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

[Capetan Mihali]

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.

[celedhring]

Jim Crow lasted until the 60s, can't imagine what kind of country the CSA would've become if left on its own.

[Sheilbh]

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.

The difficulty is if you have the latter without the former.

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

Christ

I don't get the idea of why a vote for secession should need a supermajority. Surely for the status quo to be in any way legitimate at least 50%+1 need to support it.

[garbon]

I don't get the idea of why a vote for secession should need a supermajority. Surely for the status quo to be in any way legitimate at least 50%+1 need to support it.

Because of the severe ramifications involved? Bit more of an impactful vote than most things people vote on.  Also pool of votes is almost always smaller than pool of citizens so if it were a supermajority that suggests it really is the will of the people and not just those who could be bothered to vote.

[Valmy]

I don't get the idea of why a vote for secession should need a supermajority. Surely for the status quo to be in any way legitimate at least 50%+1 need to support it.

So if two people change their minds afterwards suddenly the secession is not legitimate in any way?

Hence why you want a supermajority.

[Valmy]

The difficulty is if you have the latter without the former.

Yes.  But this was never going to happen in Scotland.  This referendum was allowed to move forward when not even a majority were in favor of secession, and have to be campaigned to and political games are going forward which just seems idiotic to me.  I mean a question this huge is really going to depend on how well the politicians of the day are campaigning?  If the spin-doctors can drum up enough support to get that 50.000000001% majority which clearly has very shallow depth of conviction.  Just lunacy.  Literally a gaffe or clever one liner by one side or the other the day before could decide something that will impact millions of lives for generations.  It chills my blood.

The worst part is if the vote is no, they can turn around and repeat the whole dog and pony circus a few years down the road.

[Razgovory]

Jim Crow lasted until the 60s, can't imagine what kind of country the CSA would've become if left on its own.

My guess is a crooked and poor one ruled by military juntas.

[Iormlund]

I don't get the idea of why a vote for secession should need a supermajority. Surely for the status quo to be in any way legitimate at least 50%+1 need to support it.

For the same reason why changes to a constitution often need one.

[Razgovory]

The difficulty is if you have the latter without the former.

Yes.  But this was never going to happen in Scotland.  This referendum was allowed to move forward when not even a majority were in favor of secession, and have to be campaigned to and political games are going forward which just seems idiotic to me.  I mean a question this huge is really going to depend on how well the politicians of the day are campaigning?  If the spin-doctors can drum up enough support to get that 50.000000001% majority which clearly has very shallow depth of conviction.  Just lunacy.  Literally a gaffe or clever one liner by one side or the other the day before could decide something that will impact millions of lives for generations.  It chills my blood.

The worst part is if the vote is no, they can turn around and repeat the whole dog and pony circus a few years down the road.

That is is frighting. 

[Sheilbh]

Because of the severe ramifications involved? Bit more of an impactful vote than most things people vote on.  Also pool of votes is almost always smaller than pool of citizens so if it were a supermajority that suggests it really is the will of the people and not just those who could be bothered to vote.

Okay. But that doesn't address my issue of legitimacy. If having considered the severe ramifications, 55% of the people who can be arsed to vote on something this important, decide for independence why should that be ignored. Or, indeed, even 50%+1.

And on the pool of voters vs the pool of citizens, that has a bad track record in Scotland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum,_1979

[DGuller]

Jim Crow lasted until the 60s, can't imagine what kind of country the CSA would've become if left on its own.

My guess is a crooked and poor one ruled by military juntas.

I doubt it would be an open autocracy.  I think it's much more likely that it would be an elective government with very limited franchise.

[Valmy]

Jim Crow lasted until the 60s, can't imagine what kind of country the CSA would've become if left on its own.

My guess is a crooked and poor one ruled by military juntas.

I doubt it would be an open autocracy.  I think it's much more likely that it would be an elective government with very limited franchise.

Yeah the South would always have an elected democratic state...just one for the white man.

[Sheilbh]

Yes.  But this was never going to happen in Scotland.  This referendum was allowed to move forward when not even a majority were in favor of secession, and have to be campaigned to and political games are going forward which just seems idiotic to me.

Hold on. The SNP are the legal government of Scotland. They've won a majority - with 45% of the vote in a four party country with a Parliament designed to avoid majority government. They have the right, if they can pass it through Parliament, to have any referendum they want. It wasn't 'allowed to move forward' like some furtive dash for freedom, but was part of their manifesto, publicly debated at length and then passed by Scotland's government.

Obviously in the UK the Westminster Parliament is sovereign and could theoretically ban it, or refuse to recognise it but as I say what democratic legitimacy does that action have? It'd be a disgrace.

I mean a question this huge is really going to depend on how well the politicians of the day are campaigning?

Yes. For a start I'd suggest that the SNP are able to move a question this huge is because they've got at least one very able politician. The reason they've been able to move the question is because Scotland's already thinking about it and talking and arguing about it. Sure the SNP have successfully moved the Overton window. But you always have to deal with huge issues and events and questions with the politicians you've got - in my view they're normally the politicians you deserve.

If the spin-doctors can drum up enough support to get that 50.000000001% majority which clearly has very shallow depth of conviction.  Just lunacy.  Literally a gaffe or clever one liner by one side or the other the day before could decide something that will impact millions of lives for generations.  It chills my blood.

Democracy's a bitch like that. Luckily voters aren't other, stupider people. They're like us (the same stupid people ) and in general they almost always get the answer right.

The worst part is if the vote is no, they can turn around and repeat the whole dog and pony circus a few years down the road.

Probably. But not for a generation. It'll be like the UK and the EU. Even if we vote to stay in unless something fundamental changes then I'd expect another vote in 20-30 years. That isn't because the politicians are drumming up something dastardly it's because, short of something fundamental shifting it'll still be an important issue for the people of Scotland/UK.

For the same reason why changes to a constitution often need one.

I disagree with them too.

[Razgovory]

Jim Crow lasted until the 60s, can't imagine what kind of country the CSA would've become if left on its own.

My guess is a crooked and poor one ruled by military juntas.

I doubt it would be an open autocracy.  I think it's much more likely that it would be an elective government with very limited franchise.

I think the democracy would fall apart fairly quickly.  They would have an economy similar to many south American countries it would follow that their politics would take a similar course as well.  An economy dominated by an elite class who ran the system so they wouldn't have to pay much in taxes, the deep distrust the elites had to non-agrarian wealth, and the worshipful reverence the populace had for it's aristocratic military heroes does not bode well for a democracy.  The states of the Confederacy didn't work together very well during the war, I doubt it would be better in peace.  I imagine when things got bad economically (which would happen pretty quickly), you'd have states with holding their tax revenues from the central government, unpaid soldiers rising up, and states trying to seceded from the Confederacy.  At that point either the country disintegrates or is ruled under emergency governments by reactionary cliques of military officers.  I would bet on the cliques of military heroes.

[CountDeMoney]

I agree with the premise of keeping my country together by force, preferably by columns of United States forces like the days of yore, their horses long ago traded in for APCs, roaming the West and disarming fucking goofy ass mouthbreathing dumbass racist redneck inbred Dumbfuckstani cracker fuckstick yahoos running around with guns, interfering with the legal conduct of Federal business.