Scottish Independence: Quebec Edition

[Valmy]

Then Scots are a bunch of braindead voters who can't decide for themselves what's good or not, and they need someone to remind them, by force if necessary, that they are wrong?

So every time you disagree with the outcome of an election and have contempt for the way a campaign is being handled it means you want to use force?  Or is that your solution for how to solve Quebec's problems?

[Berkut]

Sometimes if your "national identity" is based on a sense of martyrdom, then if there aren't any real or substantive grievances, you are just forced to make some up.

Then Scots are a bunch of braindead voters who can't decide for themselves what's good or not, and they need someone to remind them, by force if necessary, that they are wrong?

If that is how you feel, good on you.

Tell me, if Scotland votes for independence, would you then support some subset of Scotland demanding independence because 51% of the voters in that area don't want to be part of Scotland? And then a subset of that subset voting to rejoin Scotland?

This is all strictly about the will of the people, right? No need to actually evaluate what is happening - as long as 51% of *some* population wants to secede, they should be allowed?

[Valmy]

just like it seems to me you all want to live in a few big multi-ethnic empires.  Governed by a non elected leader for many.
Great, we make a lot progress when we understand each other like that!

Basing countries of off ethnicities is a horrible idea.  It works great as a justification for genocide and oppression, not so great as a way of running a body politic.

[Valmy]

This is all strictly about the will of the people, right? No need to actually evaluate what is happening - as long as 51% of *some* population wants to secede, they should be allowed?

It just drives me crazy how this is being run like our retarded presidential elections with empty rhetoric and bullshit and gotcha moments all driving up to capture a narrow majority.  If a place really should be independent the vote should be nearly unanimous and there should be real grievances not this garbage.  Just my opinion.

[Berkut]

Well clearly we must be 100% an insane Lettowist or desire to divide the world between three super states.

And every single nationalist wants the world to be filled with micro-states, only for the fun of it.

Sure seems that way.

just like it seems to me you all want to live in a few big multi-ethnic empires.  Governed by a non elected leader for many.
Great, we make a lot progress when we understand each other like that!

SO if Quebec were to vote and successfully secede and form their own country, you would then support the right of some potential portion of Quebec that say had a 51% majority of Islamic people living there to secede from Quebec and form their own state...right?

I mean, this isn't just about YOUR narrow "nationalist" views...right?

[Maximus]

Well clearly we must be 100% an insane Lettowist or desire to divide the world between three super states.

And every single nationalist wants the world to be filled with micro-states, only for the fun of it.

Sure seems that way.

just like it seems to me you all want to live in a few big multi-ethnic empires.  Governed by a non elected leader for many.
Great, we make a lot progress when we understand each other like that!

SO if Quebec were to vote and successfully secede and form their own country, you would then support the right of some potential portion of Quebec that say had a 51% majority of Islamic people living there to secede from Quebec and form their own state...right?

I mean, this isn't just about YOUR narrow "nationalist" views...right?

Or, say, the natives in the northern half of Quebec.

"But no, that's totally different."

[Grallon]

The difference Berkut is obviously the fact that Scotland and Quebec are long standing legally constituted jurisdictions, as opposed to the Highlands in Scotland or the West Island here.  With the added incentive, in Scotland's case, that they were an independent realm in the past.  In both cases the long standing legal jurisdiction also happen to coincide with the existence there of a historical ethno-cultural majority...

There's nothing difficult to comprehend here.  Really I can't explain this vehement opposition.  In fact I was expecting that kind of reaction from the Canadians here who always so hysterical about it for reasons I mentioned above.



G.

[derspiess]

Basing countries of off ethnicities is a horrible idea.  It works great as a justification for genocide and oppression, not so great as a way of running a body politic.

I don't think that should be much of a concern for modern Western societies.  Denmark, Netherlands, Iceland, Norway, etc. seem to do okay.

[Maximus]

Because modern western societies have largely rejected the concept.

[garbon]

So yeah, my large definition is appropriate.

Not for what was being discussed - aka the American Revolution...and that's where I thought you were being very loose.

American Revolution was brought as an example of a nationalism.  Americans started feeling different than other British citizens and eventually rebelled to form a nation of their own.  Most poeple felt attached to their own State first&foremost instead of the newly formed United States, but they still didn't feel British like a Londoner.

But right there, I wouldn't agree with that analysis. The American Revolution didn't take place because Americans felt they were a different culture.

[Grallon]

Because modern western societies have largely rejected the concept.

Suffering from an intoxication to multiculturalism I see.  You should consult a professional - it can be cured.



G.

[garbon]

The difference Berkut is obviously the fact that Scotland and Quebec are long standing legally constituted jurisdictions, as opposed to the Highlands in Scotland or the West Island here.

Oh so if historical actors decided not to treat you as a separate legal jurisdiction then you are shit out of luck?

[Maximus]

Suffering from an intoxication to multiculturalism I see.  You should consult a professional - it can be cured.



G.

Don't worry. Your society is trying to join the modern world and will likely succeed at some point.

[Berkut]

The difference Berkut is obviously the fact that Scotland and Quebec are long standing legally constituted jurisdictions, as opposed to the Highlands in Scotland or the West Island here. 

No, I suspect the "difference" is that your tribe wants independence.

And really, you want to use "long standing history" as a guideline? I am thinking the natives in Quebec might have an opinion about that rather selective choice to use such a factor in a way that is so clearly self-serving and hypocritical.

You can't have it both ways - it is simply the will of the people, or is it the will of the people combined with a bunch of other factors?

If it is combined with a bunch of other factors (and of course it is) then viper's simple "will of the people" argument doesn't hold.

[Barrister]

just like it seems to me you all want to live in a few big multi-ethnic empires.  Governed by a non elected leader for many.
Great, we make a lot progress when we understand each other like that!

Basing countries of off ethnicities is a horrible idea.  It works great as a justification for genocide and oppression, not so great as a way of running a body politic.

I have to disagree - basing countries off of ethnicities has proven to be a fantastic way of organizing nation states.  It gives countries a shared sense of history, culture, belonging and language.

Multi-ethnic states have proven to be particularly fractitious - see Austro-Hungaria, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Congo, british India...