations I was talking about unilateral secessions.  What sense would it make to agree to a separation and then send in the troops?  I guess what if the secession vote in Scotland fails but the SNP goes insane and just declares independence anyway with a fanatical but minority of supporters.  Should the UK resist at all?

[Zanza]

I guess what if the secession vote in Scotland fails but the SNP goes insane and just declares independence anyway with a fanatical but minority of supporters.  Should the UK resist at all?

As long as they just declare independence and don't actually take action, ignore them.

If they take violent action to secede from the UK, that's treason and they should be punished with the full force of the law.

[Valmy]

Ok so same situation but after Scotland declares independence it informs all representatives of the UK to leave and turn over all UK property in Scotland over to the new Kingdom of Scotland or be arrested.  Would you refuse and call their bluff or leave to avoid conflict?

[Razgovory]

That is only because states splitting up is generally messy business.  Not just because one side wasn't Euroweenie enough.  That Irish thing was not going to be pretty either way.

As Brain already mentioned: Norway split from Sweden without major conflict. The Czechs and Slovaks split their country peacefully.  Despite what happens in Ukraine right now, the dissolution of the USSR was peaceful. Even Serbia and Montenegro were able to split peacefully. If Serbia can do it, so can the UK or Spain if it becomes necessary.

The Soviet Union wasn't so much a secession as it was a collapse and it wasn't entirely peaceful, I mean there were plenty of little wars like in Armenia, Tajikistan and Georgia not to mention in Russia and the Serbia Montenegro thing occurred after Serbia had lost many costly wars.  I'm not sure if those examples should be used as paragons of peaceful secession.

[Zanza]

If there is no previously agreed upon mechanism of secession and appropriate democratic legitimation, I would tell them to fuck off or face the consequences.

[crazy canuck]

I need more information to make a good informed choice.  Particularly I need to know whether my supplies of Oka cheese and maple syrop will be adversely affected by such a succession.

[Razgovory]

The American Civil War is pretty unique in that the suppression of secession was actually a good thing.

Some days I'm not sure that's the case.  The South, especially the deep part, is still a festering sore that hobbles the country politically to this day.

This is true, but we've also civilized the South to some degree, left on their own they would be a world class tyranny.

[Ed Anger]

Bless your heart.

[DGuller]

The American Civil War is pretty unique in that the suppression of secession was actually a good thing.

Some days I'm not sure that's the case.  The South, especially the deep part, is still a festering sore that hobbles the country politically to this day.

This is true, but we've also civilized the South to some degree, left on their own they would be a world class tyranny.

Yes, but it would be self-contained.

[Jacob]

Oh for fucksake stop bringing up counter points that are not.

You seem agitated today.

I am not talking about mutually negotiated separations I was talking about unilateral secessions.

That's kind of weird then... because the question was brought on by the Scottish referendum, where even if the UK doesn't desire to see Scotland leave, the secession will seemingly be dealt with through negotiation; same as Quebec, and it seems Catalonia as well. In a democratic society,

What sense would it make to agree to a separation and then send in the troops?

Exactly. Which is (one of the reasons) why the question Tim posed is so daft.

I guess what if the secession vote in Scotland fails but the SNP goes insane and just declares independence anyway with a fanatical but minority of supporters.  Should the UK resist at all?

Of course. But that's not what's going to happen, nor is it what's being discussed. As I understand Tim's question - based on the thread that spawned it - it is "refuse separation in any circumstances, up to and including the use of military force - yes/no".

No one is arguing that the use of military force is always justified in all possible scenarios involving separatism.

... the fact that distinction is unclear, is (another) reason why the question Tim posed is so daft.