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

[Barrister]

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?

That's a kind of dumb scenario.

But here's a more interesting scenario - what if Scotland holds a referendum on independence and there is a "yes".  The UK  then prepares to negotiate the terms of seccession, but Scotland makes a Unilateral Declaration of Independence and claims ownership of all UK-owned facilites and property located within Scotland.

Should the UK resist in that scenario?

I asm because that was apparently Parizeau's plan after a yes vote in 1995...

[Valmy]

You seem agitated today.

No more than usual.  I am in a constant state of fatigue these days so that contributes.

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

Except the question specifically said that a peaceful solution cannot be reached.  The UK already agreed that Scotland could leave, hence the referendum.  If they did not agree, and thought the referendum was illegitimate, they would certainly not be campaigning to influence the vote.

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

Yes I think we covered that earlier.  The circumstances that Tim outlined have perhaps never happened before.

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.

Well yes.

[Valmy]

That's a kind of dumb scenario.

But here's a more interesting scenario - what if Scotland holds a referendum on independence and there is a "yes".  The UK  then prepares to negotiate the terms of seccession, but Scotland makes a Unilateral Declaration of Independence and claims ownership of all UK-owned facilites and property located within Scotland.

Should the UK resist in that scenario?

I asm because that was apparently Parizeau's plan after a yes vote in 1995...

I was thinking a bit about the Quebec vote in 1995 where the plan seems to be if it is 50.000000001% yes than to seize everything and have France recognize Quebec since Canada seemed to understand the terms required a 60% vote or, at the very least, the specifics of situation were never agreed upon by all parties.

[grumbler]

But here's a more interesting scenario - what if Scotland holds a referendum on independence and there is a "yes".  The UK  then prepares to negotiate the terms of seccession, but Scotland makes a Unilateral Declaration of Independence and claims ownership of all UK-owned facilites and property located within Scotland.

Should the UK resist in that scenario?

That is, indeed, the interesting question.  In a sense, it's the Crimean scenario.

[Barrister]

But here's a more interesting scenario - what if Scotland holds a referendum on independence and there is a "yes".  The UK  then prepares to negotiate the terms of seccession, but Scotland makes a Unilateral Declaration of Independence and claims ownership of all UK-owned facilites and property located within Scotland.

Should the UK resist in that scenario?

That is, indeed, the interesting question.  In a sense, it's the Crimean scenario.

Not quite - in Crimea the vote was hardly free or fair and there were no outside observers.

In Quebec there was a horribly confusing question, but the vote itself appeared to be free and fair and there were vigorous campaigns both in favour and opposed.




The 1995 Quebec question: Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?

[Viking]

that depends...

if the seceders are doing so to avoid following the democratically enacted laws of the land (e.g. laws banning slavery) then I'm in favor of using force

[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.

Yes, but it would be self-contained.

It would seem inhuman to allow such a blatant abuser of human rights right next door.  Besides, they'd probably try to spread their taint like they did in the filibuster era.

[Valmy]

Pfft you border staters are not much better.

[MadImmortalMan]

It seems likely to me that their situation was unsustainable anyway. They would have collapsed, slavery would have ended and they would not have the north to blame.

[Valmy]

It seems likely to me that their situation was unsustainable anyway. They would have collapsed, slavery would have ended and they would not have the north to blame.

They had a plan.  After they achieved Independence they were going to go a'conquerin to get more land for slavery in the Caribbean and Central America.  Another thing they found out during the war is that slavery is actually great for industrial production so don't think slavery was not going to be used for new and exciting applications.

[DGuller]

It would seem inhuman to allow such a blatant abuser of human rights right next door.

As opposed to having them within your own four walls?

[Valmy]

It would seem inhuman to allow such a blatant abuser of human rights right next door.

As opposed to having them within your own four walls?

You need to watch us before we enslave again!

[Razgovory]

It seems likely to me that their situation was unsustainable anyway. They would have collapsed, slavery would have ended and they would not have the north to blame.

It was sustainable, they had sustained it for a long time.  It was quite profitable, and was more profitable then the share cropping arrangements that occurred afterword.  It would be similar to the banana republics of South America.  The only way the elites were going to get rid of slavery was through force, either a rebellion from below, or government intervention from above, or possibly from an outside force invading.

[Razgovory]

It would seem inhuman to allow such a blatant abuser of human rights right next door.

As opposed to having them within your own four walls?

You need to watch us before we enslave again!

Yeah, I mean it's not like absent federal restrictions southern states would start creating more voting restrictions.

[Razgovory]

It would seem inhuman to allow such a blatant abuser of human rights right next door.

As opposed to having them within your own four walls?

It is our sad and solemn duty to protect the world from the South.